Pyro70 wrote:zephyr wrote:rp1954 wrote:I had the live tumor tissue tested with various chemo formulations by an outside lab.
... I'm going to ask… about finding a lab to do this kind of testing. It's something that somehow never occurred to me. Live and learn....
I’ve never heard of an oncologist recommending this approach nor of a clinical trial showing the validity of it. Also, since so many agents work “in vitro” (in a test tube) in pre-clinical work, but then fail to be effective “in vivo” (in the body), there is little rationale for thinking that outside the body testing translates to IV chemo efficacy.
...specifically about lab testing chemo susceptibility of tumor samples.
mpbser wrote:... Dr. Weisenthal in California:....Has anyone consulted with him?
Pyro70 wrote: There is likely limited harm / opportunity lost by using an ineffective regime for a few months anyways.
zephyr wrote:Pyro70 wrote: There is likely limited harm / opportunity lost by using an ineffective regime for a few months anyways.
Speaking only for myself, it depends on the side effects. I spent 6 months on a treatment that wasn't working and it about did me in. I don't know how my husband kept me going. If I had known going in that the drug probably wasn't going to work, I would have known to quit much sooner - when the first scan showed no improvement - rather than continue until I couldn't take it anymore. My lung surgeries might have been less complicated if I had arrived sooner and the tumors hadn't grown so much.
Pyro70 wrote:I think it’s clear he operates at the fringes of accepted science. Is this full-blown quackery? probably not, because he is quite upfront about the limitations of chemo sensitivity testing.
Nevertheless, I can’t see the benefit for CRC patients. It doesn’t seem like he tests the combination anyways, so who is to say there isn’t a synergistic effect by the combination in vivo?
What are you going to test anyways? There are really only 3 major cytotoxic agents for CRC: 5FU, irinotinec, and oxali[pl]atin.
CRC management is all about having many lines of treatment, if one doesn’t work (ie you progress) you just move on to the next.
There is likely limited harm / opportunity lost by using an ineffective regime for a few months anyways.
...for CRC, I see no clinical benefit.
rp1954 wrote:Seems to be heavy on bias and negativity built on a solid lack of investigation or experimentation.
Pyro70 wrote:... I will say I’m all for investigation and expirmentation, but it needs to be done in a scientifically rigorous manner.
CRC is an extremely heterogenous disease.
Some people progress rapidly, others don’t, with or without medical intervention.
This makes it impossible to draw any conclusion about efficacy from any single case or small groups of cases.
We’ve actually signicantly increased overall survival of mCRC since the early 2000s - the improvements have been a result of researchers working tirelessly in a rigorous scientific manner. Do I wish things would go faster? Certainly, most likely research won’t advance fast enough to save me.
It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but there is no alternative.
Users browsing this forum: ginabeewell, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher and 19 guests