https://www.int-imm-foundation.com/en/o ... tients.htm
Has anyone heard about this? Thoughts?
Pyro70 wrote:Let’s say it did work, why wouldn’t your oncologist have heard about it?
zephyr wrote:Pyro70 wrote:Let’s say it did work, why wouldn’t your oncologist have heard about it?
It's been my personal experience that U.S. based oncologists only know about treatments that have gone through the expensive and time consuming process of FDA approval. While that certainly prevents patients from learning about "BS" treatments, it also keeps out information about treatments that are legitimate and effective. For example, I had the YAG laser surgery in Germany. I spoke with 3 oncologists and 2 thoracic surgeons here in the U.S. and none of them knew anything about it ahead of time. Three of the five doctors tried to discourage me from going but they were all impressed with the results when I returned and all my "inoperable" tumors were gone. That said, I did a lot of research ahead of time and communicated with others who had undergone the surgery. I'm not passing judgment one way or the other on the treatment in Switzerland, only saying that's in been my experience not to discount anything just because it's not known or available in the U.S.
Pyro70 wrote:Btw. Off topic, but why YAG? Could it remove tumors that could not be treated by radiation, percutaneous ablation, or surgery?
mpbser wrote:https://www.int-imm-foundation.com/en/oncopherese/for-prospective-patients.htm
Has anyone heard about this? Thoughts?
Pyro70 wrote:Let’s say it did work, why wouldn’t your oncologist have heard about it?
rp1954 wrote: In a properly tissue targeted mode, metronomic 5FU-cimetidine has a reasonable claim of far better adjuvant OS performance than Folfox even today, without the costs, inconvenience, morbidity and disability.
mpbser wrote:I believe that data to which the page referred was the data presented here: https://www.int-imm-foundation.com/en/p ... ations.htm which leads the doctors at this place to theorize: The fact that anti-tumor activity is seen in such a diverse group of tumors following OncoPherese supports the idea of a common immune inhibitory mechanism active in all solid-tumor cancers.
The fact that anti-tumor activity is seen in such a diverse group of tumors following OncoPherese supports the idea of a common immune inhibitory mechanism active in all solid-tumor cancers.
We must now await prospective clinical trials at multiple clinical sites focused on multiple cancer types to determine the true response rates in individual tumor types, duration of response and true impact on survival.
Pyro70 wrote:rp1954 wrote: In a properly tissue targeted mode, metronomic 5FU-cimetidine has a reasonable claim of far better adjuvant OS performance than Folfox even today, without the costs, inconvenience, morbidity and disability.
Ok you’ve said this a bunch of times. Please show us the clinical trial data that shows better performance versus FOLFOX
rp1954 wrote:Pyro70 wrote:rp1954 wrote: In a properly tissue targeted mode, metronomic 5FU-cimetidine has a reasonable claim of far better adjuvant OS performance than Folfox even today, without the costs, inconvenience, morbidity and disability.
Ok you’ve said this a bunch of times. Please show us the clinical trial data that shows better performance versus FOLFOX
A Big Medicine person like yourself may not like Japanese style RCTs but here goes.
There are a number of phase 2 level trials of adjuvant cimetidine, CRC stage 2s and 3s, and they produce a characteristic Y curve of improved survival. A series of stage 4 GI cancer papers showed notable but less dramatic improvements to OS.
The most notable adjuvant trial, an RCT originally run ca 1990-92 as a cimetidine treatment for oral 5FU damaged GI, showed the unusual "Y shaped" survival improvement. Tissue analysis with the sialyl Lewis markers strongly suggest CA199 and CSLEX1 as a good companion marker pair to cimetidine. The very interesting data from this trial produced at least two papers, Matsumoto(1995) and Matsumoto (2002), and a patent, US 6268156. The trial is associated with about 20 years of research and publications in Japan on cimetidine and sialyl Lewis X/A antigens. A 2007 paper summarizes more details about sialyl Lewis markers.
In Matsumoto (2002), when you add the CSLEX and CA199 tissue marked survivals, the result is ~95% OS but the trial was too small to reach formal significance on the combined markers. Either marker based result alone, CA199 in Figure 3D or CSLEX1 in Fig 3A, is probably much better than Folfox could have achieved, the combined markers almost quantitative. An important difference being metronomic oral 5FU or derivatives, perhaps at comfort levels, vs cyclical 5FU infusions at maximum tolerated doses. Further no (targetable) PSK or titrated LV was used to increase (immuno)chemo effect or comfort in the Matsumoto trial.
The caveat is no markers, no benefit or some drag.
Pyro70 wrote:So what you’re saying is there has been no direct comparison RCT between your proposed protocol and FOLFOX. If there hasn’t been a direct comparison there is no basis for saying it performs better than FOLFOX.
It doesn’t even matter if the results are “probably much better than what FOLFOX could have achieved”. There are simply too many variable such as patient population (eg how many BRAF patients, ratio of left to right sided, average age, comorbidities, MSI status, etc.), how to measure response (RECIST? subjectiveness of radiologists), quality of resection/surgeon skill, and a multitude of other non-controlled factors that makes an indirect comparison impossible. ...
Also then there is this trial: https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JC ... ppl.e15678
You're also basing all the grandiose claims of superiority based on a total of 34! treated patients...
This trial had about twice the number of patients and found NO BENEFIT of cimetidine in perioperative adjuvant CRC treatment. Lesson learned, be careful of results from small trials and don’t believe everything you read online, especially grandiose claims not backed by strong evidence.
That’s probably why the oncologist “snickered”.
rp1954 wrote:This abstract so so far does not increase my faith in ASCO authors and their papers' experimental design and reporting.
Return to “Colon Talk - Colon cancer (colorectal cancer) support forum”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 290 guests