Hello everyone,
I just saw the news that Kisqali is now approved in the US for patients with early stage BC (Stage II/III) HR + HER2 neg. I was wondering if anyone had a discussion with their Oncologist about Kisqali versus Abemacyclib. Which one is better? best tolerated?
I’m taking Abemacyclib and had to reduce the dose to 100mg because of diahrrea so i’m curious to see if another drug potentially with same efficacy but less side effects will be soon available? One can dream…
It is approved here and I’m waiting to here from my doctor on it now. Apparently the side effects are better tolerated with it. However, you need to start it within 18 months from your original surgery at this point for there to be a proven benefit.
@Kay0987 : I assume the 18 mo start from the surgery is due to the setting of the clinical trials but since it’s also given to patients with mbc, it should be effective after the 18mo - but maybe no data to prove it in early bc? I would be interested to know what your doctor says.
That’s what I believe she’s implying. At any rate we would have to get insurance approval before I were to go on it and considering the time frame I’m not sure I’d get it. But I’ll wait and hear from her first before completely writing it off.
Hi @marie911 I just finished 2 years of Abemaciclib and my oncologist told me that Kisqali or ribociclib is the inferior one from the same family of drugs…I started on 150mg of Abemaciclib but ended on 50mg and my oncologist told me that because is for preventative reasons only is absolutely fine and even the lowest dose works…but I totally understand what you mean with the side effects of Abemaciclib…they are absolutely horrendous.
Take care. Xxx