Hi everyone
My dear sweet mum keeps phoning me everytime there is a new drug out , half the time she gets it wrong but she is 87 bless her, fit and well no walking aids , hardly ever gets a cold , smoked all her life still does. Anyway i looked up this new drug , which is on trial at the mo , looks very promising. I cant tell you all about it but look it up and tell me what you think , How can we get our hands on it , i suppose you have to be excepted for a trial . I,m going to ask my doc about sorting that out for me although i,ve already been on a trial which made me very ill. But only flu like symptoms with this one . I have to wait 2 months for next scan to see if my tumours are still progressing. Take care lots of love carolm x
Hi Carol
I just googled and it seems this drug is in some Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials though I can’t find it being trialed for breast cancer (is being trialed in ovarian, lung, and head and neck cancers.)
I’d suggest you call the BCC helpline or CRUK or MacMillan to find more inforamtion.
best wishes
Jane
I googled it too and it seems it has potential to be used in breast cancer but not sure any trials yet. There is a guy from the Marsden who has been involved in its development. It seems they are thinking of using it in combination with another drug.
I found some papers from 2001 that refer to its use in phase 1 trials - I think it was with head and neck cancers.
Shows how long it can take for drugs to go trough the development and trials processes.
I am getting a little tired now, though, of reading about “significant improvement”. To me “significant” means “huge”. But I think to doctors I think it just means “measurable”. It sheds a new light on trials when you start to understand there is a different vocabulary at play and I am becomming more and more of a cynic.
Deidre
I too have found some reference to trials with bc - at the Marsden, in Leeds and in Guildford too! Seem to use it with another chemo. Found an article on line from the Daily Mail which mentions bc.
Think the use of the term “significant” by researchers/drs relates to what is considered statistically significant, ie any difference that is unlikely to have happened by chance. So you are right, Deirdre, in thinking “significant” does not in these reports indicate “huge”. Not sure all journalists understand this though.
Kay
I agree Deirdre though I think its realism not cynicism…I’m going to start a new thread on this.
Carol: hope you have been able to find out more information.
Jane