HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

karen z · 12-19-2012, 04:17 PM

In reviewing notes/powerpoint slides for the major HER2 "event" (HER2- Positive Breast Cancer: Applying the Latest Developments to Clinical Practice") most "conclusions" statements about effective treatment and continued work was on drugs one might have already heard of (although discussed in detail to educate the medical community who might not be doing cutting edge research themselves). At the Slamon event the primary talks were "HER 2 Testing and Current Knowledge on the Biology of HER-2 Positive Tumors by Michael F. Press, Advances in the Treatment of HER2+ Breast Cancer by Kimberly Blackwell, and "Research HIghlights: New Agents and Strategies for HER-2 Positive Breast Cancer" by Howard a. Burris III. These talks were definitely not so much about "introducing" new drugs but, rather, a better and more nuanced understanding of how the drugs work and why..leading us to better understand and move in a direction of improved efficency. I would be shocked to see new drugs per se introduced yearly at this conference (and, if mentioned, already through several phases of trials) . From talks I went to discussing clinical trials, such work does not move quickly and often with good reason. Also, a primary focus of the meeting (in addition to introducing new drugs when available and after appropriate testing) is educating oncologists from around the world on state of the art research and dissemination of research findings. This is how science moves (one painstakingly difficult study after the next). Difficult to find "breakthrough" research (say initial Tamoxifen research or Herceptin for early stagers in 05) in short time frames (a year is not a long time to researchers-perhaps to us and, only then, in particular situations). Still, progress seems to be occurring even though it may not seem fast enough to some. But good (meaningful) research is not particularly fast. Researchers can spend a lifetime tackling a particular "issue" within a highly complex problem. I did not see a lot of quick fixes nor would I expect to- but I saw a lot of important research moving steadily forward. And that is very good news.

12-19-2012, 04:17 PM	#12
karen z Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,477	Re: For those who have been to San Antonio In reviewing notes/powerpoint slides for the major HER2 "event" (HER2- Positive Breast Cancer: Applying the Latest Developments to Clinical Practice") most "conclusions" statements about effective treatment and continued work was on drugs one might have already heard of (although discussed in detail to educate the medical community who might not be doing cutting edge research themselves). At the Slamon event the primary talks were "HER 2 Testing and Current Knowledge on the Biology of HER-2 Positive Tumors by Michael F. Press, Advances in the Treatment of HER2+ Breast Cancer by Kimberly Blackwell, and "Research HIghlights: New Agents and Strategies for HER-2 Positive Breast Cancer" by Howard a. Burris III. These talks were definitely not so much about "introducing" new drugs but, rather, a better and more nuanced understanding of how the drugs work and why..leading us to better understand and move in a direction of improved efficency. I would be shocked to see new drugs per se introduced yearly at this conference (and, if mentioned, already through several phases of trials) . From talks I went to discussing clinical trials, such work does not move quickly and often with good reason. Also, a primary focus of the meeting (in addition to introducing new drugs when available and after appropriate testing) is educating oncologists from around the world on state of the art research and dissemination of research findings. This is how science moves (one painstakingly difficult study after the next). Difficult to find "breakthrough" research (say initial Tamoxifen research or Herceptin for early stagers in 05) in short time frames (a year is not a long time to researchers-perhaps to us and, only then, in particular situations). Still, progress seems to be occurring even though it may not seem fast enough to some. But good (meaningful) research is not particularly fast. Researchers can spend a lifetime tackling a particular "issue" within a highly complex problem. I did not see a lot of quick fixes nor would I expect to- but I saw a lot of important research moving steadily forward. And that is very good news.