HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - ER+, HER2+

Hopeful · 10-14-2008, 02:08 PM

Krista,

The "good" thing about the conclusion I posted above is that more doctors and scientists are focusing on ER+ patients, and conducting tests on durations of treatment, switching between agents, etc. I am sorry that the rather stark language I quoted reads so alarmingly. I think it was intended as a challenge to researchers to try to determine which paitients require, and will respond, to extended endocrine therapy, and different types of therapy. A totally unexpected finding, reported on the Board about a month ago, was a result of giving women zolendraic acid with their endocrine therapy. Here is a link to an interview with Michael Grant from the latest issue of Breast Cancer Update with very encouraging news http://www.breastcancerupdate.com/me...08/4/gnant.asp

a portion of which is quoted below:

DR LOVE: Can you discuss the dosing schedule and results of zoledronic acid in ABCSG-12?

DR GNANT: We administered four milligrams of zoledronic acid every six months, for a total of seven infusions over three years. Initially, we started the trial with a higher dose of eight milligrams monthly, but we were forced to change due to safety concerns. In 2000, reports surfaced that renal safety was endangered in some patients with multiple myeloma who were being treated with zoledronic acid, and at that point all the trials around the world reduced the dose to four milligrams.

We went back to what we believed would be mostly a bone-protection dose. Therefore, it’s particularly striking that we are not only protecting bone at this dose but that we are also keeping the cancer at bay (Gnant 2008; [1.3]).

Two more observations are also exciting. One is the magnitude of the effect: A 36 percent improvement in disease-free survival, translating to at least a non-significant trend toward better overall survival. That’s an accomplishment usually observed with interventions such as taxane chemotherapy. We observed that efficacy with an acceptable side-effect profile (1.4).
More importantly, we’re not only preventing bone metastases, but we’re also seeing benefit in various event subcategories, including locoregional recurrence, contralateral breast cancer and distant metastasis outside of the bone (such as liver or lung disease). That’s something most of us did not expect.

So, there is promise and hope - we just need to keep on top of our own treatments.

Hopeful

10-14-2008, 02:08 PM	#6
Hopeful Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,380	Krista, The "good" thing about the conclusion I posted above is that more doctors and scientists are focusing on ER+ patients, and conducting tests on durations of treatment, switching between agents, etc. I am sorry that the rather stark language I quoted reads so alarmingly. I think it was intended as a challenge to researchers to try to determine which paitients require, and will respond, to extended endocrine therapy, and different types of therapy. A totally unexpected finding, reported on the Board about a month ago, was a result of giving women zolendraic acid with their endocrine therapy. Here is a link to an interview with Michael Grant from the latest issue of Breast Cancer Update with very encouraging news http://www.breastcancerupdate.com/me...08/4/gnant.asp a portion of which is quoted below: DR LOVE: Can you discuss the dosing schedule and results of zoledronic acid in ABCSG-12? DR GNANT: We administered four milligrams of zoledronic acid every six months, for a total of seven infusions over three years. Initially, we started the trial with a higher dose of eight milligrams monthly, but we were forced to change due to safety concerns. In 2000, reports surfaced that renal safety was endangered in some patients with multiple myeloma who were being treated with zoledronic acid, and at that point all the trials around the world reduced the dose to four milligrams. We went back to what we believed would be mostly a bone-protection dose. Therefore, it’s particularly striking that we are not only protecting bone at this dose but that we are also keeping the cancer at bay (Gnant 2008; [1.3]). Two more observations are also exciting. One is the magnitude of the effect: A 36 percent improvement in disease-free survival, translating to at least a non-significant trend toward better overall survival. That’s an accomplishment usually observed with interventions such as taxane chemotherapy. We observed that efficacy with an acceptable side-effect profile (1.4). More importantly, we’re not only preventing bone metastases, but we’re also seeing benefit in various event subcategories, including locoregional recurrence, contralateral breast cancer and distant metastasis outside of the bone (such as liver or lung disease). That’s something most of us did not expect. So, there is promise and hope - we just need to keep on top of our own treatments. Hopeful