HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - the government bean counters want a trial of a Finher like regimen vs the HERAregimen

dlaxague · 01-02-2008, 07:26 PM

Lani said: "That is not to say your conclusion isn't true--it may very well be. Just whether your hypothesis has enough/the right data to prove it."

Whoa, there. I reached no conclusion. I just restated that the Finher trial did show good results for shorter-term Herceptin administration. In fact I said, as you did, that the comparisons were not valid, as they were not head-to-head. I agree with you that this may or may not turn out to be true, but needs more study, which is unlikely to happen in this country. But as you said, there was no DISproof of the efficacy of shorter duration Herceptin either, and the questions raised are definitely intriguing.

What do you think about the presentation re: shorter trial duration, using data from mets trials to speed up implementation of therapies for primary disease? While the idea of getting newer better treatments into adjuvant use sooner certainly appeals (I myself missed out on adjuvant Herceptin even when most knew that it was important, because the adjuvant trials were in progress), the issue of yet-unknown longer term side effects is a worry.

Debbie
(sorry for the lack of links to what the heck I'm talking about. We have moved but have not finished the many repairs needed to settle in and my attention is more on such trivia as wallpaper removal than it is on interesting discussions like this one. I can find the SABCS presentation I mention above, if you don't have it.)

01-02-2008, 07:26 PM	#8
dlaxague Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 221	Thanks for the good discussion Lani said: "That is not to say your conclusion isn't true--it may very well be. Just whether your hypothesis has enough/the right data to prove it." Whoa, there. I reached no conclusion. I just restated that the Finher trial did show good results for shorter-term Herceptin administration. In fact I said, as you did, that the comparisons were not valid, as they were not head-to-head. I agree with you that this may or may not turn out to be true, but needs more study, which is unlikely to happen in this country. But as you said, there was no DISproof of the efficacy of shorter duration Herceptin either, and the questions raised are definitely intriguing. What do you think about the presentation re: shorter trial duration, using data from mets trials to speed up implementation of therapies for primary disease? While the idea of getting newer better treatments into adjuvant use sooner certainly appeals (I myself missed out on adjuvant Herceptin even when most knew that it was important, because the adjuvant trials were in progress), the issue of yet-unknown longer term side effects is a worry. Debbie (sorry for the lack of links to what the heck I'm talking about. We have moved but have not finished the many repairs needed to settle in and my attention is more on such trivia as wallpaper removal than it is on interesting discussions like this one. I can find the SABCS presentation I mention above, if you don't have it.) __________________ 3/01 ~ Age 49, occult primary announced by large axillary node found by my husband. Multiple CBE's, mammogram, U/S could not find anything in the breast. Axillary node biopsy - pathology said + for "mets above diaphragm, probably breast". 4/01 ~ Bilateral mastectomies (LMRM, R simple) - 1.2cm IDC was found at pathology. 5 of 11 axillary nodes positive, largest = 6cm. Stage IIIA ERPR 5%/1% (re-done later at Baylor, both negative at zero). HER2neu positive by IHC and FISH (8.89). Lymphovascular invasion, grade 3, 8/9 modified SBR. TX: Control of arm of NSABP B-31's adjuvant Herceptin trial (no Herceptin): A/C x 4 and Taxol x 4 q3weeks, then rads. Arimidex for two years, stopped after second patholgy opinion.