More and more...despite the fascination with new molecules and synergies, there seems to be a lot to be said (and done) regarding delivery considerations.
Anyone asking their oncs about
pre-med steroids undermining chemo?
Anyone talking about
opiate alternatives or using Relistor (methylnaltrexone)in addition?
Anyone ever had their chemo discussed in terms of
time of delivery? (i.e. chronotherapy)?
Anyone considering revisting a "failed" chemo via
metronomic delivery or reversal strategies?
Considering the wide-ranging responses to therapies, I have to wonder how much is due to variations in delivery and use of "supportive" drugs that hamper efficacy. This might even play into the "we're not mice" issue. Delivery to mice in labs is precisely controlled. We, in contrast, arrange our delivery according to available time slots and convenience..not having an inkling it might matter, taking deleterious prophylactics that have benign alternatives. Some of this information has been out for years and yet the machine grinds on obliviously.
Sorry folks..say it like I see it. And I don't thing NCCN or SABC '09 is gonna "go there". Maybe those able to go there can bring these issues with them. Not that I'm not a fan of promising research. Just realizing the dire need to maximize, avoid undermining and avoid premature abandonment of tools that are within reach now. I'm thinking especially about people in this forum on the precipice as you read this. Are they really out of options? Maybe revisiting previous therapies in a different manner can pull them back off the ledge.
At a community level, I would appreciate acknowledgement, repudiation or support of these issues. This may seem like a negative rant but there are some very positive possibilities at the core.
Threaded Mode