In The News......

Options
shmurciakova
shmurciakova Member Posts: 906 Member
edited March 2014 in Colorectal Cancer #1
I thought some of you might be interested in this.....Susan.

Colorectal Cancer Can Be Treated With Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin and Raltitrexed

NewsRx.com

March 30, 2006

Colorectal cancer could be treated with irinotecan [Camptosar (C)], oxaliplatin (O) and raltitrexed [Tomudex (T)] (COT).

According to recent research from Canada, "Thirty-one patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were enrolled in this phase I/II trial of a triple combination of C, O, and T, all given on day 1 of a convenient 3-week schedule. Patients received 257 cycles (1-18) in 5 cohorts."

"Toxicity was manageable and haematological toxicity was mild to moderate," explained J.A. Maroun and colleagues, Ottawa Hospital. "Diarrhoea was the main dose-limiting toxicity; nausea and vomiting were common. Fatigue was frequent, moderate in severity and a reason for discontinuation in some patients. The recommended phase II doses were (C) 220 Mg/m2, (0) 100 Mg/m2, (T) 2.75 Mg/m2.

"A 50% response rate in 30 evaluable patients was confirmed by an independent radiology review board; progression-free survival and overall median survival were 7.3 months and 16.6 months, respectively. Of the 16 patients treated at the recommended dose, 9 (56.3%) experienced partial response. Further evaluation in a randomized study compared to sequential doublets is warranted."

The researchers concluded, "Triple combinations could be relevant in curative settings for high-risk patients."

Maroun and colleagues published their study in European Journal of Cancer (A National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study - IND.135: Phase I/II study of irinotecan (Camptosar), oxaliplatin and raltitrexed (Tomudex) (COT) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer, 2006;42(2):193-199).

Comments

  • rthornton
    rthornton Member Posts: 346 Member
    #2
    Options
    I have read statistics about survival rates for those diagnosed with colon cancer that are very similar to what is posted in this article:

    progression-free survival and overall median survival were 7.3 months and 16.6 months

    When I was first diagnosed, my doctor said something about Avastin increasing survival rates from 15 months to 20 months. I don't understand how statistics are compiled, because it doesn't seem to me like the extra 5 months is really a big deal. Honestly, there are people who could probably fart longer than five months. Also, I KNOW that many stage four patients have lasted a lot longer than 20 months ... some have gone on for years and years in remission (cured?). Are these statistics that cite 15 - 20 months survival averages that account for patients ranging in age from 90 - 95? They really seem to be inaccurate to me. Soon, it will be one year since my stage four diagnosis, which means my time is almost up if I listen to all these statistics (yet I feel healthier than I have in a long time!).

    But then maybe I just don't understand how the "progression-free survival and overall median survival were 7.3 months and 16.6 months" statistic is meant to be understood. Can someone explain to me why a 16 month median survival is supposed to be encouraging?

    Thanks!

    Rodney
  • debralla
    debralla Member Posts: 203 Member
    #3
    Options
    rthornton said:

    I have read statistics about survival rates for those diagnosed with colon cancer that are very similar to what is posted in this article:

    progression-free survival and overall median survival were 7.3 months and 16.6 months

    When I was first diagnosed, my doctor said something about Avastin increasing survival rates from 15 months to 20 months. I don't understand how statistics are compiled, because it doesn't seem to me like the extra 5 months is really a big deal. Honestly, there are people who could probably fart longer than five months. Also, I KNOW that many stage four patients have lasted a lot longer than 20 months ... some have gone on for years and years in remission (cured?). Are these statistics that cite 15 - 20 months survival averages that account for patients ranging in age from 90 - 95? They really seem to be inaccurate to me. Soon, it will be one year since my stage four diagnosis, which means my time is almost up if I listen to all these statistics (yet I feel healthier than I have in a long time!).

    But then maybe I just don't understand how the "progression-free survival and overall median survival were 7.3 months and 16.6 months" statistic is meant to be understood. Can someone explain to me why a 16 month median survival is supposed to be encouraging?

    Thanks!

    Rodney

    Hello
    This is for those who have genetic form of colon cancer . I was seen last week by a genetic Dr. She went over a lot of things with me about genetic mutation and took a lot of blood test . Which I will get the results next week . One of the test she took was to check for a genetic mutation form . That if turned out positive would mean that I should never receive Irinotecan.something about severe platelet drop and very high fever. anyways just thought I would pass this info on .
    One more day and I will be back on the mainland .Hope to get the chance to meet you all in Austin .
    TAKE CARE AND GOD BLESS
    DEBRA
  • shmurciakova
    shmurciakova Member Posts: 906 Member
    #4
    Options
    My colorectal cancer "buddy" from the CCA mailed this to me so I just thought I would pass it along. I found it interesting because I have never heard of Raltitrexed before. The part I found encouraging was the following:The researchers concluded, "Triple combinations could be relevant in curative settings for high-risk patients."
    I guess these stats are just for the 31 patients that were enrolled in this clinical trial....
    I did not mean to upset anyone.
    -Susan.
  • rthornton
    rthornton Member Posts: 346 Member
    #5
    Options
    shmurciakova said:

    My colorectal cancer "buddy" from the CCA mailed this to me so I just thought I would pass it along. I found it interesting because I have never heard of Raltitrexed before. The part I found encouraging was the following:The researchers concluded, "Triple combinations could be relevant in curative settings for high-risk patients."
    I guess these stats are just for the 31 patients that were enrolled in this clinical trial....
    I did not mean to upset anyone.
    -Susan.

    Susan, thanks for your private note and also yoru reply on here. To clarify ... I'm not riled up about the statistics (but I have always liked the word "riled" for some reason). I just really don't understand how the statistics are compiled and how they are to be interpreted so that we can understand the significance of them. When my oncologist last year said something about Avastin increasing survival from 15 to 20 months, I thought "ok, with 15 months I'll have time to write my will, and the extra five months will give me time to spell-check the will and get a pretty binder from Kinko's ..." I had a hard time seeing the real significance of five extra months. I am sure there is more to these statistics than I understand (I SUCK in math!!!), and that's why I asked. I'm genuinely curious.

    Did my post sound angry?!?! I didn't mean to sound like that ... I am really curious, though, what to make of such statistics.

    Thanks!

    Rodney
  • HowardJ
    HowardJ Member Posts: 474
    #6
    Options
    rthornton said:

    Susan, thanks for your private note and also yoru reply on here. To clarify ... I'm not riled up about the statistics (but I have always liked the word "riled" for some reason). I just really don't understand how the statistics are compiled and how they are to be interpreted so that we can understand the significance of them. When my oncologist last year said something about Avastin increasing survival from 15 to 20 months, I thought "ok, with 15 months I'll have time to write my will, and the extra five months will give me time to spell-check the will and get a pretty binder from Kinko's ..." I had a hard time seeing the real significance of five extra months. I am sure there is more to these statistics than I understand (I SUCK in math!!!), and that's why I asked. I'm genuinely curious.

    Did my post sound angry?!?! I didn't mean to sound like that ... I am really curious, though, what to make of such statistics.

    Thanks!

    Rodney

    Rodney,

    Thank you for the laughs! I liked your "fart" line.

    Here's a pretty good explaination of endpoints used in clinical trials--

    http://www.cancerguide.org/endpoints.html

    Howard
  • terril
    terril Member Posts: 296
    #7
    Options
    rthornton said:

    Susan, thanks for your private note and also yoru reply on here. To clarify ... I'm not riled up about the statistics (but I have always liked the word "riled" for some reason). I just really don't understand how the statistics are compiled and how they are to be interpreted so that we can understand the significance of them. When my oncologist last year said something about Avastin increasing survival from 15 to 20 months, I thought "ok, with 15 months I'll have time to write my will, and the extra five months will give me time to spell-check the will and get a pretty binder from Kinko's ..." I had a hard time seeing the real significance of five extra months. I am sure there is more to these statistics than I understand (I SUCK in math!!!), and that's why I asked. I'm genuinely curious.

    Did my post sound angry?!?! I didn't mean to sound like that ... I am really curious, though, what to make of such statistics.

    Thanks!

    Rodney

    I agree with you, Rodney. The statistics given for survival seem so trival when mentioned as 5 months. But knowing stats, this 5 month would constitute a "significant difference" between the groups in the studies. It is basically stat language to describe the gain when groups are studied. To me, it really is just that...stats. To really understand this info, one would have to look at the population and variables used to arrive at this significant difference. We are not stats...we are people dealing with a nasty disease. Hey, don't tell me how much time I have. A friend of mine was diagnosed with NHL ( a form of lymphoma). The doc told her she had 6 months to live. She got in his face and said, "How dare you tell me when I am going to die!" Well, that was 8 years ago!!! Fight ! Fight! Fight! Terri
  • nanuk
    nanuk Member Posts: 1,358 Member
    #8
    Options
    terril said:

    I agree with you, Rodney. The statistics given for survival seem so trival when mentioned as 5 months. But knowing stats, this 5 month would constitute a "significant difference" between the groups in the studies. It is basically stat language to describe the gain when groups are studied. To me, it really is just that...stats. To really understand this info, one would have to look at the population and variables used to arrive at this significant difference. We are not stats...we are people dealing with a nasty disease. Hey, don't tell me how much time I have. A friend of mine was diagnosed with NHL ( a form of lymphoma). The doc told her she had 6 months to live. She got in his face and said, "How dare you tell me when I am going to die!" Well, that was 8 years ago!!! Fight ! Fight! Fight! Terri

    I had to take a couple of statistics courses in my undergraduate days; nothing personal, but the one thing I learned was that you can prove almost anything you want with statistics..
    John Davidson brings this home in his article-see my post this date on Complimentary / Alternative Medicine. Bud
  • Betsydoglover
    Betsydoglover Member Posts: 1,248 Member
    #9
    Options
    rthornton said:

    Susan, thanks for your private note and also yoru reply on here. To clarify ... I'm not riled up about the statistics (but I have always liked the word "riled" for some reason). I just really don't understand how the statistics are compiled and how they are to be interpreted so that we can understand the significance of them. When my oncologist last year said something about Avastin increasing survival from 15 to 20 months, I thought "ok, with 15 months I'll have time to write my will, and the extra five months will give me time to spell-check the will and get a pretty binder from Kinko's ..." I had a hard time seeing the real significance of five extra months. I am sure there is more to these statistics than I understand (I SUCK in math!!!), and that's why I asked. I'm genuinely curious.

    Did my post sound angry?!?! I didn't mean to sound like that ... I am really curious, though, what to make of such statistics.

    Thanks!

    Rodney

    Rodney - I am WITH you on the statistics. They may be mathematically correct, but what they have to do with reality is another question. You and I should both be approaching death and yet we are both NED. So "F" the stats - I say - and keep on being positive and fighting. I for one am not going to plan my life around x months vs y months. I am talking YEARS and I am hoping you are too! (And of course I get down at times, but we can all support each other when that happens, right?)

    Betsy
  • well
    well Member Posts: 26
    #10
    Options
    rthornton said:

    I have read statistics about survival rates for those diagnosed with colon cancer that are very similar to what is posted in this article:

    progression-free survival and overall median survival were 7.3 months and 16.6 months

    When I was first diagnosed, my doctor said something about Avastin increasing survival rates from 15 months to 20 months. I don't understand how statistics are compiled, because it doesn't seem to me like the extra 5 months is really a big deal. Honestly, there are people who could probably fart longer than five months. Also, I KNOW that many stage four patients have lasted a lot longer than 20 months ... some have gone on for years and years in remission (cured?). Are these statistics that cite 15 - 20 months survival averages that account for patients ranging in age from 90 - 95? They really seem to be inaccurate to me. Soon, it will be one year since my stage four diagnosis, which means my time is almost up if I listen to all these statistics (yet I feel healthier than I have in a long time!).

    But then maybe I just don't understand how the "progression-free survival and overall median survival were 7.3 months and 16.6 months" statistic is meant to be understood. Can someone explain to me why a 16 month median survival is supposed to be encouraging?

    Thanks!

    Rodney

    Rodney said:

    > "Can someone explain to me why a 16 month median
    > survival is supposed to be encouraging?"

    Some of us were only given two months to live, total, by our surgeons. Sixteen additional months from chemo? That is increasing my expected lifespan nine-fold!

    Think of it perhaps as the difference between a 70-year lifespan and a 630-year lifespan. Perhaps you're not used to thinking in the short spans some of us have been given and are only used to thinking in the multi-decade spans.

    When you have cancer, you have to change your perspective on many things, and longevity is often one of them.

Discussion Boards