revlimid, thalomid

[Guest guest]

Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen, in a very particular combination. Amazing! Almost magic!

In a message dated 6/12/2010 12:55:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cllcanada@... writes:

You are right. They are of the same family and lenalidomide is a derivative of thalidomide. I should have been more specific.Lenalidomide is: C13H13N3O3Thalidomide is : C13H10N2O4 ~chris> >> > Folks - we must not treat this lightly - lenalidomide is a potent and > > potentially very helpful drug - one of my guys uses it together with > > thalidomide, with fantastic results (I'm urging him to publish!!!) - The > concept of > > those two drugs is different from what we have been used to, they turn > the > > whole immune suppression system upside down (tumor flare). It's a whole > new > > ball game, we do not know yet. > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/9/2010 1:08:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > cllcanada@ writes:> > > > > > > > > > Hi Wayne> > > > OK, but 8 complete remissions out of 60 patients, in my books is poor. I > > > don't> > want to get into an argument over semantics.> > > > Mind you this was a dosage trial, however I would have expected better > > results.> > Yes, the patients were older, but I have no knowledge of their genetic > > markers,> > only the data available to me in the abstract.> > > > OR s and PR s are just about meaningless. One would expect patients to > > have some> > response.> > > > Yes IgG levels increased in some patients but for how long? I could get > > this with IVIG and skip the Revlimid!> > > > >>>>And without the immunosuppression consequences of "chemo"?> > > > What do you call 35% grade (G) 3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and > > anemia.> > Not to mention a high amount (50%) of grade 1 and 2 tumour flare!> > > > I think the failure/discontinued rate given in the data is the most > > telling, that ranges> > from 15% in cycle 3 to 43% in cycle 15.> > > > I think you must ask why this is the case. Risk/benefit?> > > > ~chris> > > > >>> I don't quite agree, with your categorization of these > results > > as "poor"> > > -- "disappointing" that they were not better perhaps, but not poor.> >>