The information on this site is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Content within the patient forum is user-generated and has not been reviewed by medical professionals. Other sections of the Melanoma Research Foundation website include information that has been reviewed by medical professionals as appropriate. All medical decisions should be made in consultation with your doctor or other qualified medical professional.

Interesting article in New York Times

Forums General Melanoma Community Interesting article in New York Times

  • Post
Viewing 15 reply threads
  • Replies
      Jocelyn
      Participant

      Great article. Thanks for posting it. This paragraph really says it all:

      "But critics of the trials argue that the new science behind the drugs has eclipsed the old rules — and ethics — of testing them. They say that in some cases, drugs under development, PLX4032 among them, may be so much more effective than their predecessors that putting half the potential beneficiaries into a control group, and delaying access to the drug to thousands of other patients, causes needless suffering."

      From the beginning, it has seemed to me that comparing PLX4032 (and others in the same category) to drugs like chemo, is not only cruel, but bad science and a waste of trial time. It is all too obvious which one is going to be most likely to extend life. There must be a way to change the trial process. I understand why trials have to be carved in stone, but why in this particular kind of stone?

      Loading spinner
      Jocelyn
      Participant

      Great article. Thanks for posting it. This paragraph really says it all:

      "But critics of the trials argue that the new science behind the drugs has eclipsed the old rules — and ethics — of testing them. They say that in some cases, drugs under development, PLX4032 among them, may be so much more effective than their predecessors that putting half the potential beneficiaries into a control group, and delaying access to the drug to thousands of other patients, causes needless suffering."

      From the beginning, it has seemed to me that comparing PLX4032 (and others in the same category) to drugs like chemo, is not only cruel, but bad science and a waste of trial time. It is all too obvious which one is going to be most likely to extend life. There must be a way to change the trial process. I understand why trials have to be carved in stone, but why in this particular kind of stone?

      Loading spinner
      Jim in Denver
      Participant

      This is REQUIRED READING!  We all need to be aware of the swirling scientific, political, ane economic pressures around the FDA currently.  Take a look at the Avastin and breast cancer situation.  Is it mere concidence that almost simutaneously with the FDA action on Avastin that Roche get lots of press regarding PLX 4032?  This is not to impugn any of the key players' motives, but we all need to recognize how the system works – both for and against patients.  Very good article – thanks for posting the link.

      Jim

      Loading spinner
      Jim in Denver
      Participant

      This is REQUIRED READING!  We all need to be aware of the swirling scientific, political, ane economic pressures around the FDA currently.  Take a look at the Avastin and breast cancer situation.  Is it mere concidence that almost simutaneously with the FDA action on Avastin that Roche get lots of press regarding PLX 4032?  This is not to impugn any of the key players' motives, but we all need to recognize how the system works – both for and against patients.  Very good article – thanks for posting the link.

      Jim

      Loading spinner
      Kevin from Atlanta
      Participant

      I recently looked at all the current melanoma trials. I have choosen to bypass any that have control arms. We have enough data where controls arms should not be required. The Pharma companies spend $100 million to get a drug to market but must follow the FDA procedures. We need more compassionate use trials. The FDA needs to change their rules.

      Great article well written giving info with out choosing sides.

      Loading spinner
      Kevin from Atlanta
      Participant

      I recently looked at all the current melanoma trials. I have choosen to bypass any that have control arms. We have enough data where controls arms should not be required. The Pharma companies spend $100 million to get a drug to market but must follow the FDA procedures. We need more compassionate use trials. The FDA needs to change their rules.

      Great article well written giving info with out choosing sides.

      Loading spinner
      jim Breitfeller
      Participant

      We should Let The FDA ,Congress and Plexikkon how us the Patients feel about the clinical trial protocols.

      Peter HirthCEO Plexxikon
      [email protected]
      Tom Kassberg is cofounder

      Richard Pazdur
      Richard Padzur to run its new Office of Oncology Drug Products (OODP)
      [email protected]'

      Loading spinner
        Tim–MRF
        Guest

        I received an email from Kathy Glaub, President of Plexxikon, asking me to provide more contact information here.  She said:

        We would appreciate a correction to information posted on your message board.  If patients want more information about the drug and clinical testing, the best source is the Roche/Genentech call center at 888-62-6728, http://www.roche-trials.com, http://[email protected], or http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.  

         

        If you have trouble getting what you need feel free to contact me and I will put you in touch with Kathy directly.  I have never met her but she seems approachable.

         

        Tim–MRF

        Loading spinner
        Tim–MRF
        Guest

        I received an email from Kathy Glaub, President of Plexxikon, asking me to provide more contact information here.  She said:

        We would appreciate a correction to information posted on your message board.  If patients want more information about the drug and clinical testing, the best source is the Roche/Genentech call center at 888-62-6728, http://www.roche-trials.com, http://[email protected], or http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.  

         

        If you have trouble getting what you need feel free to contact me and I will put you in touch with Kathy directly.  I have never met her but she seems approachable.

         

        Tim–MRF

        Loading spinner
      jim Breitfeller
      Participant

      We should Let The FDA ,Congress and Plexikkon how us the Patients feel about the clinical trial protocols.

      Peter HirthCEO Plexxikon
      [email protected]
      Tom Kassberg is cofounder

      Richard Pazdur
      Richard Padzur to run its new Office of Oncology Drug Products (OODP)
      [email protected]'

      Loading spinner
      jag
      Participant

      That was depressing to read.  I definitely believe people should sign up for every clinical trial w/BRAF in it and if they get the control arm, just apply for another one.

      Loading spinner
      jag
      Participant

      That was depressing to read.  I definitely believe people should sign up for every clinical trial w/BRAF in it and if they get the control arm, just apply for another one.

      Loading spinner
      bill58
      Participant

      Great article.  Brought tears to my eyes.  I hate those trials where the control arm is "standard of Care".

      I hope to be fortunate enough to get into a BRAF trial which does not have a control arm and the only difference between the 5 arms is the initial dosage for 15 days.  After that, all trial participants receive 960MG. Trial NCT01107418.

      Praying for selection into the trial.  Praying that it helps in my particular situation.

      Bill

      Loading spinner
        tsoemd
        Participant

        We have that exact BRAF study in Omaha if you can't get into this study in your state. 

        Loading spinner
        tsoemd
        Participant

        We have that exact BRAF study in Omaha if you can't get into this study in your state. 

        Loading spinner
      bill58
      Participant

      Great article.  Brought tears to my eyes.  I hate those trials where the control arm is "standard of Care".

      I hope to be fortunate enough to get into a BRAF trial which does not have a control arm and the only difference between the 5 arms is the initial dosage for 15 days.  After that, all trial participants receive 960MG. Trial NCT01107418.

      Praying for selection into the trial.  Praying that it helps in my particular situation.

      Bill

      Loading spinner
      paul
      Participant

      Definitely a moving and informative article; they seem to need to have such a dramatic situation (one cousin living, one dying) to have a narrative hook into the story. I can see the ethical issues and economic drivers . . . . but I wish the scientific argument for the double-blind were clarified, i.e. why you would need the control arm, since the "standard of care" is already a known entity. Why not just measure new results against known data?

      Loading spinner
      paul
      Participant

      Definitely a moving and informative article; they seem to need to have such a dramatic situation (one cousin living, one dying) to have a narrative hook into the story. I can see the ethical issues and economic drivers . . . . but I wish the scientific argument for the double-blind were clarified, i.e. why you would need the control arm, since the "standard of care" is already a known entity. Why not just measure new results against known data?

      Loading spinner
      paul
      Participant

      Definitely a moving and informative article; they seem to need to have such a dramatic situation (one cousin living, one dying) to have a narrative hook into the story. I can see the ethical issues and economic drivers . . . . but I wish the scientific argument for the double-blind were clarified, i.e. why you would need the control arm, since the "standard of care" is already a known entity. Why not just measure new results against known data?

      Loading spinner
      paul
      Participant

      Definitely a moving and informative article; they seem to need to have such a dramatic situation (one cousin living, one dying) to have a narrative hook into the story. I can see the ethical issues and economic drivers . . . . but I wish the scientific argument for the double-blind were clarified, i.e. why you would need the control arm, since the "standard of care" is already a known entity. Why not just measure new results against known data?

      Loading spinner
Viewing 15 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
About the MRF Patient Forum

The MRF Patient Forum is the oldest and largest online community of people affected by melanoma. It is designed to provide peer support and information to caregivers, patients, family and friends. There is no better place to discuss different parts of your journey with this cancer and find the friends and support resources to make that journey more bearable.

The information on the forum is open and accessible to everyone. To add a new topic or to post a reply, you must be a registered user. Please note that you will be able to post both topics and replies anonymously even though you are logged in. All posts must abide by MRF posting policies.