fgilbert63

Very discouraging to read about all the treatment inconsistencies and Doctors lack of knowledge especially with the newer therapies.  Bottom line is if an oncologist is going to prescribe a treatment then he or she should be up to speed on that treatment.  This is what they are getting the big $Bucks$.  Many are afraid to swallow their arrogance and refer patients to someone who knows what they are doing or diseases like this. 

Very discouraging to read about all the treatment inconsistencies and Doctors lack of knowledge especially with the newer therapies.  Bottom line is if an oncologist is going to prescribe a treatment then he or she should be up to speed on that treatment.  This is what they are getting the big $Bucks$.  Many are afraid to swallow their arrogance and refer patients to someone who knows what they are doing or diseases like this. 

Very discouraging to read about all the treatment inconsistencies and Doctors lack of knowledge especially with the newer therapies.  Bottom line is if an oncologist is going to prescribe a treatment then he or she should be up to speed on that treatment.  This is what they are getting the big $Bucks$.  Many are afraid to swallow their arrogance and refer patients to someone who knows what they are doing or diseases like this. 

Robert,

My thoughts are, Viagra is safe unless someone has a cardio issue, so why wouldn't people start taking this.  I'm tired of hearing things like this will need to go thru clinical trials and maybe in 5-years it will be used for Melanoma.  Plus there is really no big $$ to be made here by pharma so this may never get to U.S. clinical trials.  There seems to be many drugs that have existed for some time now being discovered to have effectiveness against melanoma I.e. Beta blockers, Leflunomide, and now Viagra.  Why not give the Viagra a try, one might get double bang for their buck, no pun intended, well maybe a little.

Robert,

My thoughts are, Viagra is safe unless someone has a cardio issue, so why wouldn't people start taking this.  I'm tired of hearing things like this will need to go thru clinical trials and maybe in 5-years it will be used for Melanoma.  Plus there is really no big $$ to be made here by pharma so this may never get to U.S. clinical trials.  There seems to be many drugs that have existed for some time now being discovered to have effectiveness against melanoma I.e. Beta blockers, Leflunomide, and now Viagra.  Why not give the Viagra a try, one might get double bang for their buck, no pun intended, well maybe a little.

Robert,

My thoughts are, Viagra is safe unless someone has a cardio issue, so why wouldn't people start taking this.  I'm tired of hearing things like this will need to go thru clinical trials and maybe in 5-years it will be used for Melanoma.  Plus there is really no big $$ to be made here by pharma so this may never get to U.S. clinical trials.  There seems to be many drugs that have existed for some time now being discovered to have effectiveness against melanoma I.e. Beta blockers, Leflunomide, and now Viagra.  Why not give the Viagra a try, one might get double bang for their buck, no pun intended, well maybe a little.

Alison,

Not sure I understand the Mayo Dr's reasoning as there are obviously cancer cells in the brain and most likely many other places in the body.  Most all mel patients are never NED which to me should be "No Existence of Disease"  this no evidence of disease is a bunch of crap.  Once someone has become Stage II, III, or IV they should be treated aggressively, I just don't get Dr's reasoning to wait for a tumor burden to present itself before taking action-this is just plain stupid!

It is really unbelievable all of the inconsistencies across all of the centers in treating this disease.   

Alison,

Not sure I understand the Mayo Dr's reasoning as there are obviously cancer cells in the brain and most likely many other places in the body.  Most all mel patients are never NED which to me should be "No Existence of Disease"  this no evidence of disease is a bunch of crap.  Once someone has become Stage II, III, or IV they should be treated aggressively, I just don't get Dr's reasoning to wait for a tumor burden to present itself before taking action-this is just plain stupid!

It is really unbelievable all of the inconsistencies across all of the centers in treating this disease.   

Alison,

Not sure I understand the Mayo Dr's reasoning as there are obviously cancer cells in the brain and most likely many other places in the body.  Most all mel patients are never NED which to me should be "No Existence of Disease"  this no evidence of disease is a bunch of crap.  Once someone has become Stage II, III, or IV they should be treated aggressively, I just don't get Dr's reasoning to wait for a tumor burden to present itself before taking action-this is just plain stupid!

It is really unbelievable all of the inconsistencies across all of the centers in treating this disease.   

Charlie,

I agree with you,who cares if it's resectable or not.  If some one is stage III regardless of resectable status allow them to have the drugs.  Anyone who thinks just because a lymph node has been resected that all cancer cells are gone is simply naive.  It's all politics and $$.

Charlie,

I agree with you,who cares if it's resectable or not.  If some one is stage III regardless of resectable status allow them to have the drugs.  Anyone who thinks just because a lymph node has been resected that all cancer cells are gone is simply naive.  It's all politics and $$.

Charlie,

I agree with you,who cares if it's resectable or not.  If some one is stage III regardless of resectable status allow them to have the drugs.  Anyone who thinks just because a lymph node has been resected that all cancer cells are gone is simply naive.  It's all politics and $$.

Donna,

I think the FDA needs to get out of the way.  They should only approve or disapprove drugs.  From that point forward let the Dr and patient decided.  The FDA is in bed with Big pharma as well as the insurance companies, and it's obvious here that they wanted to appease them both, first by approving the drug (made BMS happy) and second limiting its use (made insurance companies happy)

Donna,

I think the FDA needs to get out of the way.  They should only approve or disapprove drugs.  From that point forward let the Dr and patient decided.  The FDA is in bed with Big pharma as well as the insurance companies, and it's obvious here that they wanted to appease them both, first by approving the drug (made BMS happy) and second limiting its use (made insurance companies happy)

Donna,

I think the FDA needs to get out of the way.  They should only approve or disapprove drugs.  From that point forward let the Dr and patient decided.  The FDA is in bed with Big pharma as well as the insurance companies, and it's obvious here that they wanted to appease them both, first by approving the drug (made BMS happy) and second limiting its use (made insurance companies happy)