› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Has anyone heard of this treatment?
- This topic has 27 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
arthurjedi007.
- Post
-
- September 14, 2014 at 3:36 pm
MC1371 Targeted Complex Therapy for Advanced Melanoma: Nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane)/Bevacizumab Complex (AB-Complex).
Basically my Mayo doc wants to try to get me into this if the pd1 does not stop the rest of my tumors from growing. Although pd1 via the first scan either stopped or shrank everything except for 5 tumors which 3 I'm having radiation done on. In a few weeks we will rescan.
So far what I've read about this stuff does not look like it is very affective on other cancers let alone melanoma. So I'm thinking my plan B should still be TIL but I thought I would ask. Maybe I'm missing something.
Thanks.
Artie
- Replies
-
-
- September 14, 2014 at 4:33 pm
Hey, Artie…
Short answer is no…not for melanoma. As you have probably already discovered- Nab-paclitaxel is simply paclitaxel bound to a protein, brand name = Abraxene. It is used in breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and in 2013 was also approved for use in pancreatic cancer. Side effects tend to be like those of old time chemo. Bevacizumab = Avastin. It is an angiogenesis inhibitor, meaning is slows the growth of new blood vessels with the theory that without blood supply, tumors will be starved and fail to grow. It is approved for use in colorectal, lung, breast, glioblastomas, kidney and ovarian tumors. It has caused, for reasons researchers do not completely understand, blood clots at times.
Soooo…Number 1!!!! I am going to expect continued good response from your anti-PD1!!! But, you are probably wise to be thinking ahead. Soooo….Number 2 – I think I'd continue to look at more options, like TIL, before I would necessarily jump on this particular treatment, unless others here or your doc can supply more convincing info about the treatment.
Yours, Celeste
-
- September 14, 2014 at 4:33 pm
Hey, Artie…
Short answer is no…not for melanoma. As you have probably already discovered- Nab-paclitaxel is simply paclitaxel bound to a protein, brand name = Abraxene. It is used in breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and in 2013 was also approved for use in pancreatic cancer. Side effects tend to be like those of old time chemo. Bevacizumab = Avastin. It is an angiogenesis inhibitor, meaning is slows the growth of new blood vessels with the theory that without blood supply, tumors will be starved and fail to grow. It is approved for use in colorectal, lung, breast, glioblastomas, kidney and ovarian tumors. It has caused, for reasons researchers do not completely understand, blood clots at times.
Soooo…Number 1!!!! I am going to expect continued good response from your anti-PD1!!! But, you are probably wise to be thinking ahead. Soooo….Number 2 – I think I'd continue to look at more options, like TIL, before I would necessarily jump on this particular treatment, unless others here or your doc can supply more convincing info about the treatment.
Yours, Celeste
-
- September 14, 2014 at 4:33 pm
Hey, Artie…
Short answer is no…not for melanoma. As you have probably already discovered- Nab-paclitaxel is simply paclitaxel bound to a protein, brand name = Abraxene. It is used in breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and in 2013 was also approved for use in pancreatic cancer. Side effects tend to be like those of old time chemo. Bevacizumab = Avastin. It is an angiogenesis inhibitor, meaning is slows the growth of new blood vessels with the theory that without blood supply, tumors will be starved and fail to grow. It is approved for use in colorectal, lung, breast, glioblastomas, kidney and ovarian tumors. It has caused, for reasons researchers do not completely understand, blood clots at times.
Soooo…Number 1!!!! I am going to expect continued good response from your anti-PD1!!! But, you are probably wise to be thinking ahead. Soooo….Number 2 – I think I'd continue to look at more options, like TIL, before I would necessarily jump on this particular treatment, unless others here or your doc can supply more convincing info about the treatment.
Yours, Celeste
-
- September 14, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Thank you so much Celeste. You are a life saver. It totally baffles me why my Mayo doc is thinking this treatment plus scans so soon after radiation so as we know those spots will just be blobs. Maybe he was having a hectic day and wasn't thinking straight. Thanks again.
Artie
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:02 pm
I do think that your scans were done really early after your radiation! I still think there will be a great improvement on the next set. I know of one melanoma patient who did this combo a couple of years ago…she had sort-of run out of options and so she tried it. There has been a very small group of melanoma patients who have tried it…some with a very small positive effect. I would still ask the doc for more info….perhaps he knows something more and better about it.
Plus…all fingers and toes remain crossed for continued good results from the anti-PD1, now combined with your radiation treatments!!!
Hang in there and keep us posted!! Love, C
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:02 pm
I do think that your scans were done really early after your radiation! I still think there will be a great improvement on the next set. I know of one melanoma patient who did this combo a couple of years ago…she had sort-of run out of options and so she tried it. There has been a very small group of melanoma patients who have tried it…some with a very small positive effect. I would still ask the doc for more info….perhaps he knows something more and better about it.
Plus…all fingers and toes remain crossed for continued good results from the anti-PD1, now combined with your radiation treatments!!!
Hang in there and keep us posted!! Love, C
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:02 pm
I do think that your scans were done really early after your radiation! I still think there will be a great improvement on the next set. I know of one melanoma patient who did this combo a couple of years ago…she had sort-of run out of options and so she tried it. There has been a very small group of melanoma patients who have tried it…some with a very small positive effect. I would still ask the doc for more info….perhaps he knows something more and better about it.
Plus…all fingers and toes remain crossed for continued good results from the anti-PD1, now combined with your radiation treatments!!!
Hang in there and keep us posted!! Love, C
-
- September 14, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Thank you so much Celeste. You are a life saver. It totally baffles me why my Mayo doc is thinking this treatment plus scans so soon after radiation so as we know those spots will just be blobs. Maybe he was having a hectic day and wasn't thinking straight. Thanks again.
Artie
-
- September 14, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Thank you so much Celeste. You are a life saver. It totally baffles me why my Mayo doc is thinking this treatment plus scans so soon after radiation so as we know those spots will just be blobs. Maybe he was having a hectic day and wasn't thinking straight. Thanks again.
Artie
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:03 pm
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:29 pm
On the other hand….this report from 2012 doesn't impress me much…though, importantly…this is using only abraxane…..http://www.empr.com/phase-3-trial-update-of-abraxane-for-advanced-melanoma/article/265319/
"Abraxane showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared to patients receiving dacarbazine chemotherapy (4.8 vs. 2.5 months). An interim analysis of OS shows a trend in favor of the Abraxane arm compared to treatment with dacarbazine (12.8 and 10.7 months)."
But….some of Kyle's data is worth a bigger discussion with your doc.
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:55 pm
Dear Artie Here is a link to a recent Conference presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS1vhR5qgxs. The data shows the drug to be statistically better than dacarbazine. There are some numbers comparing it to IPi and Braf inhibitors. The issue is that "statistically significant" may not translate into meaningful real world significance. Also this does not address adding the angiogenisis inhibitor into the mix.
-
- September 15, 2014 at 3:35 pm
Thanks Brent. Makes me glad I have melanoma rather than pancreatic. Those poor people 🙁 I met one at my radiation treatment last Thursday. He's 88 years old. A very tough good attitude guy.
So for me I'm hoping for great stuff with this pd1 I'm on and radiation I'm doing.
Artie
-
- September 15, 2014 at 3:35 pm
Thanks Brent. Makes me glad I have melanoma rather than pancreatic. Those poor people 🙁 I met one at my radiation treatment last Thursday. He's 88 years old. A very tough good attitude guy.
So for me I'm hoping for great stuff with this pd1 I'm on and radiation I'm doing.
Artie
-
- September 15, 2014 at 3:35 pm
Thanks Brent. Makes me glad I have melanoma rather than pancreatic. Those poor people 🙁 I met one at my radiation treatment last Thursday. He's 88 years old. A very tough good attitude guy.
So for me I'm hoping for great stuff with this pd1 I'm on and radiation I'm doing.
Artie
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:55 pm
Dear Artie Here is a link to a recent Conference presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS1vhR5qgxs. The data shows the drug to be statistically better than dacarbazine. There are some numbers comparing it to IPi and Braf inhibitors. The issue is that "statistically significant" may not translate into meaningful real world significance. Also this does not address adding the angiogenisis inhibitor into the mix.
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:55 pm
Dear Artie Here is a link to a recent Conference presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS1vhR5qgxs. The data shows the drug to be statistically better than dacarbazine. There are some numbers comparing it to IPi and Braf inhibitors. The issue is that "statistically significant" may not translate into meaningful real world significance. Also this does not address adding the angiogenisis inhibitor into the mix.
-
- September 15, 2014 at 3:31 pm
Thanks Kyle. Lots of info. It's good there are options and this one can have some benefit. I think I'll put it in the group of Plan Ds for now.
Artie
-
- September 15, 2014 at 3:31 pm
Thanks Kyle. Lots of info. It's good there are options and this one can have some benefit. I think I'll put it in the group of Plan Ds for now.
Artie
-
- September 15, 2014 at 3:31 pm
Thanks Kyle. Lots of info. It's good there are options and this one can have some benefit. I think I'll put it in the group of Plan Ds for now.
Artie
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:29 pm
On the other hand….this report from 2012 doesn't impress me much…though, importantly…this is using only abraxane…..http://www.empr.com/phase-3-trial-update-of-abraxane-for-advanced-melanoma/article/265319/
"Abraxane showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared to patients receiving dacarbazine chemotherapy (4.8 vs. 2.5 months). An interim analysis of OS shows a trend in favor of the Abraxane arm compared to treatment with dacarbazine (12.8 and 10.7 months)."
But….some of Kyle's data is worth a bigger discussion with your doc.
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:29 pm
On the other hand….this report from 2012 doesn't impress me much…though, importantly…this is using only abraxane…..http://www.empr.com/phase-3-trial-update-of-abraxane-for-advanced-melanoma/article/265319/
"Abraxane showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared to patients receiving dacarbazine chemotherapy (4.8 vs. 2.5 months). An interim analysis of OS shows a trend in favor of the Abraxane arm compared to treatment with dacarbazine (12.8 and 10.7 months)."
But….some of Kyle's data is worth a bigger discussion with your doc.
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:03 pm
-
- September 14, 2014 at 9:03 pm
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.