such nonsense here

[Anonymous]

You have obviously either not read the paper or are being deliberately misleading. Most of your post is not at all what the paper says. They explain why IMPACT patients should have lived much LONGER than those other trials.

Tomorrow morning when the late-breaking ASCO abstracts are released we will all see what the survival of minimally symptomatic/asymptomatic patients SHOULD be....

IMPACT so-called "placebo" = 21.7 months .... Zytiga placebo = 27 months? 29 months?

Will that convince you?

Those numbers will be very different than placebo in any other study.

If I recall, the "Zytiga placebo" still involves doses of prednisone. That would mean pred is a lot more effective than a sugar pill.

 

[Anonymous]

You have obviously either not read the paper or are being deliberately misleading. Most of your post is not at all what the paper says. They explain why IMPACT patients should have lived much LONGER than those other trials.

Tomorrow morning when the late-breaking ASCO abstracts are released we will all see what the survival of minimally symptomatic/asymptomatic patients SHOULD be....

IMPACT so-called "placebo" = 21.7 months .... Zytiga placebo = 27 months? 29 months?

Will that convince you?

Yes, Huber "explains" the IMPACT results, but it's silly since they claim an massive assault to the immune system owing to extracting 2% of the cells. This "theory" was proposed by someone else (who they don't even reference) and dismissed as silly.

I've gone thru the abstracts, nothing like what you claim. Indeed, the Zytiga abstracts all seem rather negative just showing what populations see no benefit.

 

[Anonymous]

Those numbers will be very different than placebo in any other study.

If I recall, the "Zytiga placebo" still involves doses of prednisone. That would mean pred is a lot more effective than a sugar pill.

For good reason - these were *asymptomatic* patients (mostly) versus all the "other studies" you're referring to, which enrolled much sicker patients. Look at the GVAX study: patients had an HPS of 16 months, vs 21.2 months for IMPACT placebos...... yet both groups lived 21.7 months. What happened to the 5.2 month survival advantage IMPACT patients were supposed to have?

IMPACT enrolled the healthiest population that had ever been enrolled in a CRPC study. Of course the placebo group should have lived longer than previous studies. The study of Zytiga in asymptomatic (+minimally symptomatic) patients will be the first comparable population for which we will see what a *true* placebo median survival should be...... even though the patients were not as healthy as those in IMPACT, I predict their survival will be many months longer than IMPACT, and provide yet more evidence that the so-called "placebo" in IMPACT was harmful...... and I also predict their survival will be longer than the Provenge group.... which is exactly what the Huber paper suggests if you read it carefully.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, Huber "explains" the IMPACT results, but it's silly since they claim an massive assault to the immune system owing to extracting 2% of the cells. This "theory" was proposed by someone else (who they don't even reference) and dismissed as silly.

i'm 99% sure it was Ms Huber that wrote the letter you're referring to that was sent to Medicare during their request for public comments in 2010. It wasn't dismissed as silly, it was deflected with misleading counter-arguments.

Like this.... At the Medicare public meeting, Dr Petrylak said that the placebo couldn't have been harmful, because the placebo patients lived exactly the same length of time as the placebo patients from the GVAX study. What he failed to mention, was that the IMPACT patients were predicted to live over 5 months longer than the GVAX patients. There was obviously something VERY wrong with the IMPACT "placebo" treatment.

At the same meeting, Frohlich said something about lymphocyte numbers that was just as misleading as Petrylak, since lymphocytes aren't free to move around the body at will, rendering his point irrelevant (though the defenders love to spout it).

I've gone thru the abstracts, nothing like what you claim. Indeed, the Zytiga abstracts all seem rather negative just showing what populations see no benefit.

It's not out yet. like i said, it's a LATE BREAKER - out tomorrow morning. Zytiga PhIII in pre-chemo CRPC.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not out yet. like i said, it's a LATE BREAKER - out tomorrow morning. Zytiga PhIII in pre-chemo CRPC.

Once again, a cafe pharma poster totally got it right. This really could be the end of DNDN.

"Johnson & Johnson's(JNJ_) Zytiga improved survival in "pre-chemo" prostate cancer patients by 33% and more than doubled the time before cancer worsened compared to control, according to results from a phase III study to be presented today at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.

The strong Zytiga results are expected to have positive spillover effects for Medivation(MDVN_), which is developing its own prostate cancer pill MDV3100 that is similar -- and perhaps superior to -- Zytiga.

Both Zytiga and MDV3100 work similarly by interfering with the way prostate cancer cells feed from testosterone produced in the body.

Dendreon(DNDN_), however, may emerge from this year's ASCO meeting with a limp. Based on today's Zytiga results, the pill could steal prostate cancer patients away from its Provenge immunotherapy"

 

[Anonymous]

"The new data pose a threat to Dendreon, maker of the prostate cancer treatment Provenge, but could be a positive for another prostate cancer pill being developed by Medivation, because it may bode well for success in that company’s ongoing clinical trials.

In a note to clients on May 24, S.G. Cowen analyst Eric Schmidt reported on a conference call with two prostate cancer doctors. They gave the most praise to Medivation’s drug, enzalutamide, and were already comfortable giving Zytiga to patients in the pre-chemotherapy setting tested in this trial, with insurance coverage being the main barrier to its use. Cowen said the doctors viewed Provenge’s profile as “ho-hum” and patient interest as “lacking.”