- Joined
- Oct 4, 2017
- Messages
- 5,017
- Reaction score
- 9,787
In the case of folfirinox, it has a OS benefit, which is almos never seen in rectal cance.NYT has no problem with more chemo
In the case of folfirinox, it has a OS benefit, which is almos never seen in rectal cance.NYT has no problem with more chemo
There are very few T4 or N2 rectal cancers.The way I see it, this trial may indeed have an impact.
It proves that in
a) well selected patients with not advanced tumors (not T4, not N2) and
b) those responding to neoadjuvant chemotherapy
RT can deferred.
What may happen now, is that medoncs will "forget" about a) and say...
We are going to do chemo-first, then "perhaps" RCT, depending on restaging.
This is not the most favorable sequence, as practiced in OPRA, but OPRA was merely a Phase-II.
Maybe in your neck of the woods, but not ours. N2 is very common.There are very few T4 or N2 rectal cancers.
It’s better than the German arm
Is anyone using this anymore?
Folfirinox is even more active than folfox. Even less of a need for xrt.
Nailed it. All of itMaybe in your neck of the woods, but not ours. N2 is very common.
Not really. The 2023 update of NCCN made TNT the preferred approach based on better tolerability and possibly improved survival. The old paradigm is dying out on the US.
Why do you see this as less need for CRT? It was not optional in the trial. Everyone who got FOLFIRINOX also got CRT. In my mind, this is where TNT will be going for high risk patients. We do a fair bit of this and the cCR is not off the charts. Meaning, it doesn’t melt tumors so dramatically we will suddenly treat with chemo only. Still have to do surgery and/or XRT and as we have all seen, in the US, the trend is to cut surgery. I personally don’t see this as a bad thing for us at all. Had the field been moving towards PROSPECT, we would be screwed. Fortunately, that is not how things are moving by and large.
Let’s say the quiet part out loud: watch and wait is a winner for more than just patients. Patients love the idea of not having surgery. Admins love the revenue stream of q4 month endoscopies and pelvic MRIs just as much. The net revenue of regularly scheduled outpatient procedures and imaging totally smokes a single surgery with admission. Do you think AS for prostate cancer would have been pushed and celebrated the way it was if patients just disappeared without a commitment for regular, billable procedures? I don’t.
The way I see it, this trial may indeed have an impact.
It proves that in
a) well selected patients with not advanced tumors (not T4, not N2) and
b) those responding to neoadjuvant chemotherapy
RT can deferred.
What may happen now, is that medoncs will "forget" about a) and say...
We are going to do chemo-first, then "perhaps" RCT, depending on restaging.
This is not the most favorable sequence, as practiced in OPRA, but OPRA was merely a Phase-II.
But that’s because you’re a thinking personAll our colorectal patients are presented at a multi-D tumor board our group runs. It will be very easy to say "neoadjuvant CRT remains the standard of care after PROSPECT due to a doubling of Grade 3 toxicity with the chemotherapy alone arm", as that is the truth. Pushing for an equivalent treatment which is twice as toxic doesn't make sense. I was not expecting this trial to be a win for radiation, but it most certainly is.
This unfortunately is truth. Everything I said about TNT assumes multiD or care driven by surgeons who believe in it.Folks like me that are not at an institution with a culture of multi D evaluation will see less rectal cancer since our referrals come from Med onc
This unfortunately is truth. Everything I said about TNT assumes multiD or care driven by surgeons who believe in it.
Even before this was presented I was seeing it first hand. My wife’s uncle had a T4N2 rectal cancer which was “emergently” resected by a general surgeon at a community hospital in central Florida. He’s only seen a med Onc who is giving chemo. Since his CEA responded so well (down to 5.3), he told him he doesn’t need radiation. I talked to they guy. His logic was that RT doesn’t improve survival. I pointed out that the only non TME trial (which is how he was managed) incidentally was the one that did. Jackass then brought up PROSPECT and refused to set up a consultation with a local rad onc. Let’s review: non-oncologic resection, T4N2b tumor. This is malpractice. Unfortunately, my wife’s uncle is going along with it because he’s fixated on getting back to working full time ASAP. For the first time in my life, I told someone (his wife) if she opts to bring forward a malpractice suit when it hits the fan, they can count me in as an expert witness.
It is a narrative we aren't going to be able to get rid of.Did you see the Times headline about brutal radiation ?
Not the lowest CEA. Is this after surgery? If so, agree this is a recurrence waiting to happen.Since his CEA responded so well (down to 5.3)
While NYT has been chasing down those brutal radiation effects, ASTRO was brutally attacking other rad oncs in private practice (Urorads), brutal in preventing rural or solo rad oncs the legal ability to take an hour or a day off work (supervision), brutal in attacking the workforce (hiding behind antitrust and doing fake workforce analyses and membership leaders glutting the market with too many trainees), and brutal in shamelessly supporting protons. Et tu, Brute?Oh, I agree that's unfortunately how it's going to go down in lots of places.
The NYT "brutal radiation" quote just adds yet another data point which shows how our academic leaders have completely failed in one of their most important tasks: Convincing the public that we have improved over the decades and can deliver effective cancer treatment without the side effects of days gone by. It's as if nothing has changed, because none of our leaders have been telling anyone that it has.
There’s a rectum damn near killed him joke in here somewhereNY Times stealth edited. "Brutal" not in latest version
This unfortunately is truth. Everything I said about TNT assumes multiD or care driven by surgeons who believe in it.
Even before this was presented I was seeing it first hand. My wife’s uncle had a T4N2 rectal cancer which was “emergently” resected by a general surgeon at a community hospital in central Florida. He’s only seen a med Onc who is giving chemo. Since his CEA responded so well (down to 5.3), he told him he doesn’t need radiation. I talked to they guy. His logic was that RT doesn’t improve survival. I pointed out that the only non TME trial (which is how he was managed) incidentally was the one that did. Jackass then brought up PROSPECT and refused to set up a consultation with a local rad onc. Let’s review: non-oncologic resection, T4N2b tumor. This is malpractice. Unfortunately, my wife’s uncle is going along with it because he’s fixated on getting back to working full time ASAP. For the first time in my life, I told someone (his wife) if she opts to bring forward a malpractice suit when it hits the fan, they can count me in as an expert witness.
wonder why
Data on their TTF NSCLC trial were presented at ASCO, and although positive, they didn’t persuade investors enough.wonder why
Someone pulling a Hudsucker Proxy?Data on their TTF NSCLC trial were presented at ASCO, and although positive, they didn’t persuade investors enough.
And here’s how much my NVIDIA is up since 7/10/17Damn, I took the wrong play on this one. A few months ago, the stock bounced on pending results then tapered down some. I went in and bought up a decent amount of shares hoping it would bounce again but alas here I am. I guess I still won’t be retiring anytime soon.
Why not ph3 in mesothelioma? They’re probably trying asbestos they canI really do not understand NOVOCURE. They have a positive Phase III GBM trial. Why couldn't they publish Phase III results on more stuff by now?
They did a single arm Phase II trial for TTF in mesothelioma, that was published in Lancet Oncology back in 2020.
Why couldn't they pull off a phase III trial in mesothelioma by now?
I really do not understand NOVOCURE. They have a positive Phase III GBM trial. Why couldn't they publish Phase III results on more stuff by now?
They did a single arm Phase II trial for TTF in mesothelioma, that was published in Lancet Oncology back in 2020.
Why couldn't they pull off a phase III trial in mesothelioma by now?
Apparently, they have a big Phase III trial on ovarian cancer, that may report soon. Actually, targetting ovarian cancer (like mesothelioma) makes more sense than NSCLC. Go for a disease that stays local/regional for a long time and will kill the patient due to that progression. Do not go for a metastatic disease, where control of the primary may not be the issue (like NSCLC).
Don't you typically start these novel treatments in metastatic patients then work your way up to more localized disease? That's a a pretty common phenomena in chemo/immuno too.I really do not understand NOVOCURE. They have a positive Phase III GBM trial. Why couldn't they publish Phase III results on more stuff by now?
They did a single arm Phase II trial for TTF in mesothelioma, that was published in Lancet Oncology back in 2020.
Why couldn't they pull off a phase III trial in mesothelioma by now?
Apparently, they have a big Phase III trial on ovarian cancer, that may report soon. Actually, targetting ovarian cancer (like mesothelioma) makes more sense than NSCLC. Go for a disease that stays local/regional for a long time and will kill the patient due to that progression. Do not go for a metastatic disease, where control of the primary may not be the issue (like NSCLC).
Of course you do. But the point is that TTF are a local/regional therapy.Don't you typically start these novel treatments in metastatic patients then work your way up to more localized disease? That's a a pretty common phenomena in chemo/immuno too.
but it did work...we treat the prostate in low volume metastatic disease with some good dataOf course you do. But the point is that TTF are a local/regional therapy.
This is not a systemic agent.
Which is why it may work in mesothelioma. Mesothelioma often kills the patients due to local/regional progression, so enhancing control in the thorax may increase survival. The same with ovarian cancer. It generally spreads in the peritoneum, so increasing control there and perhaps avoiding complications like intestinal obstruction may work.
But NSCLC? It spreads to multiple organs. TTFs on your thorax for the NSCLC that has already spread to the liver, bones, brain, will probably not work.
You don't believe the data? Have several multi year survivors on it now who swear by it. I think the problem was that the trial for NSCLC was an old design, mostly compared to people who failed chemo, not io, which is pretty much the standard nowTTF: Tumor Treatment Fraud
Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical..You don't believe the data? Have several multi year survivors on it now who swear by it. I think the problem was that the trial for NSCLC was an old design, mostly compared to people who failed chemo, not io, which is pretty much the standard now
The answer is obvious rt is brutal.Lots of academic radoncs weighing in on PROSPECT on The Bird now. Can someone please explain to me why no one- not a single academic GI radonc - is arguing that this trial supports the use of chemoRT rather than chemo alone? Outcomes were equivalent and the non-RT arm was more toxic: 2x grade 3 and 4x grade 4 toxicity. How is the conclusion "oh, we can now drop that terrible radiation, thank goodness"? How could anyone argue against the chemoRT arm with the data which was presented?
Someone please make it make sense.
Do you have the link where they discuss the toxicity differences, already hearing about this from some med oncs.Lots of academic radoncs weighing in on PROSPECT on The Bird now. Can someone please explain to me why no one- not a single academic GI radonc - is arguing that this trial supports the use of chemoRT rather than chemo alone? Outcomes were equivalent and the non-RT arm was more toxic: 2x grade 3 and 4x grade 4 toxicity. How is the conclusion "oh, we can now drop that terrible radiation, thank goodness"? How could anyone argue against the chemoRT arm with the data which was presented?
Someone please make it make sense.
This is where I found itDo you have the link where they discuss the toxicity differences, already hearing about this from some med oncs.
Nothing listed here
I sold off some of that after it sky rocketed.
toxicity is not a slam dunk for xrt.
The discussant, a radiation oncologist, actually had a very balanced discussion about the tradeoffs of increased acute toxicity with upfront FOLFOX vs. late toxicity with RT (and outback chemo)Lots of academic radoncs weighing in on PROSPECT on The Bird now. Can someone please explain to me why no one- not a single academic GI radonc - is arguing that this trial supports the use of chemoRT rather than chemo alone? Outcomes were equivalent and the non-RT arm was more toxic: 2x grade 3 and 4x grade 4 toxicity. How is the conclusion "oh, we can now drop that terrible radiation, thank goodness"? How could anyone argue against the chemoRT arm with the data which was presented?
Someone please make it make sense.
The fact that neuropathy is higher in the xrt arm makes the entire tox data suspect in my eyes as would indicate that not even oxali was "deescalated"toxicity is not a slam dunk for xrt.