Hi AJ, thanks for the comments. Both Rituxan and Y2B8 definitely attach to the same CD20 antigen and there are only so many of these antigens on the surfaces of a tumour accessible to the blood stream, so the Y2B9 will definitely be competing for space, looking for some spare antigens to hang on to. And therefore antagonistic, though I think 'antagonistic' in the context of drug cocktails doesn't have quite that meaning.
There is a lot more I don't know than do know, so perhaps somebody who has fewer vacancies available for tenancy can tell us.
I doubt that the Y2B8 protocol used would enter the realm of unethical because the patient would have first undergone the traditional treatments, which are no longer being effective, then they use the Rituxan treatment. Which is now traditional too, at least since last December. They are then offered the Y2B8 as an additional treatment still. I think quite ethically because it isn't taking anything that might help away from the person, but offering them something extra, which obviously does help, with relatively small additional hazards.
The hazards are large enough that innocent bystanders keep well clear of the radioactive Yttrium, just as they avoid contamination with cyclophosphamide, so it is not exactly benign.
For intermediate grade, ditch the Rituxan and go straight to Y2B8/Oncolym/TNT say I!
Regards,
Maurice |
