SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (7276)12/11/1999 12:37:00 AM
From: Vector1  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9719
 
Thanks PB. As usual thought provoking. A typical Fludarabine protocol in NHL is 6 cycles. In the Bex trial they only used 3 cycles. I beleive the reason for the fewer fludarabie treatments is avoid the side effects of the longer treatment. In additon to its potential super addative interaction with Bex, Fludarabine is designed to debulk the tumors and reduce HAMA. Because Bex is so potent on its own CLTR is able to go with Fludabine light. Gordon make the point a few posts back that unlike CHOP Fludarabine typically does not result in hair loss. The psychological benefit of a patient being able to avoid the loss of their hair should not be underestimated.
V1



To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (7276)12/11/1999 1:25:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9719
 
>> one can imagine some problems due to the above if the two agents did get to coexist <<

Ah! So, the "long duration of effect", where B cells are wiped out for months, comes a haunting.

Makes sense.

We still need to know why bex gives those late responses. Any updates on the rationale that Peter suggested, based on C2B8 residency?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News