› Forums › General Melanoma Community › GSK BRAF with randomized MEK trial—then what?
- This topic has 31 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
john partrick michael murphy.
- Post
-
- September 7, 2011 at 7:37 pm
My husband has been on this trial at UCSF for 26 weeks now. His tumors have been reduced by over 74% and have gone from a total of over 15 cm to slightly over 3 cm. He has had 3 PET scans, and there has been improvement each time, although it has been less dramatic each time.
My husband has been on this trial at UCSF for 26 weeks now. His tumors have been reduced by over 74% and have gone from a total of over 15 cm to slightly over 3 cm. He has had 3 PET scans, and there has been improvement each time, although it has been less dramatic each time.
Although I am thrilled, I am concerned about all of the comments that this treatment causes only temporary results. What is the plan b? When do we know that it is time to pursue another course of action? Is the BRAF/MEK treatment always just temporary? Since 77% of the patients from the Roche trials are still living, how do we know this to be true?
Thanks for any insight or advice.
Deborah
- Replies
-
-
- September 7, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Hi Deborah,
I am a newbie. It is so great to hear your husband has such a great response on BRAF/MEK
I am very interested in this Braf/MEK trial.
1. Is the trial your hubsand on GSK or Roche sponsored?
2. If possible, do you know the NCT clinical trial number?
I live in southern california & would be willing to travel to UCSF.
3. If possible, would you give me a contact number at UCSF for this trial.
God Bless you & your husband.
Thank you for responding to my questions.
Dave
-
- September 7, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Hi Deborah,
I am a newbie. It is so great to hear your husband has such a great response on BRAF/MEK
I am very interested in this Braf/MEK trial.
1. Is the trial your hubsand on GSK or Roche sponsored?
2. If possible, do you know the NCT clinical trial number?
I live in southern california & would be willing to travel to UCSF.
3. If possible, would you give me a contact number at UCSF for this trial.
God Bless you & your husband.
Thank you for responding to my questions.
Dave
-
- September 7, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Dave,
The trial no. is NCT01072175. It is sponsored by GSK and they are still recruiting. According to the info on the gov. site, the trial is being conducted in several places, including Southern Ca.
Here's a link to the info in clinicaltrials.gov
Let me know if there's any other informaiton that I can provide.
Deborah
-
- September 7, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Dave,
The trial no. is NCT01072175. It is sponsored by GSK and they are still recruiting. According to the info on the gov. site, the trial is being conducted in several places, including Southern Ca.
Here's a link to the info in clinicaltrials.gov
Let me know if there's any other informaiton that I can provide.
Deborah
-
- September 7, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Hi,
Thank you so much for the info.I called the site in Los Angles and they are NOT recruiting for melanoma patients anymore. They are recruiting for other types of cancer.
Do you know if UCSF is still recruiting for melanoma patients. I cannot find a number to call UCSF. Would you have a contact number for UCSF.
Thanks,
Dave
-
- September 7, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Hi,
Thank you so much for the info.I called the site in Los Angles and they are NOT recruiting for melanoma patients anymore. They are recruiting for other types of cancer.
Do you know if UCSF is still recruiting for melanoma patients. I cannot find a number to call UCSF. Would you have a contact number for UCSF.
Thanks,
Dave
-
- September 7, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Andrea Kantor
Clinical Research Coordinator
Cutaneous Oncology Program
UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
Investigational Trials Resource
Room A736| Box 1297
415.885.3855 /phone
415.514.6969 /fax
try this, and good luck.
-
- September 7, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Andrea Kantor
Clinical Research Coordinator
Cutaneous Oncology Program
UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
Investigational Trials Resource
Room A736| Box 1297
415.885.3855 /phone
415.514.6969 /fax
try this, and good luck.
-
- November 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Hi All,
My wife is considering entering this trial, I believe it's a newer version of GSK BRAF with MEK.
We have some reservations re side effects and effectiveness, given there is no defined time and
It would reassure us if we knew there are people out there taking this for well over a year or two with good effects.
Believing we will overcome this.
Regards
Peter
-
- November 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Hi All,
My wife is considering entering this trial, I believe it's a newer version of GSK BRAF with MEK.
We have some reservations re side effects and effectiveness, given there is no defined time and
It would reassure us if we knew there are people out there taking this for well over a year or two with good effects.
Believing we will overcome this.
Regards
Peter
-
- November 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Hi All,
My wife is considering entering this trial, I believe it's a newer version of GSK BRAF with MEK.
We have some reservations re side effects and effectiveness, given there is no defined time and
It would reassure us if we knew there are people out there taking this for well over a year or two with good effects.
Believing we will overcome this.
Regards
Peter
-
- September 8, 2011 at 12:14 am
The reports seldom give the maximum effective time for the BRAF treatments. This is because some of the early trial patients are still reponding., not a majority, but some. They are not at a pointthat they can say that ALL will ultimately relapse. Time will tell and maybe by that tiime they will have blocked the secondary paths (MEK may extend the % of people over the current % that have longer term results than the Median from the early studies. Never say always withanything about Melanoma! Good luck, prayinf for you and your husband.
-
- September 8, 2011 at 12:14 am
The reports seldom give the maximum effective time for the BRAF treatments. This is because some of the early trial patients are still reponding., not a majority, but some. They are not at a pointthat they can say that ALL will ultimately relapse. Time will tell and maybe by that tiime they will have blocked the secondary paths (MEK may extend the % of people over the current % that have longer term results than the Median from the early studies. Never say always withanything about Melanoma! Good luck, prayinf for you and your husband.
-
- March 16, 2012 at 10:10 pm
I have heard that some have made the two year mark. I am just finishing month 15, and doing well. New scans in March 19, 2012 so one never should be too confident much less cocky about it. I have not become NED but those suckers in my lungs sure shrunk. I had a bout with EN (eruythema nodostum) which was just a lot of lumps and bumps on my legs. some had to drop out for the side affects, and others had the tumors start to grow again. -
- March 16, 2012 at 10:10 pm
I have heard that some have made the two year mark. I am just finishing month 15, and doing well. New scans in March 19, 2012 so one never should be too confident much less cocky about it. I have not become NED but those suckers in my lungs sure shrunk. I had a bout with EN (eruythema nodostum) which was just a lot of lumps and bumps on my legs. some had to drop out for the side affects, and others had the tumors start to grow again. -
- March 16, 2012 at 10:10 pm
I have heard that some have made the two year mark. I am just finishing month 15, and doing well. New scans in March 19, 2012 so one never should be too confident much less cocky about it. I have not become NED but those suckers in my lungs sure shrunk. I had a bout with EN (eruythema nodostum) which was just a lot of lumps and bumps on my legs. some had to drop out for the side affects, and others had the tumors start to grow again.
-
- November 17, 2011 at 3:15 am
My husband has been on this trial (GSK BRAF with randomized MEK) for over eight months now. As of the last PET scan three weeks ago, his tumors had decreased in size by 81.7%. Basically, there's very little left. He is doing so well that he was given permission to go ahead with knee replacement surgery. As far as we've heard, people are responding well to this treatment with few side effects. There was a recent article in the SF Chronicle about a women in my husband's study who has been in the trial for 9 months and has had tumor reduction of 85%. I think I'm just going to stop thinking about the other shoe dropping, because, for now, things are great.
Deborah
-
- November 17, 2011 at 3:15 am
My husband has been on this trial (GSK BRAF with randomized MEK) for over eight months now. As of the last PET scan three weeks ago, his tumors had decreased in size by 81.7%. Basically, there's very little left. He is doing so well that he was given permission to go ahead with knee replacement surgery. As far as we've heard, people are responding well to this treatment with few side effects. There was a recent article in the SF Chronicle about a women in my husband's study who has been in the trial for 9 months and has had tumor reduction of 85%. I think I'm just going to stop thinking about the other shoe dropping, because, for now, things are great.
Deborah
-
- November 17, 2011 at 3:15 am
My husband has been on this trial (GSK BRAF with randomized MEK) for over eight months now. As of the last PET scan three weeks ago, his tumors had decreased in size by 81.7%. Basically, there's very little left. He is doing so well that he was given permission to go ahead with knee replacement surgery. As far as we've heard, people are responding well to this treatment with few side effects. There was a recent article in the SF Chronicle about a women in my husband's study who has been in the trial for 9 months and has had tumor reduction of 85%. I think I'm just going to stop thinking about the other shoe dropping, because, for now, things are great.
Deborah
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.