The results on extended use of Gleevec appear to be very good. At the last Hematology meeting, the 6 year data from the IRIS trial was presented and it showed the risk of progressing to Accelerated or Blast phase was Zero (0%) in the 6th year.
I'll have to go back and look, and maybe Anjana can jump in, but I think the results for people showing signs of resistance was also lower (year 6) than the years before. I think the general consensus was that most problems with Gleevec would show up in the first 2-3 years of starting treatment. In the case of the choice to take more Gleevec or switch to Sprycel, I believe a number of factors would need to be considered. Particularly mutations where one common mutation (M351) is known to be able to respond to higher doses of Gleevec, and a few mutations are now known to induce some level of resistance to Sprycel (T315I, F317L). I beleive from what I have heard that many Oncologists see no harm to trying the increased dose of Gleevec with the exception if the patient had never had any cytogenetic reduction to Gleevec or had limited response on 600 mg. From the study that Anjana noted, I think the data can be summarized as: After 12 weeks of therapy, 75 % of people on Gleevec at 800 mg switched to Sprycel. Of those who switched, 25% did so because they could not tolerate the higher dose, 25% switched due to increasing Ph+ cells, and the rest because of no significant change in the Ph+ cells. Of those that switched, about half showed some improvement in the number of Ph+ cells. On Feb 4, 11:26 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Anjana and thanks so much. > I figured that might be the case. > I'm hoping for good results also. > Is there a trend of a 4 or 5 year mark on the taking of Gleevec, where > patients are losing their negative status? I've noticed such a trend on our > list? > The question is? Whether to take more Gleevec or switch to Sprycel? > Blessings, > Jeanie<3 > In a message dated 2/4/2008 12:53:28 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Dear Jeanie, > > FISH from the blood is seen most of the time to have lower values > than FISH from the marrow. There are studies on that. Marrow FISH is > more reliable than peripheral blood FISH. > > My husband has 4 vials of blood taken for quantitative PCR. The > more the volume of the blood, the greater is the accuracy of the PCR > experiment as then less chance of false negatives due to RNA > degradation. > > Hoping for good results for you, Jeanie. > > Warm Wishes, > Anjana > > **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. > (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0... > 48) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ [CMLHope] A support group of http://cmlhope.com ------------------------------------------------- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CMLHope" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CMLHope -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
