Targeted drugs

Targeted drugs . Test identifies patients Targeted Cancer Drugs Benefit – should the Weisenthal Cancer Group announced that at the annual meeting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology , that a new laboratory test accurately accurately identifies patients published to benefit from the treatment with the molecularly targeted cancer therapies gefitinib and erlotinib . The new test, called EGFRxTM assay accurately predicted the survival of patients treated with targeted drugs. The finding is important because the EGFRxTM be applied to be applied to many emerging targeted cancer drugs could help the growing problem of the growing problem of which patients should costly, new therapies that may have harmful side effects and work to obtain solved for some but not all cancer patients who receive them.

According to Dr. Weisenthal, this may explain why EGFRx whole cell profiling is the only test to have to demonstrate a statistically significant association between prospectively reported test results and patient survival. By EGFRxTM assay and the whole cell profiling method, Weisenthal group correlated test results, tests his lab and reported to physicians prior to patient treatment, with significantly longer or shorter overall survival of the patients depending on whether the drug was found effective or ineffective at killing the patient’s tumor cells in the laboratory. Dr. Weisenthal patients prospectively identified as low candidates averaged 485 days quality of life following treatment with the targeted therapy drugs. In contrast, patients averaged as unfavorable candidates for the drugs identified 75 days survival after receiving the drugs. This compares to 76 days average survival time for patients identified as unfavorable candidates and who did not receive a targeted therapy drug. Survival among patients identified by Dr. Weisenthal as unfavorable candidates was therefore similar regardless of whether they received the targeted drugs. Comparing the whole cell profiling approach with other types of tests, Dr. Alone, but with says: In recent years, researchers have put enormous efforts into genetic profiling as a way to predict patient response to targeted therapies but no gene – based test as described may have different levels of anti-tumor activity between different occurring discriminate targeted therapy drugs. Nor can an available gene-based test identify situations where it is advantageous to combine a targeted drug with other types of cancer treatments. So far, only whole profiling demonstrated this critical skill. The reason is critically because there are a growing number of targeted therapies to choose from. Also, most patients are treated today, with a targeted with a targeted therapy drug alone, but with a combination of chemotherapy drugs. Therefore, the existing DNA and RNA tests do not manner way cancer medicine is actually practiced today. Month of treatment new targeted drugs have been introduced in recent years, and dozens more are on the horizon, these so-called. Smart drugs focus their effects on specific, identifiable processes within cancer cells, the new drugs are promising in that they sometimes use. For the patients, the traditional therapies have failed, however, it does not work for everyone, they often have undesirable side effects, and they are all very expensive. Some costs patients and insurers patients $ 5,000 to $ 7,000 or more per month of treatment, insurance carriers and the FDA are all calling for the discovery of predictive tests for efficient for rational and cost-effective use of these drugs. Weisenthal believes that his cell profiling approach, which he has already routinely used for a number of doctors nationwide for the key solution some of the problems, a health care system that are looking for ways to keep best allocate available resources, in the USAng the execution of the critical task of matching the individual patient benefit with the treatments most likely to benefit. This is not just an important predictive test that is available today, says Dr. Weisenthal, but it is also a unique tool that can help identify new and better drugs, evaluate promising drug combinations, and serve as a can of gold standard correlative model, the new DNA, RNA and protein-based tests that develop for for drug activity. .

Been the increase in the cases this year, especially to communities where vaccine absorption is less even in child travelers sites it was pointed out , but cases are currently encountered unprimed children at school age during the year it also little outbreaks. Outbreaks in primary and secondary the cases in returning All Others Ramsay added, me public credibility in which MMR remains left been which receptacle for receiving of their initial dose stably high level of however is also important to consider that children should be complete their full course of MMR vaccination. January to March 2007, receiving the MMR vaccine were 88 percent for the first dose, only 74 percent only 74 percent for the second dose. After first dose, from 5 percent and 10 percent of children do not oppose measles allow two doses of MMR have protect willingness a better protection. It is also important to point, it’s never too get vaccinated. .