- This topic is empty.
September 24, 2013 at 11:17 am #21592
Join us Friday to hear the latest on combination therapies for melanoma with Jeff Infante, Director of Research at Sarah Cannon Cancer Research Institute, http://sarahcannonresearch.com/physicians/profile/Dr-Jeffrey-R-Infante-MD
Questions for Dr. Infante should be sent to me:
firstname.lastname@example.org! The webinar is at 2:30.EST. Register here: https://melanomainternational.webex.com/mw0307l/mywebex/default.do?nomenu=true&siteurl=melanomainternational&service=6&rnd=0.40157832448777797&main_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmelanomainternational.webex.com%2Fec0606l%2Feventcenter%2Fevent%2FeventAction.do%3FtheAction%3Ddetail%26confViewID%3D1004393478%26%26%26%26siteurl%3DmelanomainternationalSeptember 24, 2013 at 11:30 pm #62575benpParticipant Thank you Catherine!September 25, 2013 at 1:06 pm #62576 Our pleasure! please note that we can’t guarantee the services of Cisco as they let us down before in recording for archive. We’ve tried many companies and there is no really good choice out there.September 25, 2013 at 7:46 pm #62577rochelleParticipant Catherine,
If Cisco fails…is it possible to find these webinars on youtube? I have found a couple of Dr. Wolchok’s webinars posted there..
MarthaSeptember 25, 2013 at 11:13 pm #62578
No, because they are the ones recording it. We will however put it on UTUBE if they don’t mess it up again. All of our webinars are on UTube now.September 27, 2013 at 7:12 pm #62579MathewRParticipant Thanks Catherine–very informative webinar.September 27, 2013 at 9:18 pm #62580BNP68Participant I only got to catch about the last 20 minutes but it seemed great Catherine. Sure hope Cisco comes through so I can watch the rest of it. Thanks for putting it together.
BrianSeptember 28, 2013 at 12:31 pm #62581
All looks good on the audio side. Some of the animation didn’t work because of Cisco, but we should have it up on this site and utube soon. I thought the takeaways from it, were my hunch as well for now: if you have aggressively growing melanoma and are Braf positive, go for the GSK approved braf/mek combo. The combo of ipi and Pd1 looks like a really promising match for response! The more we move along by enrolling in trials the quicker these can get approved. Thanks to all of you who participate!September 29, 2013 at 6:03 pm #62582 This is now archived on our website: http://melanomainternational.org/webinar/2013/09/ipilimumabpd1-combination/#.UkhqpGbD92sSeptember 30, 2013 at 3:28 am #62583SulaParticipant Thank you! — a much-appreciated summary
-UrsulaOctober 1, 2013 at 5:01 pm #62584JonathanParticipant
Hi I just had a chat with Dr. Infante (I’m on a drug trial with him – report elsewhere today). I asked him to clarify/expand on the interaction of Ipi and anti-PD1 (the webinar suggested that Ipi/anti-PD! combo was as good as both added together – no synergy, but also neither interfered with the other – suggesting independent effects). He also said the preliminary results for Merck anti-PD1 suggest that for prior Ipi patients, there is no lessening (or improvement) of the response rate – again suggesting independent effects (as I think about it, that’s good news for Merck – the BMS controlled combo doesn’t appear to be necessarily a great improvement over the potential serial treatment). So of course, it would be nice if there were a great advantage to the combo, but at least there’s no apparent redundancy in the Ipi/anti-P1 effects. So taking one won’t affect the potential reaction to the other.
JonathanOctober 1, 2013 at 7:35 pm #62585AnonymousGuest
I’m really glad to see you’re doing well and the ADC trial is working for you! I always look forward to reading your postings.
Some interesting comments by Dr. Infante that IPI and PD1 don’t antagonize each other but are also not synergistic when used in combination.
Or are they when taken in the context of the combination being a single “treatment”?
The results presented earlier in April of the IPI/PD1 BMS combo showed in excess of a 50% response rate (some with a rapid and deep response) with ~20% being complete responses for that population. From what I recall, a “response” was a reduction in tumor size and/or number of 50% or more. I don’t recall what the ORR was (which includes tumor reductions of less than 50% or other partial responses)but that early result was impressive to say the least.
Now there is the impression that the PD1 response rate is independant of whether or not a population was given IPI some time prior to the PD1 (the one trial I was trying to get Rachel into was a 4-12 week window). Hmmmm. Ok, that does indeed suggest independant pathways into the disease. But, at the end of the day, was the response rate averaged out for that sequential population still ~50% or something less than that? There would be other questions as well when it comes to depth and durability of the responses for combination dosing versus independant dosing .
So what I’m saying is that even though the response rate of the combination of IPI/PD1 is not different than the addition of response rates for the individual therapies, they may be still enhancing each other when working in combination. The current studies should reveal this clearly with time.
I’m soooo glad we can engage in this type of results based discussion today. Five years ago the subject was not even possible.
- The forum ‘Melanoma Diagnosis: Stage IV’ is closed to new topics and replies.