Skip to main content

27 replies

For Melanoma Patients

italianwinoitalianwinoMember
Here is a synopsis of an article that appeared in the WSJ this week. It was originally in the Archives of Internal Medicine. If I was a melanoma patient I would be talking to my oncologist about this.

Treatment With β-Blockers and Reduced Disease Progression in Patients With Thick Melanoma
Vincenzo De Giorgi, MD; Marta Grazzini, MD; Sara Gandini, PhD; Silvia Benemei, MD; Torello Lotti, MD; Niccolò Marchionni, MD; Pierangelo Geppetti, MD


Preclinical evidence shows that β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers) inhibit tumor and metastasis progression in animal models of melanoma. We hypothesized that the use of β-blockers for concomitant diseases is associated with a reduced risk of progression of thick (Breslow thickness >1 mm) malignant melanoma. Two patient subgroups were identified from the medical records of 121 consecutive patients with a thick melanoma. Of these, 30 patients had been prescribed β-blockers for 1 year or more (treated subgroup), whereas the other 91 were untreated. After a median follow-up time of 2.5 years, tumor progression was observed in 3.3% of the treated subgroup and in 34.1% of the untreated subgroup. The Cox model on progression indicated a 36% (95% confidence interval, 11%-54%) (P = .002) risk reduction for each year of β-blocker use. No deaths were observed in the treated group, whereas in the untreated group 24 patients died. To our knowledge, the present study suggests for the first time that exposure to β-blockers for 1 year or more is associated with a reduced risk of progression of thick malignant melanoma, indicating the need for larger epidemiological studies and randomized clinical trials.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

M mrcabernetMember
quote:
Originally posted by Italian Wino:
Java,

Good point. If there was a social info category I would have put it there. I just wanted to share some important info.

I not sure why this is important. It was "preclinical", there were only 120 subjects, of which only 25% were given the drug. Are people with "thick (Breslow thickness >1 mm) malignant melanoma" to ask their doctor for the drug based on this report? What are the side effects etc.?
M mrcabernetMember
quote:
Originally posted by Italian Wino:
It would not have been in the Archives of Internal Medicine if it was "not important". This is one of the most respectable medical journals out there. Simply put if this extends ONE life because I shared the info then that will be good enough for me.

What if the unspecified side effects, or drug interactions, kill 2 people? Still good enough for you? Remember Thalidomide seemed like a good idea for headaches--this study seem way too preliminary to be touting it.

BTW Board-O, I didn't jump on the poster, just the post. There was no ad hominem attack.
Last edited by mrcabernet
G grossieMember
Very interesting indeed, IW. My guess is that there will be a larger controlled study based on these findings in the very near future. If I had melanoma I'd certainly be interested in talking to my doc about beta blockers, which are well understood drugs that have been around for a long time, commonly used to treat heart problems, blood pressure, and even migraines.

I too don't see the wine connection with this article but I do appreciate you posting it.
K khmark7Member
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:
quote:
Originally posted by Italian Wino:
It would not have been in the Archives of Internal Medicine if it was "not important". This is one of the most respectable medical journals out there. Simply put if this extends ONE life because I shared the info then that will be good enough for me.

What if the unspecified side effects, or drug interactions, kill 2 people? Still good enough for you? Remember Thalidomide seemed like a good idea for headaches--this study seem way too preliminary to be touting it.

BTW Board-O, I didn't jump on the poster, just the post. There was no ad hominem attack.


beta blockers have been around for forever, and have been proven safe (unlike thalidomide, which is still used today for certain things). Mr. Cab, I'm not sure what you do for a living, so could you plese share your level of expertise in this subject so we may critique your counter argument?

Also, Thalidomide wasn't used for headaches....ever.
M mrcabernetMember
quote:
Originally posted by khmark7:
beta blockers have been around for forever, and have been proven safe (unlike thalidomide, which is still used today for certain things). Mr. Cab, I'm not sure what you do for a living, so could you plese share your level of expertise in this subject so we may critique your counter argument?

Also, Thalidomide wasn't used for headaches....ever.

With a little research you can find many quotes like this one. Search Thalidomide & headache or migraine and see what you get:

quote:
Thalidomide, launched by Grünenthal on 1 October 1957, was found to act as an effective tranquilizer and painkiller and was proclaimed a "wonder drug" for insomnia, coughs, colds and headaches.


In regard to studies of beta blockers--yes, they are safe, but has their safety been studied in conjunction with the unspecified dose in the quoted article along with other cancer treatments? Probably yes, but who knows from a minimal "pre-clinical" study?

Qualifications: well-read, logical thinking person. I hope that in our world non-experts can raise questions. No one has refuted what I've said, just attacked me (once for attacking the OP which I never did) or made the general "if it saves one life" argument. Again my main argument is that this was a minimal trial and I believe that scientists (or those that understand science) would say it's too early to make prescribing recommendations. As was said--ask your doctor. Now at this point I would request that someone present a counter-argument and not an attack, or fold your tent.

As I've said in the past, I'm the only person I'm aware of on this forum that admits when he's wrong, and I'm certainly prepared to do it again.
Last edited by mrcabernet
K khmark7Member
Mr. Cab, the study is simple and just suggesting that more research is needed, and perhaps in a larger study that there might be benefits. I don't believe that IW works in the industry, so he isn't going to be critiquing the article as might a MD., or other health professional. I don't see any harm in him posting it, and you suggesting that the posted article is somehow misleading by talking about drug interactions killing people, and thalidomide comparisons tells me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. No MD. is going to change their treatment options based on this article, so don't worry yourself about it. It was a nice gesture by IW, but unfortunately probably not useful.

As for your friend thalidomide, it made it's name being used as an antiemetic for pregnant women, and then was found to cause severe birth defects. Claims that it was a "wonder drug" in the 50's are humorous. It's used today to treat certain types of cancers.
M mrcabernetMember
quote:
Originally posted by khmark7:
Mr. Cab, the study is simple and just suggesting that more research is needed, and perhaps in a larger study that there might be benefits...It was a nice gesture by IW, but unfortunately probably not useful.

It's nice you are agreeing with the point of my original post.

Now admit that thalidomide was sometimes prescribed for headaches (unlike your first statement that it NEVER was), because it clearly (and wrongly) was and we'll be done.
K khmark7Member
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:
quote:
Originally posted by Italian Wino:
It would not have been in the Archives of Internal Medicine if it was "not important". This is one of the most respectable medical journals out there. Simply put if this extends ONE life because I shared the info then that will be good enough for me.

What if the unspecified side effects, or drug interactions, kill 2 people? Still good enough for you? Remember Thalidomide seemed like a good idea for headaches--this study seem way too preliminary to be touting it.

BTW Board-O, I didn't jump on the poster, just the post. There was no ad hominem attack.


Seems like you are jumping all over IW for an article he mistakenly thought might be helpful. Chill buddy.

Your example using thalidomide is just poor, as nobody cares about it's other possible uses. Google what you want, but it was pulled from the market because of birth defects caused by pregnant women using it for anti-nausea purposes. The packing itself has a picture of a pregnant women with a line through it warning everyone that it should not be given to anybody pregnant, or even a man who might inpregnate a woman. Was there some tragic consequence of thalidomide being used as a headache medication that the professors failed to teach us??? A quick search online failed to show that it was really used for much else, being proclaimed as a "wonder drug" in the 1950's doesn't mean much to me.
M mrcabernetMember
quote:
Originally posted by khmark7:
Seems like you are jumping all over IW for an article he mistakenly thought might be helpful. Chill buddy.

Once again I have never jumped on, nor made any comment, about IW. I only discussed his post. If you can, please quote an example of my jumping on him. Otherwise you can admit you are wrong in this regard.

quote:
A quick search online failed to show that it was really used for much else, being proclaimed as a "wonder drug" in the 1950's doesn't mean much to me.

No, but it does mean you were wrong to say it NEVER was prescribed for headaches. Again I am willing to admit when I'm wrong here, can anyone else?
M mrcabernetMember
quote:
Originally posted by khmark7:
I'm not interested in going in circles with you. You appear obsessed with people admitting they are wrong even when it has nothing to do with the discussion or your poor examples.

My point in my posting was that it wasn't a very meaningful thread to begin with--a point that YOU agree with. The rest of my posts have been to defend myself from the false charge that I attacked the OP--never did, and from personal attacks on me.
A azcatMember
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:
No, but it does mean you were wrong to say it NEVER was prescribed for headaches. Again I am willing to admit when I'm wrong here, can anyone else?


Dude, does it really matter? WTF is wrong with you? Are you on some sort of mission to derail and pollute has many threads as possible with your ego and your anger?
sd-wineauxsd-wineauxMember
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:
My point in my posting was that it wasn't a very meaningful thread to begin with--a point that YOU agree with. The rest of my posts have been to defend myself from the false charge that I attacked the OP--never did, and from personal attacks on me.

M.C, you seem to have a shifting definition of "personal attack" here. You challenged IW's line of reasoning (and in what I would consider a mocking style), in addition to the usefulness of the post. I counted only 1 attack on you (the "dbag" post, I'm not counting one one that followed yours) that went beyond similar challenges back to you. Well, maybe one and a half with KSC02's post. Smile

I suggest that you consider whether you're holding others to different standards than your own, or if you're simply taking these challenges too personally. On the other hand, if you are just trolling here, then carry on.

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×