Triple Therapy: New Standard for CLL - Gene Aberrations & Mutation Status

[Guest guest]

Helene, from earlier posting this morning (although I think post time

shows 4:55 P.M.):

" I've been building a stat review of research founded upon

& identified within a paper by Dr. Abbott in The Oncologist 2006

titled: " Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Recent Advances in Diagnosis

and Treatment " . So I may add these stats to my WKS. "

I've been pulling articles referenced therein going through

respective stats, purging table from above referenced article &

building upon, such as MDA FCR stats, et al. Have also been noting

when study actually began, when published, key notes. For example I

noted with interest that while the Roche sponsored clinical trials is

essentially just reporting further on FCR I discerned that in

abstract no. 325 they reference " good physical fitness " per CIRS with

a footnote to Extermann's 1998 paper in the JCO (this is CIRS-G, " G "

for geriatrics) and within the conclusion of 781 it's

stated " standard first-line treatment for physically fit CLL

patients. "

A succinct summary definition of the CIRS, from Am J Psychiatry '03,

is: The Cumulative Illness Rating Scale is a comprehensive recording

of all comorbid diseases of a patient. It classifies comorbidities by

14 organ systems affected and rates them according to their severity

from 0 to 4. Within each category, when two diseases are present, the

disease with the higher score is counted. A score of 0 represents " no

problem, " 1= " current mild or past significant problem, " 2= " moderate

disability requiring first-line treatment, " 3= " uncontrollable chronic

problems or significant disability, " and 4= " end-organ failure

requiring immediate treatment. "

IF you want I can post a link for a manual on the CIRS.

But getting back to point, I'll note this within my table as I don't

readily recall other published papers I've researched mentioning or

otherwise referencing CIRS. As an aside, I think it has value. I'll

also note that while they states 817 that 761 were evaluable for

response & other such honings.

Actually I have two tables, while both are worksheets per se, the

second is more for working out & comparing, the first more for

summary presentation as in the Abbott paper. Also in support I copied

& pasted in like order as the table, key statistical data as stated

with each paper with an MS Word document file, which provides me a

synoptic Quality trail back.

I've been in w & w since 2004 & know my treatment horizon is near. I

like to make quantitative decisions, so I've been working on

analyzing, sythesizing & theorizing what may probably be my best

course of action to follow among available alternatives.