Talk:Trastuzumab

message: Boy, I do agree the article is a tad too technical. I grasped a bit what he or she is saying, but had my moments of scratching my head. But wouldn't making it easier to read be downgrading the quality of the article for the more knowledgable? In my opinion, I would recommend writing a less technical link and putting a pointer to the more accessable article somewhere on the top of this article. .
:If you want this, I would recommend starting a new version on Trastuzumab/Temp, putting everything there that you know, and discuss this version here. JFW | T@lk 10:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically were you having the most problems with in your understanding? Courtland 03:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too technical ? - Need less technical version as well ? 

message: This article says that Herceptin is only used to treat certain breast cancers. That is inaccurate, and should be updated.  All the disputes I read here about technical language vs simple language for the average reader.....how about ACCURACY in what the drug is used for??? My husband is receiving Herceptin for liver mets from esophageal junction cancer. The liver mets was discovered in July of 2011; at that time Herceptin had recently been approved for use in some HER2+ GI cancers.  This article was updated in January of 2013, yet doesn't even mention that Herceptin is now used for other types of cancer besides breast cancer. I think that's an important fact & should be included in this article. Some dates, such as when it was first approved for breast cancer, and then updates on what types of cancer it is being used for, & what types of cancer have ongoing research concerning treatment with Herceptin, would be very helpful to cancer patients & their families when they are trying to research treatments. I have talked to many esophageal cancer patients & their families in on-line support groups that are looking for info on Herceptin, & can't find anything about it being used for esophageal cancer.....these are updates that should be included in this article if you are truly trying to help the average person looking for information on cancer treatment.Redcct (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the application of Herceptin needs to be updated in the article.  15 to 20% of gastric cancers are HER2 positive.  Herceptin is FDA approved for Stage III and IV gastric cancer.  I am currently getting adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer using Herceptin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.86.68 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Use for other cancers

message: although this drug claims to have only one side effect, that being on the heart, my mother-in-law sufferred from severe anxiety while taking this drug.  given, she was going through major crisis with her diagnosis and treatment.  even when her chemo ended and she was still taking herceptin however, she experienced anxiety that prevented her from sleeping and making day-to-day decisions.  just wondering if anyone else has experienced similiar side effects and/or knows someone who may have sufferred as she did.
:It has far more than 1 side effect. It's just that the heart effect is the most important common effect. Anyway, this isn't really the place for discussion about anaecdotal evidence. Besides, it's pretty likely that somebody suffering with cancer develop anxiety irrespective of any medication they're on.128.250.5.246 (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side Effects 

message: It says in Australia it will cost the PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) $1 million a year. that does not sound right. In a press release on the health.gov.au website it said herceptin would cost $470 million over around 4 years.
:I agree: http://www.medicare.gov.au/provider/patients/late-breast-cancer.jsp talks about patients for Herceptin in the thousands - it can't possibly be costing $1m. Perhaps it's a typo for $100m?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.12.197 (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should jsut remove the whole section on Australia. The 1 million thing is clearly incorrect, and there just doesn't seem to be enough to warrant Australia by itself.128.250.5.246 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs 

message: I rewrote this a bit to make it less technical, particularly in the introduction.
Molecular biologists will be relieved to see that I didn't take anything out (although I did rewrite some of it into simple English).
I like to leave in the technical terms, so people will recognize them when they come upon them again, but only after I've explained it in language that the reader can understand. Nbauman (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be simpler, and IMO much better, to just hyperlink the technical terms so that a reader can click thru to learn about the terms they are not familiar with. Anyone disagree ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less technical 

message: Are there any theories on this that we can report ? Rod57 (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is mechanism of cardiac damage 

message: My wife has been diagnosed with breast cancer.  Her cancer is agressive and multifocal, and she has had surgery.  Fortunately, the tumor(s) were small, and there was no node involvement.  She will have a 'preventive round of chemotherapy' using a combination of drugs, and then her medical oncologist has recommended a course of Herceptin.  So, I am here to learn more about the drug from a supposedly impartial source. 
I am concerned about the drug's usage, dosage and side effects.  Some of that is here - but not all of it.  And it's cloaked in technical terms.  But before I call the article 'too technical', I have to point out that the medical profession uses these terms - and if you're a retired businessman like me, you are overwhelmed by them all the time.  You do learn what they mean - maybe from another Wikipedia article - and eventually you begin to understand how they relate to your situation.  So, when I come here, I understand at least the same terms that the doctor uses when they are used in this article.  You have to do that because that's the lingua franca of medicine - although I wager I'd be much happier if I didn't HAVE to know what the terms mean.
My wife's tumors overexpress HER-2 at the 3+level, so she is a candidate for this therapy.  The article does have information related to how this number is determined and what the treatment is intended to do.  And the article has to explain that treatment in technical terms - up to a point.  But I would expect a bit more (in plainer language) so that I can feel more comfortable discussing the treatment plan with my wife and her doctor.
My wife has some health problems (who at 65+ doesn't?), and breast cancer is typically an older person's disease.  I came here to find out what side effects to look for, and how they relate to the administration of the drug.  Some information is in here somewhere, but two general paragraphs aren't enough.  The person who wrote this article is very knowledgable about the drug - but it appears that (s)he isn't very good at side effects.  Where are the references to studies?  Perhaps this shortcoming is due to the age of the article?  Whatever the reason, it's important to note that we're now in 2011, not 2006, and we have five years of 'catch up' to do.
I understand that I can go to the drug maker's website and look at the 'fact sheet' they publish.  An article here has to cover the same bases - and I expect it to go a bit farther so that I can determine what propaganda is in the fact sheet and what information I can use.  Is that too much to ask from an article here?
Factsneeded (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading all that it seems you are asking for more on side-effects. - Rod57 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damned if you do - or don't [ use technical terms ] 

message: Given the choice of a 52 or 9 week course and the costs in different countries - what can we say about the QALY which is important in the UK and probably elsewhere ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  QALY or cost effectiveness 

message: The drug is under serious re-consideration at the moment because of its high risk benefit ratio. About 33 more women have their lives prolonged while 21 more end up having serious cardiac toxicity, when Trastuzumab is compared with standard therapy. . There are a lot of commentaries and primary studies cited. Would it be best that these are replaced with the reference of the Systematic Review?. 
Manu Mathew (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs updating with respect to efficacy and safety 

message: mentions results for CT-P6 and SB3, and says MYL-1401O has a recommendation for approval from an FDA advisory committee. - Rod57 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results for more biosimilars