Talk:Crizotinib

Comments

This is a nice article by any standard, and particularly impressive coming from a new contributor. Kudos to ScienceRulz2012!

A few quick comments before bed, bearing in mind I haven't read the sources:

• "ALK-positive" sounds odd... I presume everyone has an ALK gene... Unless this is a term used in the literature, I'd suggest replacing with "have the fusion gene" or similar.
• "an ongoing phase 1/2 study" – I don't understand this. Is it unclear whether it's a Phase I trial or a Phase II trial? Or does this mean "phase one-half"? A wikilink and/or clarification would be helpful.
• Going by this article, the ELM4-ALK fusion transcript was first described in 2007, and as of mid-2010 there are already preliminary results from human trials for a drug to inhibit it. That seems like blindingly fast progress! Surely there's something missing in that picture... Was Crizotinib already approved for inhibiting other kinases? Was the fusion protein known about, if not fully characterised, long before 2007?

(Comment I resolved myself)

"Most patients were never-smokers or former smokers and had adenocarcinoma." I re-worded that slightly, but it's still ambiguous. I suggest changing to "Most patients had adenocarcinoma, and most had never smoked or were former smokers" or "Most patients were either former smokers with adenocarcinoma, or had never smoked", whichever is meant.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is a good concise summary. As a surgical pathologist who is interested in lung pathology, I have 2 suggestions-- one is to build some cautionary commentary into your article, because empirical results are such that tumors which "should" respond to a biological agent do not always do so, by a long shot. That caution is advisable because patients may well read the piece and expect Crizotinib to be a panacea for lung cancer. Secondly, I would suggest that you emphasize that the tumor tissue must be examined formally for the EML4-ALK transcript; immunohistochemical "surrogate" testing is not sufficient. Again, that comment comes from clinical experience vis-a-vis EGFR inhibitors. Best, Mark Wick, MD --Mrwick1 (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crizotinib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128120505/http://www.ascopost.com/articles/july-2010/novel-agent-demonstrates-striking-activity-in-alk-positive-nsclc to http://www.ascopost.com/articles/july-2010/novel-agent-demonstrates-striking-activity-in-alk-positive-nsclc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612203421/http://media.pfizer.com/files/news/press_releases/2010/asco_curtain_raiser_052010.pdf to http://media.pfizer.com/files/news/press_releases/2010/asco_curtain_raiser_052010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Structure is incorrect

The structure of crizotinib is incorrect. The bond to the pyrazole should be to the 4-position of the pyrazole, not the 3-position. 70.167.8.126 (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)