Talk:Sunitinib

Pharmacology Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unreferenced?

The Aug 2006 unreferenced tag is on the discussion page. I think it's supposed to be on the article. Regardless, is it still a valid concern as the article does have some external links and cites the NEJM? Canuckle 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncritically pro-drug

States that sunitinib is the drug of choice for GIST - clearly not the case, imatinib is current proven therapy and there are currently no RCTs comparing the two. cave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.175.93 (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with the above statement. Sunitinib is not the drug of choice for GIST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.242.161 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too technical

This article is too technical for the average reader imho. It also fails to address the issues which brought me here - the funding debate over this drug and my unanswered questions, what is it made of and why is it so expensive? --kingboyk 09:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Safety issues

This article misses some key issues of safety related to tyrosine kinase inhibitors, specifically multiple cardiac targets and potential clinical effects. See this article for example: [1]

Drug company advertising?

This is not an entry in an encyclopedia. This would not even be legal as advertising - it makes it sound like an unqualified cure-all - and it shouldn't be presented like this in a reference work. 130.209.6.40 (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the section regarding costs, it states that sunitinib does not cure but "only" prolong life. It is not so, it augments progression free survival, that is not at all same as overall survival, of patients with renal cancer for example... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.242.161 (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading statement regarding survival

In the section titled RCC: Update, the text reads "Sunitinib was associated with a clear advantage in overall survival, although this was not statistically significant."

If the difference is not clinically significant, then there is no clear advantage (reference Statistically_significant). To state otherwise is incorrect, and misleading. This page's keeper needs to modify this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.112.56 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse Events

This sentence could probably do with some touching up, because right now it doesn't make sense.

Lab abnormalities associated with sunitinib therapy include lipase, amylase, neutrophils, lymphocytes, and platelets.

137.219.249.235 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is meant to imply that standard laboratory tests that measure values relating to these (in blood?) can return abnormal from patients on sunitinib. "Abnormal" is not much help either (elevated? suppressed?)... ugh.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another expert that agrees with above concerns

The article is unbalanced and may be in violation of US FDA regulations regarding pharmaceutical promotion if an employee of the manufacturer had a hand in authorship.

For example, it calls out the large number of leading “zeros” in p values. However, the overall differences in mortality, while real, do not match the unbridled enthusiasm of the author(s).

Sunitinib has a potentially important role, but due to its toxicity, it cannot be considered a first line therapy for GIST for people who tolerate imatinib.

Its impact on RCC is small, but given the lack of alternatives for metastatic disease, it is as tolerable as the others at this point.