Talk:HAMLET (protein complex)

Peptide complex
I recently saw news from a company (http://hamletpharma.com/en/2016/08/15/hamlet-pharma-enters-a-new-development-phase/) preparing to run phase II trials with HAMLET that a peptide complex has been developed. My impression was that a peptide complex is an important step but I have no medical expertise so I cant really be sure :-) Just thought I'd mention it if might be relevant information for this wiki-page.

It seems like the research however is not done by the company itself but rather by this group: http://www.med.lu.se/english/department_of_laboratory_medicine/mig/research_groups/the_svanborg_group/the_hamlet_project

If this is obsolete or irrelevant information, I apologize. 95.155.228.34 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

c-Myc
A recent article published in Oncogene in December of 2011 has found a strong correlation between the expression of c-Myc in cancer cells and their sensitivity to HAMLET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible incorrect citation?
The following lines in the first paragraph under section "Mechanism of Action" may have been cited incorrectly:

"The mechanism of its entry is poorly understood, but recent studies indicate that the oleic acid in the HAMLET complex interacts with phosphatidylserine and o-glycosylated mucin on the plasma membrane, both of which are expressed in greater amounts on the plasma membrane of tumor cells, possibly providing for HAMLET’s specificity."

The citation provided led me to the following link, with the full article available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283605004316 The more relevant citation is the 7th, which presents the following article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X06028002

Thank you. -- (shared computer, sorry, don't feel good about leaving signature) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.136.248 (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Placebo patients resolved
An edit dispute between two editors:

Table 3 of the source states that 3 placebo patients resolved. Which might lead one to assume 100% of the placebo patients resolved. However, there were 20 placebo patients to start with. Three resolved while on the placebo trial and the other 17 did not resolve. The unresolved 17 placebo patients were then put on HAMLET. The sample size should be 20, not 3. Therefore, only 15% of the placebo patients resolved. Ref Readcube.com Suggesting that 100% of the placebo patients resolved as suggested with this edit pertinent extract: A two year follow-up showed that 83% of patients treated with HAMLET had experienced complete resolution of all lesions while 100% of placebo patients experienced complete resolution of all lesions Jim1138 (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We are looking at the results after the two-year follow-up. The source states that there was only 3 patients who did not receive HAMLET doing this period. These 3 patients did not have full resolved lesions after the second phase of the trial, but where fully resolved between the 2nd phase of the trial and the two-year follow-up. 3 out of 3 gives 100%. The 17 people who received placebo in the first phase and HAMLET in the second phase can not be seen as the placebo group after the two-year follow-up since they received HAMLET during this period. Out of the 20 placebo patients in the first phase, 3 resolved. The 3 resolved patients and 14 of the unresolved patients chose to be put on the HAMLET treatment. 3 of the unresolved patients did not take HAMLET in the second phase of the trial and became "true" placebos for the two-year follow-up. Dao AU (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just looked at this through the WP:3O page (this is not an actual 3O). I suggest posting this on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In light of Doc James's removal of the source and text in dispute as being, inter alia, non-MEDRS compliant (see next section below), the Third Opinion request in reference to this dispute has been removed. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

Refs
We need to use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Replaced some of the primary sources with secondary ones. Other issue was that some of the language was rather promotionally. Tamped it down a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)