Talk:Sunitinib

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)

Lack of Citations
In the U.S., insurance companies have refused to pay for all or part of the costs of Sutent. Statements like this should have a source, especially when supporting information is not easy to find via web search.

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)

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)


 * The "drug of choice" comment has been removed. Is this article still considered pro-drug? I see no obvious bias myself. Ceolas (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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:

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)

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)


 * You're right that it's uncritical and overenthusiastic. I don't think it's drug company advertising, though. The drug companies have too much to lose if someone acting under their control or on their payroll made unsupported claims like this.


 * There are, however, people who invest in drug company stocks and write enthusiastic entries about drugs to drive the company's stock up. -- Nbauman (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.99.19 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

chemistry (mostly)
Costs - The patent expiration did not expire! Synthesis - In the 2nd figure the far right compound should not have the ethyl group (the KOH removed it, as stated in the text) and "ethyl ester" should therefore be deleted from the name. Also, "4 C" should presumably be 4 degrees C. It would be better to say "pyrrole ring" rather than "arene ring". In the 3rd figure "ethyl ester" should again be removed (the structure correctly lacks it). The far right structure is missing the H on the amide N. In the last sentence "78 C" should obviously be 78 degrees C. 69.72.27.253 (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What dosages
Couldn't see any information on dosing, eg. mg/day. Would be useful in Indications, Clinical trials and Side-effects. - Rod57 (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

ahmad
hello i need sunitinib please i want the price please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.53.0 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do NICE mention immunotherapy
Under Costs/UK it says NICE recommend it for people " who are suitable for immunotherapy " yet sunitinib is not itself described as an immunotherapy. Could this be explained somehow ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)