I've read the two randomized-trial experiemnts about the bnenefits of three treatment of concurrent cisplatin duting chemo, the ones that appeard in New England Journal of Medicine a year and 1/2 ago and those results arecertainly VERY good data. Partly because there's just such a large sample for each of those studies but also partly because the design was truly experimental. My MO, who I discussed these articles with, after I had read them (was given copies by the folks at Dana Fraber) said that prior to those two huge, experimental pieces of research there was mixed data on the effectivemness of concurrent chemo of any sort--and many of the studies were not truly experimental but quasi-experimental which means there was not random assignment of who got the treatment and who was in the control group which measn all sorts of other things COULD explain any difference in effectiveness that did turn up (I'm sure Gail knows this but often other poeple don't really understand how important it is which is why I mention it here).

I'm not aware of what research exists on the effects of carboplatin or other types of chemo as concurrent chemo but is it really as sound as the cisplatin data? Because I suspect it is not and I am actually glad to see (as someone who has struggles to teach people of all sorts, including people in medicine, statistics and experimental design) that the relative soundness of one setof data over another is given attention and acted on accordingly--to me, that is good practice.

And as Shawna said, cisplatin is actually, for a large majority of patients, quite a tolreable treatment with the anti-emitics that are out there. For many all they actually need is compazine to get through. This is according to the chemo nurse I iad who has been treating people with cisplatin for decades--she did say that ebfore ther ecent anti-emitics came out this was not true!