The majority of the cancer drugs that came on the European market between 2009 and 2013 had no proven effect on either the life expectancy or the quality of life (Davies et al. 2017).
Reference
Davis C, Naci H, Gurpinar E, Poplavska E, Pinto A, Aggarwal A. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13. BMJ 2017;359:j4530. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4530.
I understand perfectly your question, which is not a question but I suppose you want to call up attention on the conclusions of the manuscript you reference:
" This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. At a minimum of 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs either extended or improved life for most cancer indications. When there were survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo, they were often marginal. "
I agree with the point: results of newly approved drugs are often very poor and even inferior to what certain publications show.
But the pharma industry is very powerful and they can afford enormous expenses to get approvals.
This is our brave new world, as Huxley wood say.
Best regards
I understand perfectly your question, which is not a question but I suppose you want to call up attention on the conclusions of the manuscript you reference:
" This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. At a minimum of 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs either extended or improved life for most cancer indications. When there were survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo, they were often marginal. "
I agree with the point: results of newly approved drugs are often very poor and even inferior to what certain publications show.
But the pharma industry is very powerful and they can afford enormous expenses to get approvals.
This is our brave new world, as Huxley wood say.
Best regards
Effectiveness of Modern Cancer Drugs
Please let me know if this reference/site is helpful to you:
Is Chemotherapy Effective? - International Center for ...www.icnr.com/articles/ischemotherapyeffective.html "Some practitioners still remain optimistic that cytotoxic chemotherapy will significantly improve cancer survival ... terms that, while ... drugs were more effective ...
Site Reference:
http://www.icnr.com/articles/ischemotherapyeffective.html
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
In over 25 yrs as a medical dr cancer drugs only mask aging population for either lasting growth of life or delay cancer affects for prolong ageing life expectancy data analysis suggests we are by genetic code carry genes in all types of cancer and development of genetic mutation due to food and lifestyle complications have sparked these dominant genes eg, cancer and has been on a larger rise since certainly an ongoing issue and more cancer vaccines are been produced combating this cycle again and again so less 5% work in affects but not cure
The difficulty of curing a cancer is similar to the difficulty of getting rid of weeds. Cancer cells can be removed surgically or destroyed with toxic chemicals or radiation; but it is hard to eradicate every single one of them. Surgery can rarely ferret out every metastasis, and treatments that kill cancer cells are generally toxic to normal cells as well.
My experience working at a breast cancer institute within the mental health team was that those patients who received family support or entered activities or groups such as yoga, religious associations, meditation, hypnosis, music therapy in addition to chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery were able to overcome the disease faster than those who only received chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. Unfortunately the research could not be concluded.
I am not an oncologist and not directly engaged in drug treatment of cancer but as an epidemiologist, I sometimes come into the context of drug outcome on survival and quality of life of patients treated with drugs. I believe that surgery is still the best for carefully selected cases. The outcome of other combined treatment approaches is difficult to attribute to which approach.> The outcome seems a product of complex set of factors, many of them are operating before the onset of treatment.
Dear colleagues,
Recently it has been reported that chemotherapy enhance metatstasis and morbidity.
If that is true, then this is a big problem. Sporadic observations (not true evidence from my side) may suggest that chemotherapy is not useful at least in some cases..
Related question:
Is sugar a carcinogen?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_sugar_a_carcinogen?
Targeted therapy has promise, but doctors can only treat a few kinds of cancer with it right now .
Article TARGET THERAPY AND MONITORING OF CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA
Article Targeted Therapy in Oncology: A Key Player in the Move towar...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Pharmacology
- Pharmaceuticals
- Drugs