Slashdot Mirror
Over Half of New Cancer Drugs 'Show No Benefits' For Survival Or Wellbeing (theguardian.com)
New research published in the British Medical Journal finds that most cancer drugs that have recently arrived on the market have come with little evidence that they boost the survival or wellbeing of patients. The Guardian reports: Forty-eight cancer drugs were approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2009 and 2013 for use as treatments in 68 different situations. But the study, which looked at the clinical trials associated with the drugs, reveals that at the time the therapies became available there was no conclusive evidence that they improved survival in almost two-thirds of the situations for which they were approved. In only 10% of the uses did the drugs improve quality of life. Overall 57% of uses showed no benefits for either survival or quality of life. The team then looked to see whether the picture improved over time. The team found that after a follow-up period of between three to eight years, 49% of approved uses were linked to no clear sign of improvement in survival or quality of life. Where survival benefits were shown, the team said these were clinically meaningless in almost half of the cases.
How many lives were saved or improved by 50% of cancer treatments having a positive effect?
Probably not as many as you might think. Prolonging suffering is considered a "positive effect" from a drug company's perspective, and medicating someone to the point that they're not aware of much is technically effective against pain.
It's hard to objectively measure quality of life - quantity is much easier to measure.
Studies are funny things.
For example, everyone loves the meta studies that "show that antidepressants don't work", but psychiatrists in clinical practice know that they work, for most people with clinical depression.
But the different classes of antidepressants work (or don't) for different people, so you frequently have to try one, see if it works, and then if it does not, try another, until you find the class that does work for this patient.
And, many studies are rather poor at qualifying who actually has true, persistent clinical depression.
So the "startling" conclusion is that a population that sorta has clinical depression but many of them really don't, is helped rather measurably little by trying one antidepressant.
I don't know if something similar is going on with this cancer drug story, but it could be.