JAMA study on SOC

Not great news. I, like many of us here, blend SOC approaches with unapproved approaches.

"Question: What are the available data on cancer treatment outcomes for new cancer therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration?

Findings: In this comparative effectiveness study of 92 novel cancer therapies approved for 100 indications over 17 years, 44% of drug approvals were based on data from nonrandomized clinical trials. Randomized clinical trials typically reported that these drugs were associated with substantial tumor responses and delays in the time to progression or death, but the median absolute increase in overall survival was only 2 months.

Meaning: This study’s findings indicate that, at the time of drug approval, limited supporting data are available to decision-makers, and the increase in overall survival associated with new cancer drugs is typically small."

jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...

[Tall_Allen]

IMO, it's sort of pointless to lump all cancers together and to lump together medications taken for all stages of diseases. For most cancers, the cancer isn't discovered until it is in later stages and the typical survival is less than 5 years. For this reason, prostate cancer is often excluded from such studies because it skews the numbers disproportionately.

No one says you have to stick with approved approaches, but going against approved approaches has been shown to cut survival in half. If you want to try something different, that's why we have clinical trials.

[maley2711 in reply to Tall_Allen]

Yes, was Steve Jobs an example of decreased survival? I think he tried alternative approaches... then too late SOCs?