With all of the medical research budget cuts happening , cancer research is most often mentioned as the biggest victim. Since all of us are hoping to stay alive until new treatments come online to extend our lives or cure the disease, I’m wondering if anybody has heard or experienced any specific examples of prostate cancer research being cut or eliminated due to recent funding cuts, including clinical trials being halted? Should we be looking to other countries (Germany? Australia?) for these new treatments?
Prostate cancer research cuts - Advanced Prostate...
Prostate cancer research cuts
Written by
Skifanatic
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...
29 Replies
•
I think so. Unless someone reigns this craziness in and gets us back on track, absolutely look outside the US for innovation
MelodyCat comment in another post, "...breakthrough mRNA approach they are starting in Russia..." is one example of what is happening elsewhere.
Ten years ago I looked into HiFU in London, could not get it in US at that time. Also looked into Cyberknife there - they well ahead of US, again.
And as I share, seven years ago had Ferrotan Nanoparticle MRI and also Ga 68 PSMA PET in Europe. The latter was in limited early trials in US. Also as shared, my salvage ePLND with frozen section pathology method was in Europe too.
I for one am hopeful for a shakeup in US medical research and guidelines. (I wish to note my daughter is researcher in big pharma).
I haven’t heard of any prostate cancer specific cutbacks but they may be happening or at least paused while this all gets sorted out. It isn’t about how MUCH money is spent but more about how WELL it is spent and to what end. I think everybody on this site wants not just more but more results oriented and novel research to be done. Note how many of the more interesting research is being done in other countries, to which I say booooo. Rant warning….notice how much innovation has changed phones while survival rates in many cancers have not improved that much. It is a matter of priorities.
There's really nothing to "sort out." They are randomly cutting (look at imagery of chainsaw and Elon Musk) without regards to efficacy or common sense. The cruelty is the whole reason behind these cuts.
I personally have benefited from federally funded cancer research and those who follow won't be so lucky. Just to "put it to the libs."
Hopkins is having to lay off thousands of employees . Cancer researchers are among the layoffs.
Given that it may soon become next to impossible for us to receive our Social Security payments, I have been considering relocating outside the US. Costa Rica is one potential location and they apparently have excellent pCA care. I cant speak to their research and innovation but that is unlikely to exist in tbe US soon anyway.
I take offense at your accusation. My question had nothing "passive aggressive" about it. Just a legitimate question to ascertain if the reality on the ground matches the noise in the air. I've run through all applicable treatments (with some recent success, fortunately) but have always been told by my docs that the longer I survive the better chance we'll see a cure. I'm just wondering if those chances have decreased a bit with the cuts underway. That's it. No politics from me, and no reason to attack they way you did. I have great respect for this site and the outlet it offers us to share in a civil way. Let's keep it that way.
Can't say I'm impressed by doctors who say the longer you stay alive, the better the chances of a cure. More likely its a case of the longer you stay alive, the better the chance of you dying of something else. I am 6 years down the line with stage 4, and now I have been told I have heart failure.
I'm reminded of the old joke
"My doctor said cheer up, things could be worse"
So, I cheered up and, sure enough, things got worse.
This is my roundabout, but civil way, of saying that your post is unwise and uncalled for.
That's what sites like are for- asking questions and offering support. You are correct to ask questions and members should answer if they know. They should not make you feel like you can't ask questions.
Youre right about the madness, I agree with you there.
Here are some of the reports on the impact cuts have on research:
apnews.com/article/trump-sc...
universityofcalifornia.edu/...
cancertherapyadvisor.com/fe...
thehill.com/policy/healthca...
No one is opposed to cutting waste. The problem is this effort is not well thought out. They are either across the board cuts or they are politically targeted. If they would take their time with assessing the need for some programs, everyone would be on board with that.
This post did not start out as a political post. A simple question was asked and you became defensive. Now to answer the question, JHUH is eliminating 2200 cancer research positions worldwide because of federal cuts but I am not aware of any clinical trials being eliminated yet. Now, ya see how easy that was?
Just walk away and let those who have encouraging and supportive things to say remain.
Devil's dogs, why are you being grumpy now? MAGA syndrome?
With indiscriminate cuts to research, there will be less data out there. Capping indirect costs to 15% is a figure pulled out of a hat.
Think of all the progress made in the past 20 years and that is what will likely happen in the next 20 years, regardless of cost..nx0=0.
I come from 23 years in pharmaceutical research. I just wanna emphasize one major thing. Research is all about what is going to make money. It always has been. I can’t say it always will be, but I think it will for the foreseeable future. If a pharmaceutical company thinks that a targeted treatment is going to be a for them they’re going to invest in it. If they don’t think that it then they halt the research. I’ve been in the middle of research trials that marketing put the on midway through because they just didn’t think that it was going to be enough of a money maker. Please stop thinking that the government is behind the decisions to move forward with drugs, one way or the other. They typically are not. Yes, there are some NIH funding research studies out there, but the majority of the major drugs that are on the market today for cancer and otherwise come from major pharmaceutical companies investing in these drugs because they find that the payout will be worth it. . And as far as other countries being ahead of us, that has nothing to do with the current administration it has to do with the Fda and how slow they are. They’ve always been behind the times and that has nothing to do with Trump or Elon. I wish people will stop being so scared that things are going to change much when it comes to this sort of thing. If Pfizer thinks that there is a compound out there that’s going to cure prostate cancer be sure they’re going to moving forward with it because it’s going to make them a ton of money. I hope this all makes sense. Ps- I worked in oncology research for some major players so I have a little inside scoop here.
Imput much appreciated but wasn’t Xtandi funded mostly by non pharma funds? I may be wrong and often am but I thought I read somewhere that Xtandi funding came from a govt. agency and a university. I think the university may have been UCLA.
FDA Approval:
Pfizer and Astellas received FDA approval for XTANDI for the treatment of patients with nonmetastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (nmCSPC) with high-risk biochemical recurrence.
so, what happens sometimes and could’ve happened in this case is there is an infant investigational new compound that could be initially looked at at the university level, which could get some funding from the government, but ultimately for the drug to progress to any type of maturity, a pharmaceutical company needs to pick it up. Universities by far even with government help do not have the collateral and financing in place that it takes to bring a drug to marketing. It could take $100 million to do that after all the clinical trials are said and done. In more cases, what happens is if it starts in a university research lab it would be picked up by a biotech and then if the successful there it either, it’s then bought out by a large pharmaceutical company or it’s merged into A company full acquisition to be able to see it to fruition.
I would give my life to save this country from the lunatics that were running it.
Skifanatic, judging by the responses, your post has definitely spurred the dogs of politics, intentionally or not. With the plethora of presumptuous stories in the media, it's easy to see how these notions that the sky is falling are generated.
After doing my own brief research into the matter, here's my take away. First, know that DOGE stated objectives are to root out waste and fraud--not to retard the U.S. leadership in medical research and technology. For those who can't believe that, then read no further. Regarding impacts to public/private institutions, it is too early to know what, if any, direct impacts to cancer research will occur. We've certainly heard the gnashing of teeth lately, mostly from those who have not stake in the make except to sell news. Until institutional reports are available, (there are none that I've found because it's too early to tell).
The primary cuts proposed in research institute funding (like NIH) are associated with direct and indirect costs being charged to the government in research grants. DOGE wants indirect costs capped at 15%. They're after that proverbial question as to why a box wrench costs $500 when used to build a tank for the defense department. My engineering company has worked for the Feds. The high degree of scrutiny that our balance sheets received when negotiating hourly rates was eye opening. They even removed overhead costs for the funding of our employee's 401k program (which I reluctantly came to understand).
Are the proposed DOGE cuts going to cause belt tightening? Believe that they will. Are they going to end or impede cancer research or cause widespread unemployment among researchers? I sincerely doubt it. But, until institutions issue bonifide impact statements, it's all a guess right now, so we should let sleeping dogs lie by trying to keep politics out of our forum. At least that's what I would wish for.
A fact I discovered in 1985 is that when driving my 1985 Crimson Yugo Rag Top, it's easier to make a right turn instead of a left turn. Ho Hum (yawning).
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n
I guess we could look at the "new" drugs all that money has generated over the past 5-10 years of "research" and decide for ourselves how productive the researchers have been with our dollars. With 20,000 members on this forum, surely someone can share their success with one of the new drugs, heh?
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
Government research funding for prostate cancer
Not all of us are aware of the amounts of money that the U.S. government spends on cancer...
#AskChatGPT : list of immunotherapy drugs for prostate cancer
As of my last update in January 2022, several immunotherapy drugs have been studied or are...
Friend with advanced Prostate cancer
Good friend with advanced prostate cancer has failed ADT. Cancer spread to bones and is being...
What Are The Best Prostate Cancer Research Charities?
Besides Malecare (of course), what prostate cancer research charities are Malecare members donating...
Prostate cancer
Im 85 and have stage four prostate cancer .I have two more chemo treatments to go.
2018 Prostate Cancer Research Program Invites You To Become a Research Reviewer!
Anti-Androgen Therapy and Bone Tumors in Prostate Cancer
cycling & prostate cancer
Prostate Cancer Treatments that worked
