Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A cancer trial’s unexpected result: Remission in every patient

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 242 posts

Re: A cancer trial’s unexpected result: Remission in every patient

#151

Post by xmodem »

pkaye wrote: post #63
klyrs wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I met a researcher once who was doing what appeared to be groundbreaking research on cancer care. He had this beautiful, tear-jerker story about losing his wife that cast a rosy, altruistic hue on his research. When he was asked what the device would cost, he cheerily replied "whatever the market will bear." That's always stuck with me -- the problem with American healthcare is the American interpretation of capitali…

> That's always stuck with me -- the problem with American healthcare is the American interpretation of capitalism. Dude was living off of government research grants. Do the drug companies in Europe do any different though?

I mean, sort of? Except, not really, because, "what the market will bear" is determined by what governments can negotiate - there's no Medicare Part D tying their hands.

Re: A cancer trial’s unexpected result: Remission in every patient

#152

Post by Izkata »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #148

A healthy reminder that these articles are generally sponsored by the company developing the specific drug. Cancers will be mostly treatable within our lifetimes though (in many cases already are). All the pieces are there technology wise.

Along similar lines, I remember reading about a drug/treatment about 15-20 years ago that had similarly extremely positive results, and nothing since. That one worked by reactivating mitochondria in the cancer cells so that they could trigger apoptosis and the cancer would kill itself.

Re: A cancer trial’s unexpected result: Remission in every patient

#153

Post by photonic31 »

rzz3 wrote: post #149
scoopertrooper wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

70% of Phase 2 trials fail and 50% of Phase 3 trials fail[1]. Why should the default to be to approve drugs in the early stage of human experimentation? Here are some interesting case studies of drugs graduating from Phase 2 trials only to fail Phase 3 trials on efficacy and safety grounds: https://www.fda.gov/media/102332/download [1] https://www.parexel.com/application/files_previous/5014/7274...

Because (at least) for people with a high risk of dying, and operating under well-informed consent, that decision should be between patients and their doctors alone.

No post body was provided.

Re: A cancer trial’s unexpected result: Remission in every patient

#156

Post by BurningFrog »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #141
mchusma wrote: post #138

This brings up again the sorry state of medicine being "default banned". Should this treatment be banned for patients? Absolutely not. Is it a small, underpowered study that needs to be replicated? Absolutely. Could it warrant banning in the future? Sure. Should it be covered by insurance? Complicated. We need to unbundle these things.

70% of Phase 2 trials fail and 50% of Phase 3 trials fail[1]. Why should the default to be to approve drugs in the early stage of human experimentation? Here are some interesting case studies of drugs graduating from Phase 2 trials only to fail Phase 3 trials on efficacy and safety grounds: https://www.fda.gov/media/102332/download [1] https://www.parexel.com/application/files_previous/5014/7274...

After Phase 2, the drug has been proven safe.

In a sane and humane system, sick people would then be allowed to try it.

Re: A cancer trial’s unexpected result: Remission in every patient

#157

Post by hp48fan »

rzz3 wrote: post #149
scoopertrooper wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

70% of Phase 2 trials fail and 50% of Phase 3 trials fail[1]. Why should the default to be to approve drugs in the early stage of human experimentation? Here are some interesting case studies of drugs graduating from Phase 2 trials only to fail Phase 3 trials on efficacy and safety grounds: https://www.fda.gov/media/102332/download [1] https://www.parexel.com/application/files_previous/5014/7274...

Because (at least) for people with a high risk of dying, and operating under well-informed consent, that decision should be between patients and their doctors alone.

Because it would degenerate into pharmaceuticals selling false hope in exchange for lab rats that are too far along to be saved even if the drugs work.

That being said I disagree with prescription pads. I should buy antibiotics for my kid without waiting four, five hours to be seen and processed

Re: A cancer trial’s unexpected result: Remission in every patient

#158

Post by josho »

BurningFrog wrote: post #156
scoopertrooper wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

70% of Phase 2 trials fail and 50% of Phase 3 trials fail[1]. Why should the default to be to approve drugs in the early stage of human experimentation? Here are some interesting case studies of drugs graduating from Phase 2 trials only to fail Phase 3 trials on efficacy and safety grounds: https://www.fda.gov/media/102332/download [1] https://www.parexel.com/application/files_previous/5014/7274...

After Phase 2, the drug has been proven safe. In a sane and humane system, sick people would then be allowed to try it.

Pharma would market a phase 2 trial drug as a “potential revolution in treatment. Only a select few can receive this treatment and as a result it costs 10x more than existing drugs. Ps. We don’t guarantee results.”

Is that really the outcome you want?

Re: A cancer trial’s unexpected result: Remission in every patient

#159

Post by scoopertrooper »

rzz3 wrote: post #149
scoopertrooper wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

70% of Phase 2 trials fail and 50% of Phase 3 trials fail[1]. Why should the default to be to approve drugs in the early stage of human experimentation? Here are some interesting case studies of drugs graduating from Phase 2 trials only to fail Phase 3 trials on efficacy and safety grounds: https://www.fda.gov/media/102332/download [1] https://www.parexel.com/application/files_previous/5014/7274...

Because (at least) for people with a high risk of dying, and operating under well-informed consent, that decision should be between patients and their doctors alone.

There's definitely a case to be made for early access to drugs for certain terminal illnesses in cases where there is compelling evidence that the drugs will pass Phase 3 trials. But, that should hardly be the 'default' as OP suggests.

Re: A cancer trial’s unexpected result: Remission in every patient

#160

Post by scoopertrooper »

BurningFrog wrote: post #156
scoopertrooper wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

70% of Phase 2 trials fail and 50% of Phase 3 trials fail[1]. Why should the default to be to approve drugs in the early stage of human experimentation? Here are some interesting case studies of drugs graduating from Phase 2 trials only to fail Phase 3 trials on efficacy and safety grounds: https://www.fda.gov/media/102332/download [1] https://www.parexel.com/application/files_previous/5014/7274...

After Phase 2, the drug has been proven safe. In a sane and humane system, sick people would then be allowed to try it.

I just gave you a document containing 8 case studies where drugs were found to be not safe after having passed Phase 2 trials.
Post reply on HN