Recent Posts
- FDA Okays Blood Test for Ovarian Cancer
- Replication At DNA Damage Sites Highlights Fanconi Anemia And Breast Cancer Proteins
- ASCO To Hold Annual Meeting In Chicago For The Next Ten Years: City Seen As Best Choice To Host Meeting That Continues To Grow
- Protein Partnership Leads To Pediatric Tumor Regression
- ASCO Awarded CEO Cancer Gold Standard: Achievement Underscores Organization’s Commitment To The Health And Well-Being Of Its Employees
Random Posts
- Identification Of Process Controlling T Cell Growth And Production
- Stopgap DNA Repair Needs A Second Step
- Scientists Scoop Top Prize For Light-based Detection Technology
- Hybrigenics' Inecalcitol Shows Promising Preclinical Results Against Hormone-dependent Prostate Cancer
- Physical Activity In Adolescence Associated With Decreased Risk Of Brain Cancer In Adulthood
- ICD: Cutaneous Cancers More Common but Rarely Fatal (CME/CE)
- SuperGen's MP-470 Demonstrates Clinical Benefit In Lung Cancer Patients
- Breast Cancer Risk Factors Vary by Tumor Subtype (CME/CE)
- Active Biotech's Cancer Project ANYARA Featured In Journal Of Clinical Oncology
- Tumor Perfusion Assessed By Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI (DCE MRI) Correlates To The Grading Of Renal Cell Carcinoma
Prescription Cancer Drugs
Cancer Therapies: How Much Is Life Worth? The $440 Billion Question
Posted by: admin in Prescription Cancer Drugs on July 01st, 2009
The decision to use expensive cancer therapies that typically produce only a relatively short extension of survival is a serious ethical dilemma in the U.S. that needs to be addressed by the oncology community, according to a commentary published online June 29 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Tito Fojo, M.D., Ph.D., of the Medical Oncology Branch, Center of Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute, in Bethesda, Md., and Christine Grady, Ph.D., of the Department of Bioethics, the Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health, tackle the controversy concerning the life-extending benefits of certain cancer drugs and the extent to which their cost should factor in deliberations.
The authors illustrate cost-benefit relationships for several cancer drugs, including cetuximab for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer, touted as “practice changing” and new standards of care by professional societies, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
They ask, “Is an additional 1.7 months [the additional overall survival for colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab] a benefit regardless of costs and side effects?”
According to Fojo and Grady, in the U.S., 18 weeks of cetuximab treatment for non-small cell lung cancer, which was found to extend life by 1.2 months, costs an average of $80,000, which translates into an expenditure of $800,000 to prolong the life of one patient by 1 year. At this rate, it would cost $440 billion annually, an amount 100 times NCI’s budget, to extend the lives of 550,000 Americans who die of cancer annually by 1 year.
To address the issue, the commentators recommend that studies powered to detect a survival advantage of two months or less should test only interventions that can be marketed at a cost of less than $20,000 for a course of treatment.
Every life is of infinite value, the authors say, but spiraling costs of cancer care makes this dilemma inescapable.
“The current situation cannot continue. We cannot ignore the cumulative costs of the tests and treatments we recommend and prescribe. As the agents of change, professional societies, including their academic and practicing oncologist members, must lead the way,” the authors write. “The time to start is now.”
Citation: Fojo T. and Grady C. How Much Is Life Worth: Cetuximab, Non - Small Cell Lung Cancer, and the $440 Billion Question J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101: 1-5.
Source:
Steve Graff
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.