I wonder if there's a market for personal med in identifying standard-of-care treatments that are either wrong generally or suboptimal specifically. There are

I wonder if there's a market for personal med in identifying standard-of-care treatments that are either wrong generally or suboptimal specifically. There are a large number of therapies that remain in use only because nobody has taken the time to assess their efficacy (and safety) for anyone other than the majority of patients. I work at a big pharma, and it's clear to me that every drug works well for some and not for others. Identifying the subgroups of patients that benefit most from which therapy would be a godsend, and for those with fast-progressing or lethal ailments, this could mean life-or-death. The same holds for avoiding therapies that are toxic for some subgroups, which can create more woes than the original disease did itself. A concrete example. Hodgkins Lymphoma is often treated with a cocktail course of chemotherapies, often including bleomycin -- an antiquated poison that severely attacks lung tissue but has been found in recent years to accomplish little therapeutically. However, bleomycin is still a standard-of-treatment. Why? I believe it's because no authority has taken the time to rigorously re-assess it quantitatively and then petition the standards bodies to officially remove it as a standard approved course of care. As such, it's only the top cancer centers that are sufficiently attuned to recent outcome data to know they should avoid it. Everyone else remains vulnerable to this outdated risk, like treating the ill with mercury or leeches. This has special meaning to me since my mother died from Hodgkins treatment with bleomycin. It destroyed her lungs and killed her will to continue any therapy against the slow growing cancer than overtook her perhaps years too soon. Only after the damage was done did we (and the oncologist) discover that bleomycin is no longer recommended since recent evidence has shown that it adds no appreciable efficacy. Yet it remains a standard of care for the disease. Medicine is as often based on history as it is on cutting-edge science. The simple re-evaluation of existing treatments that don't work well for many, thereby breaking the chain of oft-bad medicine could save many lives and improve the outcomes of many more.