4 ms·
Except for one throwaway sentence about life extension averaged across 72 drugs, the huge point the author is missing is that the mortality rate is not what mat
by landtuna 7y ago
Except for one throwaway sentence about life extension averaged across 72 drugs, the huge point the author is missing is that the mortality rate is not what matters. The drugs aren't curing cancer - they're extending the lives of those with cancer, even though those same people eventually die of cancer. That won't show up in the mortality rates that aren't improving, but it's a very important positive effect of the drugs, particularly if that extended period of life can be at an acceptable quality. The industry actually measures its success by "quality adjusted life years," not by mortality, and I think that's the correct measure.
- dd36 7y agoThey say it’s two months on average.
- HeadsUpHigh 7y agoThis is one of those cases of huge variation between each case which makes the average useless. Metastatic melanoma can go upwards of 5 years while others might still be futile.
- VHRanger 7y agoWould you not agree that spending hundreds of thousands for a few additional months of fairly low standard of living (even if higher than before) is wasteful on the larger scale?
- s1artibartfast 7y agoThat depends. As long as new drugs provide incremental impact, the benefit should be cumulative over time. Maybe not the area of healthcare spend with the highest ROI, but not a waste in isolation
- DanBC 7y ago> The drugs aren't curing cancer - they're extending the lives of those with cancer, They often aren't doing that though, and if they are they're only doing it on average for a couple of weeks and are causing significant side effects. That "on average" means that for some people they're shortening life. > particularly if that extended period of life can be at an acceptable quality It usually isn't. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097 https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097