3 ms·
What do you mean? Here is an example: https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-data-efficacy/imvigor-210-efficacy.html https://www.tecentriq
by refurb 4y ago
What do you mean?
Here is an example: https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-data-efficacy/imvigor-210-efficacy.html https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-...
For people with cisplatin (chemo) resistant metastatic (spread through the body) bladder cancer, if you treat with immunotherapy only 6% achieve complete response (cure). The other 94% has a partial response (which means they progressed) or no response at all. So they would likely die of their cancer relatively soon.
Lots of cancer drugs are like that.
Immunotherapy is expensive. Is it worth spending $250,000+ on cancer drugs for a 6% chance of a cure?
- Animatronio 4y agoThen why bother with immunotherapy at all if it's so expensive. After all it's been available for 130 years if google serves me right, and it still hasn't come down in price besides being not very effective.
- refurb 4y agoIt's been available for about a decade at this point. Why bother? That's a good question. I think the answer is "because 5% will be cured and another 20% will have some response which means they may live another few years." But the problem is, you won't know who benefits and who doesn't. So do you deny everyone a chance at a 5% cure of 20% chance of a longer life? No, you treat everyone and see what happens. The UK government put a price of ~25,000GBP per year of life (quality adjusted). So even if people are cured there is value in extending years of life.