I'm not sure if this is in the right place but here goes; I'm going to be writing a paper based on cancer treatments in our time, and I want to know your opinion on the subject: are we doing enough? have we done all that we can research-wise? have we done all that we can to help the patient through this most critical time? Is there any viable deviation from the accepted prescription of chemo/radiation? Thanks.
What are your feelings on cancer treatment?
- Thread starter JeffReeds
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,664
- Reaction score
- 5,088
Your question is a very complex one and not something that can be easily answered in an internet forum. With that caveat, let me try to answer your questions:
For treatment? We are doing the best we can with the knowledge we have. The FDA has been justly criticized in the past for not approving anticancer drugs quickly enough.
Well, cancer research in general is a hot and well-funded field. However, research on prevention is lagging considerably behind that of therapeutics. There are several reasons for this: 1. Cancer prevention research is hard to do and takes a long time, 2. There is a lot more $$ in therapeutics than prevention, 3. Therapeutics have clearer (and much shorter) endpoints than prevention.
Also, some areas of cancer (such as lung cancer) are funded less than they deserve (based on death statistics). This can be due to social stigma/myths (only smokers get lung cancer and they deserve it) or perceived "sexiness" of the field.
See above.
Cancer is a very diverse disease and therapy generally consists of a combination of radiation, chemotherapy, and/or surgery. The exact sequence and types of therapy vary depending on the type of cancer and the stage. Sometimes no intervention is necessary (e.g. early stage prostate cancer in an 80 year-old can be followed).
For treatment? We are doing the best we can with the knowledge we have. The FDA has been justly criticized in the past for not approving anticancer drugs quickly enough.
Well, cancer research in general is a hot and well-funded field. However, research on prevention is lagging considerably behind that of therapeutics. There are several reasons for this: 1. Cancer prevention research is hard to do and takes a long time, 2. There is a lot more $$ in therapeutics than prevention, 3. Therapeutics have clearer (and much shorter) endpoints than prevention.
Also, some areas of cancer (such as lung cancer) are funded less than they deserve (based on death statistics). This can be due to social stigma/myths (only smokers get lung cancer and they deserve it) or perceived "sexiness" of the field.
See above.
Cancer is a very diverse disease and therapy generally consists of a combination of radiation, chemotherapy, and/or surgery. The exact sequence and types of therapy vary depending on the type of cancer and the stage. Sometimes no intervention is necessary (e.g. early stage prostate cancer in an 80 year-old can be followed).
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,408
- Reaction score
- 4,439
Certainly not.
One problem here is the system itself.
Clinical phase-III-randomized trials are the state of the art evidence based approach to approve or disapprove a certain treatment.
In the past years however regulations have made it very hard for investigator-initiated trials to take shape. Designing, getting approval and running trial has become very expensive and difficult. There is where the industry comes in, by promoting, paying for and pushing forward these trials, that the industry sees as important.
And this is why we yet have not had randomized trials for many very important questions in radiation oncology and cancer treatment as such.
Billions and billions of dollars are spent to test drugs that may offer a couple of weeks of more survival in palliative treatment, while we lack knowledge about crucial issues in curable diseases.
