[HN Gopher] A cancer trial's unexpected result: Remission in eve... ___________________________________________________________________ A cancer trial's unexpected result: Remission in every patient Author : mhb Score : 333 points Date : 2022-06-05 13:13 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com) | js4ever wrote: | https://archive.is/eSDiX | Gordonjcp wrote: | I'm not sure which immunotherapy drug my mother has been | receiving, but after being diagnosed with lung cancer nearly two | years ago - a tumour roughly the size of a tangerine right in the | top corner of one lung, utterly inaccessible by surgery, in | absolutely the wrong place to attempt radiotherapy - it's now | gone, save for a little bit of scarring and fibrosis where it | used to be. The treatment has left her tired and brain-foggy but | that's pretty small potatoes to being a chemo zombie, which she | absolutely did not want. Although she's in her early 80s she's | otherwise in not too bad shape, so that probably helped. | | From here on out, it'll be scans every three months or so to make | sure it hasn't come back, but her doctor says that if it does | come back it'll grow so slowly and weakly that it's just not | going to be worth bothering with. | | I expect you can imagine the look on Mum's doctor's face when we | went in for the most recent scan results - it can't be often an | oncologist gets to give someone the best news in the world. | greedo wrote: | As a survivor of colorectal cancer, this is great news, even | though the sample size is small and further studies are obviously | needed. I'm hoping that by the time my children are at an age | where they're at risk, treatments like this will be a well- | established standard of care. | hprotagonist wrote: | relatedly, the only good reason to stop a trial early is that it | becomes unethical not to treat the control group because the | effect size in the treatment group is so huge. And it does | happen, sometimes. | gumby wrote: | The other reason is futility: the treatment has no benefit or | any improvement is grossly outweighed by side effects. | civilized wrote: | I sometimes wonder if the exhilaration of such a result comes | with a twinge of regret that the result could not have been | foreseen before the science reached it, and more people given | the lifesaving treatment immediately. | | But that is the human condition, I guess. Scientific progress | and learning brings regrets, often very momentous ones in | retrospect. | carapace wrote: | Regret, sure, but since we can't change the past that regret | should motivate us to work harder to make the present and | future better. We're a young species, and part of growing up | is looking back with chagrin at how foolish we seem in the | light of our new growth and learning. | chrisbrandow wrote: | While I totally get what you mean, I'd guess for scientists, | the answer is generally, "no". Expected outcomes for trials | like this are a whole lot less certain to the people doing | the work, that than it seems on the outside, so i think it | wouldn't even occur to the scientists that the downside of | "withholding" treatment from the tiny (relative to the | population) control group comes close to the upside. | civilized wrote: | Yeah, it's just a wistful thing, and most of us laymen | don't even experience the part where you want to know | something but don't know it yet. | aperson_hello wrote: | The number of trials that don't work in humans when it worked | in every pre-clinical trial up to that point is enough that | it makes sense to be extra cautious. | qgin wrote: | It's true, but there's no alternative. 99% of things don't | work. | hprotagonist wrote: | generally speaking, "holy shit it _worked?!!!_ " drowns out a | lot. It's not so much exhilaration as it is a kind of | astonished joy. | orblivion wrote: | I mean, treat everybody in the world with that condition at | that point, right? | thematrixturtle wrote: | The treatment costs ~$100k over half a year. | sircastor wrote: | If this is as effective and reliable as is suggested, this | the expense is a cost saving effort. Cancer is an | exceptionally expensive disease, at least in the US. | fisf wrote: | That's peanuts in the context of cancer treatment. | [deleted] | Aransentin wrote: | Some napkin math: Given rectal cancer's rate of survival of 67%, | and the small size of the study (18 people), you should see | similar results due to random chance every 1350th study. | | A cursory search on clinicaltrials.gov and I can find 7131 cancer | studies started in 2021 alone. It's therefore not unreasonable | for this one to be just a random fluke. | wonnage wrote: | Other commenters have done a fine job expressing why this | napkin math is silly and perhaps in isolated cases this is a | good thing, OP probably learned something here | | But in aggregate these sorts of comments are annoying as hell | on every medical article posted to HN. Now you have to hope a | sufficient mass of well-informed commenters is here to rebut | them. In the best-case, these comments are simply misguided, | but in the worst case it becomes a watering hole for all the | antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists on this site to gather | inglor_cz wrote: | This napkin math ignores some very significant circumstances. | | People who suffer from rectal cancer usually undergo surgery to | remove the primary tumor. But those trial patients weren't | operated on, their treatment was non-invasive. | | How many rectal cancer sufferers who never undergo a surgery | survive? I would bet that it is a lot less than 67 per cent. | cowmoo728 wrote: | And this was people with locally advanced rectal cancer. | Typically this means the tumor has grown to a considerable | size and is already causing symptoms severe enough for people | to go to a specialist. I am not a doctor but my understanding | is that a placebo in this case would have a 5 year survival | rate that is pretty close to 0%. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Pretty sure the base rate you'd want to compare against is | either placebo given -> remission or simply spontaneous | remission. It appears that spontaneous remission is really | quite rare. | | > [sponanteous remission of cancer] incidence is roughly one in | every 60 000-100 000 cancer patients, but the true figure is | unknown (2). Spontaneous regression of colon cancer seems to be | particularly rare | | https://academic.oup.com/jjco/article/45/1/111/888056 | | So using 0.0016% and 12 patients (which is what the paper the | NYT actually links) | | For a ~50% chance of seeing one trial with 12 patients have | complete remission you'd expect to see ~43k trails. | | (1 - 0.000016)^43000 = 0.502577 | | I wouldn't discount this study based off of those numbers. | fluidcruft wrote: | 7131 rectal cancer studies or just cancer studies in general? | rossdavidh wrote: | Your basic result stands, but "survival" and "remission" don't | necessarily equate. But I agree with your basic point. | hirako2000 wrote: | If i put a single coin to the vending machine and get 7 cans | instead of 0.98, i surely will try a few times more before | reaching the conclusion my coins are magical beans. Visibly | medical research jump so quick to conclusion it's to the | millions of news reader to swallow the clickbaits. | raindear wrote: | They did not just survive. They had no traces of cancer. That | chance is much much lower. | goodpoint wrote: | Full remission without surgery? | | This looks much more like tossing a dice 18 times and getting a | 6 every single time! | fnordpiglet wrote: | With 1000 sided die perhaps | iskander wrote: | There should be some kind of award for these kinds of "well | actually" comments on HN that lack any kind of intuition for | the domain. | | Cartoon montage: "By my calculations..." followed by driving a | car off a bridge. | | Edit: as someone who works in cancer research, I can tell you | that your prior for 18/18 locally advanced colorectal cancer | patients achieve CRs without surgery should be ~0. | yakak wrote: | If I understand the article correctly they were excluding | patients enrolled in chemo and radiation? | | If that's what they mean the survival rate wouldn't be 67% so | this would imply a 1349 in 1350 chance the treatment is better | than the average treatment? | rad88 wrote: | This analysis is mindless and inappropriate. If you care about | this at all do yourself a favor and just read the study. | | https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2201445 | | Otherwise redo your napkin math and cursory search to answer, | specifically, whether all these cancers disappearing within | weeks of dostarlimab treatment could be a fluke. And do not | compare this to "rectal cancer's rate of survival", which is | irrelevant and a completely different set of (parametrized) | statistics, and also do not compare it to the total number of | "cancer studies", which was an arbitrary choice and yielded | this meaningless conclusion. Even if this kind of analysis was | useful, why did you compare against the number of cancer | studies, rather than rectal cancer (1910), or dostarlimab (41), | or studies with the same staging and genetic pathology? It's | meaningless. | | I don't believe you're qualified to tell anyone about the | significance of this study, and much less dismiss it as a | fluke. | fnordpiglet wrote: | I bet he's good at programming though. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | Most definitely! | hahaxdxd123 wrote: | This is one of my favourite HN threads LMAO. | system2 wrote: | Turned into Reddit's armchair experts' discussion. | epmaybe wrote: | I got to spend a couple of weeks as an internal medicine intern | with a medical oncologist who incidentally worked at memorial | sloan prior to coming to my university. You could tell how | excited he was about the current state of cancer research and new | treatments, especially with immunotherapy. | | Wonder if docs will start off-label treating earlier with | immunotherapy. There's tons of immune checkpoint inhibitors meant | for different types of cancers and mutations. | rubicon33 wrote: | Fascinating, this drug (molecule) somehow "unmasks" the cancer | cells, allowing the body's natural immune system to target and | destroy them. | | How does a molecule do that!? Enters the blood stream, is | absorbed by the cancer cell, and then...? Blocks some enzyme? | _Microft wrote: | The name of the drug ends in "-mab" [0] indicating that the | drug is based on monoclonal antibodies [1,2]. Those antibodies | are tweaked to bind to cancer cells which makes the immune | system attack the cancer cells. | | [0] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_nomenclature#List_of_stem... | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody_therapy | ufo wrote: | IIRC, in this particular case the antibodies bind to immune | cells. Immune Checkpoints are a mechanism that keeps the | immune system from attacking the own body but in cancer it | can also stop the immune system from destroying the cancer. | The checkpoint inhibitor antibodies remove these restrictions | and allow the immune cells to attack the cancer. (The price | is that they also become free to attack other things they | shouldn't; autoimmune inflamations are common side effects.) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkpoint_inhibitor | cowmoo728 wrote: | Several varieties of T cells are very dangerous and like to | murder other cells. In order to prevent them from going on a | rampage, they have a switch called PD-1 that calms them down. | This prevents various auto-immune diseases in healthy people. | | Some varieties of cancer cells release a PD-1 ligand that turns | off T cells when they get close to the cancer. So the cancer | can "hide" from the immune system. | | This monoclonal antibody blocks PD-1 on T cells, turning them | into unstoppable murderers. The hope is that they | preferentially murder the cancer cells. Wikipedia says that ~5% | of patients get dangerous side effects from blocking T cell | PD-1, probably because the unstoppable T cells attack healthy | kidney or liver tissue. But for people with specific types of | cancer, the hope is that turning the T cells loose will kill | the cancer first. | vervez wrote: | Couldn't read the article but yea, if it's a small molecule, | most likely it's inhibiting some protein specific to cancerous | cells. In this case, it sounds like it's blocking some protein | that blocks human cells' innate ability to produce antigens, | which signal to T-cells that they are defective and need to be | destroyed. | | Sometimes we understand the biology after we discover a | treatment. | epgui wrote: | It's not a small molecule, it's a biologic (antibody). It was | designed specifically to do what it does, and not discovered | by chance. | instagraham wrote: | That is the function of checkpoint inhibitors, according to an | explanation I got from a cancer researcher after asking a | similar question. | | Essential, cancer cells convince the immune system not to | attack them, so these inhibitors target the mechanisms by which | they do so to get the immune system to take note of these | cells. Hope someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I'm | wrong. | adamredwoods wrote: | Cancer cells express proteins that communicate with | lymphocytes (white blood cells) to block apoptosis (cell | death). | | We can't target the cancer cells, so we tweak the lymphocytes | to block PD-1 receptors, thus ignoring ALL cells that express | a lot of PD-L! protein. | | This unfortunately includes healthy cells. | ohazi wrote: | It's an antibody. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dostarlimab | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembrolizumab | zzzeek wrote: | My dad was fortunate enough to get into a trial at Sloan for | Obinutuzumab for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. At the moment, | after 6 weeks of treatment, the percent of cancerous cells in his | bone marrow has gone from 95% to 5%. The treatment was very | intense as it overloads the kidneys on the first few treatments | due to the dramatic amount of cells being flushed out. This is a | cancer for which there was not much treatment previously other | than extreme chemotherapy which still left little hope for | complete remission. A family friend was also treated for Non- | Hodgkins' lymphoma on another drug trial and she's now in full | remission. | | my uninformed impression is that there's a lot of new cancer | treatments happening now that can turn the tide for a lot of | types of cancer. | philjohn wrote: | Similar story to the husband of my sister-in-law's sister (I | think that's how you say it). | | Metastatic Melanoma, had spread to his stomach. Got on the | trial for Ipilimumab and is still here a decade and change | later. | [deleted] | adamredwoods wrote: | For leukemia, there are a lot of promising new treatments and | clinical trials. For metastatic solid-state tumors, much less. | We're still in the dark ages of cancer treatment. | axpy906 wrote: | What treatments in particular? | adamredwoods wrote: | Car-T seems promising for leukemia and lymphoma, but not as | efficacious in solid tumors: | | https://www.lls.org/treatment/types- | treatment/immunotherapy/... | | Also 2nd gen BTK inhibitors: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acalabrutinib | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruton%27s_tyrosine_kinase | gjreda wrote: | Imatinib (Gleevac) revolutionized treatment for patients | with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Prior to the drug's | discovery, CML patients generally had seven years to live | (possibly less depending on how advanced the cancer was). | Now their lifespan mirrors the general population. | | I'd highly recommend the book The Philadelphia Chromosome | if you're interested in learning more. | robocat wrote: | FYI: your comment is a unique result for "metastatic solid- | state tumors"[1], so much much less? | | [1] https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=%22metastatic+solid- | state+... | WheatM wrote: | DarylZero wrote: | We talking tumors in the state of metastatic solid? | beefman wrote: | The "-state" part is the neologism. GP meant "solid tumors" | or "solid cancers". | SnowHill9902 wrote: | I think he means just solid in the sense that it's not | moving cells. | lmeyerov wrote: | I think the usual split of solid tumor vs blood (aka | 'hematologic' or 'heme') | pc86 wrote: | Probably a decade ago a friend of mine passed from Acute | Lymphocytic Leukemia in his 20s. I'm not sure what the | differences are between ALL and CLL (other than knowing the | differences between acute and chronic in a more general sense | of course) but glad to see they are making at least some | progress. | zzzeek wrote: | the chronic form is often written off when first diagnosed as | "it will never affect you" - it can take decades to cause | bigger problems. Dad's 80 and it's been causing bigger | problems for some years. It would be surprising if there | aren't new treatments for the acute form you mention as well. | abirch wrote: | That's great for your dad. Thank you for also distinguishing | between types of cancer and the nebulous term cancer, many | people don't make the distinction. | zzzeek wrote: | googled first to get the correct spellings and all that, been | on hacker news a long time... | fnordpiglet wrote: | I'm glad to hear about the positive outcomes for your dad. I | hope he beats the cancer. It's an exciting time to be alive. | digisign wrote: | Curious about the drug for non-hodgkins lymphoma, may have | helped a friend who passed last year. Too late on one hand, but | promising for future folks. | BnRJ401E29F8Q3v wrote: | Posting a paywalled article should be a bannable offense on this | site. | timbit42 wrote: | Try the 'Bypass Paywalls Clean' web browser plug-in. | kleer001 wrote: | If you'd taken a moment to look 2 people have already posted | archive links to get around the pay wall. Settle down. | jwilk wrote: | From the FAQ <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html>: | | > _It 's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have | workarounds._ | | > _In comments, it 's ok to ask how to read an article and to | help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about | paywalls._ | mmcnl wrote: | There are many articles like this every year. I understand | there's no silver bullet for curing cancer, but I am interested | in the actual results of new treatments instead of the potential | of new treatments, which seems to attract way more headlines. | | Is there an overview somewhere of new treatments over the years, | and their effect? What is the progress we have made? | pella wrote: | > It was a small trial, just 18 rectal cancer patients, | | just 12 | | _" All 12 patients (100%; 95% confidence interval, 74 to 100) | had a clinical complete response, with no evidence of tumor on | magnetic resonance imaging, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron- | emission tomography, endoscopic evaluation, digital rectal | examination, or biopsy. "_ | | https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2201445 | gus_massa wrote: | Is this the same study? | | https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20220605/dos... | | > _At the time of presentation, 18 patients were enrolled on | trial._ | | > _Results among the 14 patients with at least 6 months follow- | up showed a complete response among all patients (95% CI, | 74-100), with no evidence of tumor on biopsy, digital rectal | exam, endoscopic visualization, fluorodeoxyglucose-PET or MRI. | The other four patients are responding to treatment._ | abirch wrote: | As with most experiments there's a control group (6 patients). | The original statement of 18 participants is correct along with | yours of 12 patient treatment group. | dash2 wrote: | But then I guess it is slightly less surprising that all 12 | people had remission, rather than all 18. (Or if all 18 had | remission, then that's amazing but might not be to do with | the drug.) Maybe it is still a great result, just slightly | less significant. | abirch wrote: | You're correct. We'd expect to see more extreme outcomes | with smaller sample sizes. The question is does this | translate to more drugs when administered early which was | the real reason for this study. | satellite2 wrote: | A placebo control group when there is an established standard | of care? That sounds highly unethical. The above link to the | abstract don't mention this and I don't have access to the | full text paper. If you do can you clarify what the control | arm received? | abirch wrote: | I intentionally avoided using placebo group. The control | cohort may not have had cancer at all | | _____________ | | The plan is to enroll six patients with MSI, regardless of | their primary cancer diagnosis. This cohort will serve to | generate hypothesis and initial data to plan a larger | study. All analyses from this cohort will be exploratory | | https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04165772 | mft_ wrote: | I appreciate your good intentions, but you should | consider not writing things on the internet like this - | as both of your posts are effectively misinformation. | | > As with most experiments | | This isn't true. It's absolutely standard in earlier | trials of investigational agents to _not_ have any sort | of control arm. | | > there's a control group (6 patients). | | This isn't true. Within the study you posted, there are | two different cohorts, with different patient types | included. | | > The control cohort may not have had cancer at all | | This isn't true. The group you're calling a control | cohort (cohort 2) must all absolutely have cancer, and | are all actively treated with the study drug (TSR-042). | grej wrote: | https://archive.ph/I4jqH | sonicggg wrote: | After reading it, my suspicion was confirmed. Yet another mab. | Very powerful, but expensive to scale and synthesise. I guess | poor people will have to just suck it up and die. We don't have | the tech yet to make these cost effective. Big pharma loves this | natural barrier of entry though. | | Also, don't expect this stuff to be available anytime soon. FDA | process is pretty slow, and sometimes political. Maybe if it were | effective against Sars-Cov-2, FDA would be willing again to rush | it though the door. Still can't wrap my head around how stuff | like Molnupiravir made the cut. They just don't have any shame. | adamredwoods wrote: | This is why there is a fast-track to accelerate break-through | treatments, which dostarlimab utilized (but stalled thanks to | covid): | | https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-app... | | But, yeah, the FDA is all over the place. | GordonS wrote: | -mab drugs really are incredible. I actually take 2 different | ones (erenumab and omalizumab), and the results surpassed all | my expectations, especially after negative or lacklustre | results from many "conventional" medications beforehand. | | But aye, they aren't cheap. | inglor_cz wrote: | There were times when aluminium was so expensive that the | French emperor dined on an aluminium plate. His guests had to | do with gold and silver. Several decades later, aluminium was | an everyday material. | | I definitely hope that we can come with a cheap method of -mab | production. I am almost sure we one day will. | MontagFTB wrote: | > The medication was given every three weeks for six months and | cost about $11,000 per dose. | | That's an $88,000 treatment for the medication alone. Given the | apparent success of the drug, is it expected for the price to | drop as the volume of patients spike? | yumraj wrote: | I would actually expect the opposite. If the drug is approved | then the price would go up several times. | bearjaws wrote: | Chemotherapy for 3-4 months is around $200,000 - $400,000. | | You will not see a price reduction, if it doesn't require | chemotherapy or significantly reduces the number of rounds of | chemotherapy, this drug will cost $150k+ for full treatment. | | All of this assumes side effects are better than chemotherapy. | Given chemotherapy care plans are some of the most arduous, it | will be hard to be worse than chemo. | gruez wrote: | > Chemotherapy for 3-4 months is around $200,000 - $400,000. | | Is that the american price or the "other developed countries" | price? | georgeburdell wrote: | This is why although I've almost got enough money to retire | (~20x yearly expenses) but I'll keep on working for another | decade or two. All of these whiz-bang new treatments are going | to be expensive. The most expensive medical procedure right now | is a heart transplant at about $1M. Then there's the $10k/mo | for a nursing home | qgin wrote: | If you need a heart transplant, are you planning to self-pay | that? | georgeburdell wrote: | I have health insurance but I don't trust some company to | not dither when time counts | ta988 wrote: | Is that the real price of a nursing home in the US? Who can | afford that? | qgin wrote: | You either have enough to pay or you pay until all your | assets are exhausted to $0 and then Medicaid takes over. | GordonS wrote: | I'm guessing Medicaid isn't going to pay for the kind of | nursing home that costs $10k/month? | ok123456 wrote: | Medicaid will force you to sell your house once that | happens. | MauroIksem wrote: | Yes it sounds crazy but when i was kid i worked as waiter | at a nursing home and heard it cost 8k a month. That was | nearly 20 years ago. | horsawlarway wrote: | Yes - that's not unreasonable for a full time care facility | for something like dementia or Alzheimer's in the US (it's | below what we paid for my grandmothers). | | If you're lucky - they have long term care insurance, and | that covers most of the expenses for approx 2 to 10 years | (depending on how old the insurance is - it's getting | harder to find long plans, and they're all getting | significantly more expensive as it turns out more folks | needed them). | | Otherwise... you spend everything, and then your kids pay. | | We split my grandmothers down the middle - my mom's had | insurance, we covered my dad's. | spywaregorilla wrote: | I'd rather just die. Throw a party. Tell my kids they're | getting a ton of cash. Say good bye on happy terms. | | Vs. a miserable decay for everyone involved at huge | expense. It's not worth it. Forget the money. The | emotional toll is large and for whose benefit? | Merad wrote: | Even ignoring the fact that human euthanasia is illegal | in most of the US, it's rarely that easy. Both of my | paternal grandparents lived into their 90s but suffered | from mental decline (different forms of dementia) and | died as shells of their former selves. If you could have | spoke to either of them at the end of their lives but | with their full mental capacity, I suspect they would | have said that they'd have preferred to die earlier | rather than live through that decline... but in reality | by the time anyone understood how severe their mental | decline would become they were already well past the | point that they could have consented to euthanasia. | | In theory you could presumably have some kind of system | where a person of sound mind could that said, in effect, | "if my condition declines beyond _____ then I want to end | it," but doing so would be an incredibly touchy subject | even if euthanasia was legalized. Unfortunately there is | a very real potential for such a directive to by abused | by people motivated by greed (gimmie that inheritance) or | who simply don't want to deal with an aging relative who | needs more help but hasn't reached the point where their | euthanasia directive should be triggered. | LinuxBender wrote: | Assuming forethought one can set up a living trust. I | have one. If I can no longer consent then a family member | I designated can consent for me. It isn't without risk | and requires a lot of trust. | nicoburns wrote: | > but doing so would be an incredibly touchy subject even | if euthanasia was legalized. | | It would, but the alternative is to make people live | though this mental decline as we currently do. IMO it | would be well worth the risks to be able to ameliorate | the end of peoples lives. | | My plan is to end my life well _before_ I hit severe | mental decline (not "if it gets worse", with all the | ambiguities that entails). If that cuts a few years off | then a be it! | saiya-jin wrote: | It really, really doesnt have to be that complex. If | people are religious nuts to believe suicide would bring | them to some religion's hell (it won't, since it doesn't | exist even if their variant of god(s) would exist), there | are tons of ways to pass out rather quickly and not | fulfill that criteria, and not bother anybody with the | process (various car/train jumpers or suicide-by-cop | doers whom I consider utter selfish a-holes). | | Walk out to a storm or blizzard not equipped for it. Go | fight a bear or lion or crocodile. Go for a swim that you | can't come back from. Do some high risk type of adventure | that in high age is not even discussed. If you make it, | great experience, move to next one. | | The list is literally endless and can be done in some | form even by quadriplegics. It allows you to plan goodbye | and closures, wills etc. The fear and pain and suffering | is concentrated into such a tiny sliver of time compared | to dying discussed its uncomparable. | | It just takes balls to accept that this is it, what | mattered for you in life is over, and now its time to | think about your closest ones and not yourself. Like a | breakup, many will continue living in bad relationship | since its a small amount of pain and evil every hour, | every day. Instead of standing up and walking off to | uncertainty and freedom. | foobiekr wrote: | Normally, I would not comment on this. | | You say that now. | | I am close to someone looking at this now after holding | that exact view for a lifetime, what I see them actually | doing is delaying and delaying and confronting that, even | on their darker days when they are thinking hard about | doing it, the logistics of zero-risk-of-survival suicide | are pretty terrible. | | It's sobering to watch because I, too, hold the view you | lay out above, and now watching this, I think I'd better | work out my logistics while I'm relatively young and | healthy. | nicoburns wrote: | I wonder if that is due to the lack of good options for | the ending life? I currently feel like I would like to go | on my own terms when the time comes, but none of the | options available look very appealing! (and many of them | can come with legal trouble for anyone who helps). | foobiekr wrote: | That's a big part of it, certainly, but that's not | changing any time soon unfortunately. | WalterBright wrote: | My father had long term care insurance. He got | Alzheimers, and went into a nursing home, and passed | after 3 years. The insurance covered most of nursing home | fees. | | I did some math on the premiums he'd paid for the | insurance, and the payout. It was a break even. | | In other words, putting the premiums into an HSA would | have financially worked out a lot better. | toast0 wrote: | Medicaid will pay for nursing homes (if medically | justified) once you run out of money; but the per diem | isn't that much. Apparently a lot of nursing homes will | commit to accepting medicaid reimbursement for continuing | care if you can commit to paying N years first. I've | heard usually 2, sometimes 3. If you can swing that, your | kids won't have to pay, or they'll pay for incidentals, | but not the whole thing. There are homes that just | straight up take medicaid, but they review poorly; it's | not enough to pay decent staff at reasonable levels, so | there you go. | | What I've heard about long term care insurance is you | can't really buy a plan with useful coverage anymore. The | old plans were good as long as the insurer remained | solvent, but many didn't. | greedo wrote: | "Otherwise... you spend everything, and then your kids | pay." | | That's incorrect. With Medicaid, the recipient is require | to spend down their assets to a small amount, then | Medicaid will pick up the remainder. The recipient's | children aren't on the hook for anything. Of course, they | won't receive any inheritance since the estate of the | recipient has been drained prior to Medicaid. | spfzero wrote: | It's the type of nursing home. If you are in an "assisted | living" home, it is less. As a data point, maybe $5800/mo | in CA, which includes food and various social programs. | msandford wrote: | The other thing you can do is setup a trust for yourself so | that you're broke on paper long before the trust runs out of | money. I don't know if it's ethical but it's legal. | hughes wrote: | What's unethical is a system that completely drains a | person's wealth for getting sick. | caddemon wrote: | Certainly this happens for procedures that should be | cheap, and nursing homes are also a huge issue. But in | the current discussion it's not clear to me that | something like a heart transplant should be cheap. | Development of a novel treatment can be very expensive | and sometimes involves scarce resources. | trasz wrote: | In most developed countries heart transplants are | literally free. That's what proper healthcare system is | for. | caddemon wrote: | The US alone does ~2/3 of worldwide heart transplants, I | think there is a tradeoff here. It's also not actually $1 | million out of pocket for most people. | saiya-jin wrote: | It can't be cheap, and in any high quality medical system | apart from US thats not a concern for the patient, ever, | at all. | | One of those cases where US individualism and utter lack | of social thinking (completely unrelated to | socialism/communism but many simpler folks fail to | distinguish that) screws up needful parts of society | mkoubaa wrote: | Pay lots of money to spend more of your life dying | robocat wrote: | _spend_ a decade of your life to possibly save a few years | later? If you are "investing" your time for someone else, | perhaps you could just give them your time directly instead? | MauroIksem wrote: | It's cheaper than other chemos..my mom has breast cancer and | her chemo according to insurance cost 65k per infusion every 3 | weeks. | Gordonjcp wrote: | That's *insane*. Here in Scotland each dose costs the NHS at | most a couple of hundred quid, plus about that again to | administer. None of that is paid by the patient. | sirsinsalot wrote: | It is crazy what the incentives do in the US. | | It is a bit like car insurance here, which keeps rising | because insurance companies keep edging the cost of a claim | upwards (courtesy cars at extortionate rates, repair, ...) | because there's no insentive to keep costs down or not | profiteer. | | With the NHS's buying power for drugs, they can get a | little bit nearer a sensible margin from the supplier | rather than the insane US costs underwritten by | inflationary insurance. | qgin wrote: | Price is only slightly related to production costs. It's much | more about all the work that goes into getting something like | this from basic science to trials to approval (and all the | other drugs that fail along the way). | | In the current model, pharma only stays in business by | recouping all of the during the patent protected period of any | drug that makes it to market. | dangle1 wrote: | Probably not. That's an average-to-low price for a monoclonal | antibody in the US, and many people with chronic (non-cancer) | conditions pay that price every few weeks to remain healthy | under something like a health-as-a-subscription model. | ta988 wrote: | Something I saw in drug pricing conferences is that there is a | push to price drugs according to how much personal and social | benefit they provide and how much a person would be willing to | pay to extend their life or resolve a condition. An extreme | example for that model, if a drug allow a kid to survive and | have a productive life it can be priced millions whereas a | palliative drug could be much cheaper. | | This has nothing to do with research and cost of development | anymore (if it even ever did). | klyrs wrote: | I met a researcher once who was doing what appeared to be | groundbreaking research on cancer care. He had this | beautiful, tear-jerker story about losing his wife that cast | a rosy, altruistic hue on his research. When he was asked | what the device would cost, he cheerily replied "whatever the | market will bear." That's always stuck with me -- the problem | with American healthcare is the American interpretation of | capitalism. Dude was living off of government research | grants. | pkaye wrote: | > That's always stuck with me -- the problem with American | healthcare is the American interpretation of capitalism. | Dude was living off of government research grants. | | Do the drug companies in Europe do any different though? | xmodem wrote: | I mean, sort of? Except, not really, because, "what the | market will bear" is determined by what governments can | negotiate - there's no Medicare Part D tying their hands. | brigandish wrote: | > That's always stuck with me -- the problem with American | healthcare is the American interpretation of capitalism. | | What should it cost instead? | | > Dude was living off of government research grants. | | Let's imagine his work comes to fruition. The drug is | expensive but efficacious - is this not a good thing? | Should the government have not helped fund this drug | because now it's expensive? | | The alternative is a world without that drug and without as | much incentive to produce the drug. I'm not sure that's a | good trade. | klyrs wrote: | > Should the government have not helped fund this drug | because now it's expensive? | | No, the government should set a reasonable price for the | product they funded. A high enough price to fund | manufacturing, a low enough price to ensure that people | who need the treatment have ready access to it. If the | upper bound on price is too low for universal access, | that's what subsidies are for. | | Instead, we have free money to bootstrap extractive | capitalists, at cost and detriment to people who need | care. | chris_wot wrote: | I'm sorry, but that's a non sequitur. The alternative is | not that the drug wasn't produced. It is that the drug | wasn't developed _by private enterprise_. | brigandish wrote: | Please don't give insincere apologies, they're | rhetorically weak and pairing insincerity with something | that should be sincere isn't a good look. | | Which segues nicely to this pairing of public funding and | private enterprise. No, if the drug wouldn't be sold for | a profit then the incentive to make it wouldn't exist and | the funds would not be applied for and the ironic pairing | - if it is ironic, which I don't think it is - wouldn't | exist either. | | Unless we're going to believe that researchers go through | the mill of applying for funding and doing research | simply to get the funding and stay in badly paid | employment? | pmyteh wrote: | I don't know about medical research, but that's exactly | what the rest of us in universities do. | astrange wrote: | You get social rewards like titles, getting into vicious | personal arguments over personal things, and being able | to reject younger researchers' work in peer review if it | would disprove yours. | jlarocco wrote: | > Should the government have not helped fund this drug | because now it's expensive? | | If he wants to charge "what the market will bear," then | he should fund the research through the market. | | If he wants government handouts to do the research then | the public deserves to get the benefit that it's paying | for - we're not funding it to make some guy rich. | | I'm not saying it should be free, but he's already opted | out of the market, so he loses out on market pricing. | Manufacturing cost plus some reasonable percentage for | the creator. | goodpoint wrote: | > What should it cost instead? | | To patients? It should be free. | | To society? The initial research cost plus the bare | manufacturing cost. | nootropicat wrote: | That's not the problem, that's the reason almost all | medical development happens in America. | | Rich people from all around the world travel to American | hospitals if they have serious health problems, not to | public hospitals even in rich countries like Norway. Public | healthcare works (poorly) as a way to distribute existing | treatment, but is worthless at incentivizing development. | Really, the entire world is unfairly parasitizing on | Americans to fund medical research. | bwb wrote: | That is not true, look up medical outcome data. Most of | europe is far ahead or even with the USA. | caddemon wrote: | Unless you are looking at outcomes of only the top | institutions it's not really what he was saying. The US | has a bad system for the average person for sure, but | that does not mean that the US doesn't have one of the | best systems if you can afford the best care. If you have | medical outcome data that disputes that specifically I'd | be interested. | abeppu wrote: | But so two patients in different financial circumstances | would both pay basically as much as they are able for a life- | saving treatment, arriving at very different amounts, right? | | - that sounds a lot like ransom? | | - I think if they adopt a policy of price-discrimination to | the point of literally taking you for all (or most) of what | you're worth (or projected to be worth), we should turn | around and apply the same reasoning to corporate tax rates. | mattmaroon wrote: | Generally drugs that cure a condition cost MORE than the pre- | existing treatments while under patent protection with no | viable competitors. There's only one source and you'd rather | cure the disease with a pill so you'll pay more. | | Market dynamics don't come into play when there's only one. If | competitors appear or after patents expire it may get cheap, | but the cost early on will have no relation at all to | production costs. | adamredwoods wrote: | This price won't drop, it isn't common enough and still in | clinical trials. | mchusma wrote: | This brings up again the sorry state of medicine being "default | banned". Should this treatment be banned for patients? Absolutely | not. | | Is it a small, underpowered study that needs to be replicated? | Absolutely. | | Could it warrant banning in the future? Sure. | | Should it be covered by insurance? Complicated. | | We need to unbundle these things. | scoopertrooper wrote: | 70% of Phase 2 trials fail and 50% of Phase 3 trials fail[1]. | Why should the default to be to approve drugs in the early | stage of human experimentation? | | Here are some interesting case studies of drugs graduating from | Phase 2 trials only to fail Phase 3 trials on efficacy and | safety grounds: https://www.fda.gov/media/102332/download | | [1] | https://www.parexel.com/application/files_previous/5014/7274... | rzz3 wrote: | Because (at least) for people with a high risk of dying, and | operating under well-informed consent, that decision should | be between patients and their doctors alone. | xiphias2 wrote: | This experiment of treating cancer with checkpoint inhibitors | before chemotherapy should be widened to all cancers where the CI | is available and effective as soon as possible, as it can cure | lots of lives. | | I'm worried that it will take many years until that happens. | bsder wrote: | > I'm worried that it will take many years until that happens. | | For good reason. If we detect cancers early, surgery and | radiation are often very good nowadays--often allowing you to | skip chemotherapy. And these are far less likely to kill the | patient than a checkpoint inhibitor (which can overload your | kidneys if it works or give you autoimmune diseases even if it | doesn't). | | The problem is that there are a lot of cancers we don't detect | early-lobular breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, etc. And for | things like intestinal cancers radiation is particularly bad. | | These kinds of immune treatments are likely to get promoted | first line treatments _quickly_ if they really are this good-- | especially since they are likely to work on stage 4 metastatic | cancers for which we don 't have anything decent. | xiphias2 wrote: | My ex girlfriend detected breast cancer early at age 28, but | the doctors told her that she's ,,too young'' to have cancer. | 1 year later on the checkup they said that it's too late (she | has BRCA1 mutation). The last 10 years have been fighting | with cancer, having about 10 operations on her, but the worst | thing was chemotherapy (she said that she would rather die | than go through it again, I think the dose had been too large | for her probably as well, as she's 44kg). The cancer went | away and came back multiple times, and it got so bad that we | had to separate, but she's still my best friend (and I didn't | find any other person to spend my life with). | | She's right now on an experimental checkpoint inhibitor | (stage 4 metastatic since a year ago), and it probably gives | her another few months, but every time I see her I think that | she only has a year left in her life and get sometimes | frustrated that the experiments are not optimized to get the | more effective treatments in earlier stage. | ImHereToVote wrote: | Maintaining well established medical procedures is much more | important than some bio-robots dying. | adamredwoods wrote: | The treatment is not without side effects. It's still a general | therapy (it blocks all lymphocyte PD-1 receptors), not a | cancer-target one. | | Oncology is slow. It really is up to the patients to push the | oncologist teams. | SiempreViernes wrote: | Using humans, N = 18. Quick search didn't give any estimate of | the chance probability of all going into remission by unrelated | reasons, but I imagine it's pretty high compared to the number of | small cancer trials run around the world. | dekhn wrote: | Cancer rarely, if ever goes into remission on its own (rectal | cancer, specifically). You would never see this happen randomly | to everybody in a trial unless there was some external factor. | LinuxBender wrote: | I don't have a link handy but I have read in the past some | cases of trial participants being ejected from a trial | because they started prolonged fasting and killed their | cancer cells. I suppose that is in line with the external | factor you mention. | lawrenceyan wrote: | A healthy reminder that these articles are generally sponsored by | the company developing the specific drug. | | Cancers will be mostly treatable within our lifetimes though (in | many cases already are). All the pieces are there technology | wise. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-05 23:00 UTC)