Posted on 05/18/2024 5:40:45 PM PDT by george76
Cutting-edge cancer treatments are essentially useless for patients barely clinging to life, a new study shows.
Chemotherapies, immunotherapies, targeted therapies and hormone therapies do not improve survival rates in patients with very advanced tumors near the end of life, according to findings published Thursday in the journal JAMA Oncology.
"Since we don't see an improved survival benefit, oncologists should revisit their goals of care conversations with patients, and this information in the study should be explained to patients," said lead researcher Maureen Canavan, an associate research scientist with Yale Cancer Center.
For the study, researchers analyzed records on more than 78,000 adult cancer patients treated at 280 U.S. cancer clinics between 2015 and 2019.
The team specifically looked at patients in the final stages of six common cancers -- breast, colon, lung, pancreas, kidney and bladder.
"We wanted to find out if oncologic treatment of very advanced tumors is associated with improved survival or if there are times when it's futile to continue care and instead oncologists should shift focus to palliative and supportive care," Canavan said in a Yale news release.
The results showed no statistically significant survival benefit for patients treated with systemic therapies, compared to those who didn't receive such treatments, researchers said.
Further, this was found across all the cancer types studied.
This information builds on a 2022 study, also published in the journal JAMA Oncology, which found there has been a gradual decline in chemotherapy use at the end of a patient's life.
But at the same time, there's been a corresponding uptick in the use of newer immunotherapy treatments, that earlier study reported.
That means that the use of systemic therapies overall has held steady, with about 17% of near-death patients receiving what now appears to be useless treatment, researchers said.
Doctors could best help patients by better judging when additional therapy will be futile and communicate that through a discussion of goals of care near the end of life, researchers concluded.
"We hope this information can help inform oncologists when they are deciding whether or not to continue treatment or transition patients who have metastatic disease to supportive care," Canavan said.
“Doctors could best help patients by better judging when additional therapy will be futile and communicate that through a discussion of goals of care near the end of life, researchers concluded.”
Absolutely the right approach.
And I have metastatic cancer.
The data supports that cancer is increasing at a great rate but nothing to tell why (at this time). Possibly diet, lack of exercise, nanoplastics in our environment and the that thing (that cannot be named).
Thank you. When you personally deal with it you really do realize O-care was not at all about affordable health care, it was all about profits while exterminating souls.
If even the insurance companies wanted it, then something was wrong.
I pray for you and your fight with it... As you know “logic” and “communication” between the actors in this game is the huge hurdle.
I am constantly yelling at them “Did you talk to her Neurologist before you do this?” Did you talk to her Cardiologist before you do this?” Did you talk to her endocrinologist before you do this? did you talk to her nephrologist before you do this?...
No... It is the oncologists personal egotistical rodeo and they could care less how much damage they do to the rest of the body with their decisions. When there was actually a compromise of treatments that could treat the disease very well without causing more harm to the rest of the vessel.
They purposely DO NOT communicate with each other so that they all cash in on the end results. It is all by design... It is all a true conspiracy to profit the whole industry as a whole.
You know... You see the truth too... And it is absolutely disgusting that they call themselves Health CARE workers.
My father was 93 when diagnosed with bladder cancer. He declined chemo and radiation therapy and lived his last six months relatively comfortably. My sister was diagnosed with lung cancer in her early sixties and underwent the whole gamut of treatment and while it was very difficult - to understate - she is still alive and well and thriving. It is a quality of life decision.
I heard in Canada 🍁 it takes two years to get prenatal care….
Three in England. Under the NHS….
I've noticed the same thing happening.
Always question the logic and ask the questions. Despite what they would like you to think... Your loved one DOES NOT BELONG to them, and asking the questions is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL and rational.
“then there will *never* be any progress against advanced tumors.”
This needs to be explained to the patient that the treatment likely would be completely ineffective and they are being used to possibly help others with a future cure. A choice.
Chemotherapy is a living hell. I have to be attached to a machine that is pumping poison in my body for at least 12 days a month. I can’t go out in the sun without breaking out, it totally drains all my energy (takes all my willpower to accomplish anything), it attacks my skin in other ways even with precautions, and you can see the jaundice in my eyes.
Cancer is going to kill me and I am taking chemotherapy to prolong my life to be around grandkids (I get breaks from it). However, when it becomes ineffective, I am going to stop.
If you live in Canada they’ll knock you off for a migraine
Sadly, this push to stop treatment is nothing new. It’s been happening for many years. While some doctors are willing to try anything, some doctors encourage their patients to give up, even pushing patients into hospice. And now, with assisted suicide legalized in some states, it’s not hard to believe that some doctors might encourage suicide.
I agree with your points entirely. Also, these types of 'outcomes' statistical studies that use large database info (e.g. the Medicare database; combined registries) often do not tell the whole story. There is a ton of biological variability among people, and there may be subgroups of people who respond better than others. God forbid we let beancounters define the future of medicine.
Great point about differences among subgroups. Indeed, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. The sort of useful information gleaned from those different outcomes will be lost if the “don’t even bother” mentality prevails.
Cancer has become a industry.
They will never cure it.
There’s quite a bit of dark humor in medicine. One timeless joke is “why do funeral homes nail coffins shut? To keep oncologists from giving another round of chemo, of course! An alternative punchline is “to keep the nephrologist from giving another round of dialysis”
Thanks for the ping.
Meanwhile, anyone else still wondering about the safety of the nation’s blood supply...
BTW, here’s a link to the bio for the lead researcher...
https://medicine.yale.edu/profile/maureen-canavan/
Nuff said, eh?
A work mentor of mine was in his early 70's when he was diagnosed with stage 4 bladder cancer. His doctor missed it when he complained about something being wrong at a previous checkup. Fortunately, the cancer hadn't spread to other organs. Surgeons removed the bladder and he had several rounds of chemo. He looked terrible but managed to drag himself into the office on occasion during treatments. He fully recovered and then dropped dead of a burst aorta a few years later. The aorta problem ran in the family.
<>Cancer has become an industry. They will never cure it.<>
Bingo. Follow the money.
“Cutting-edge cancer treatments are essentially useless for patients barely clinging to life”
But they’re very profitable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.