What is it about?
When we look at patient risks for a new treatment and compare them to small clinical benefits, is the chance for a small increase of duration of life worth the discomfort and possible disability suffered during the entire treatment? This does not question treatments where some patients will survive for long (years) periods or have a chance for cure. Should treatments that offer tiny clinical benefit be extended to other patients? \Who is benefitting? The patient or the pharmaceutical industry?
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Let us spare patients from unnecessary but unpleasant therapy and look for other approaches
Perspectives
The author has been a participant on all sides of this problem, from designing and supervising research studies, treating patients on them, evaluating as a 'peer reviewer" such programs, and having close family members treated. We did not push forward when results were clinically unimportant (even if statistically significant), or when other avenues were less toxic.
Harold Douglass
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: At least, do no harm, Cancer, June 2017, Wiley,
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30865.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
