Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Why patients receive treatments that are minimally effective?

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology volume 16, pages 3–4 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

The value of medical treatments is an issue that has been actively debated in recent years and is not unique to oncology. In this Comment, we discuss why we pursue treatments which might have limited benefit from the point of view of three parties: the patient, the physician, and the pharmaceutical industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Davis, C. et al. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009–13. BMJ 359, j4530 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Weeks, J. C. et al. Patients’ expectations about effects of chemotherapy for advanced cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1616–1625 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Duric, V. M. et al. Patients’ preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: what makes AC and CMF worthwhile now? Ann. Oncol. 16, 1786–1794 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Verma, A. A., Razak, F. & Detsky, A. S. Understanding choice: why physicians should learn prospect theory. JAMA 311, 571–572 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Duggan, K. T. et al. Use of word “unprecedented” in the media coverage of cancer drugs: do “unprecedented” drugs live up to the hype? J. Cancer Policy 14, 16–20 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Booth, C. M. & Eisenhauer, E. A. Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable? J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 1030–1033 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boutron, I. et al. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 303, 2058–2064 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Del Paggio, J. C. et al. Do contemporary randomized controlled trials meet ESMO thresholds for meaningful clinical benefit? Ann. Oncol. 28, 157–162 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tibau, A. et al. Magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 110, 486–492 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Del Paggio, J. C. et al. Delivery of meaningful cancer care: a retrospective cohort study assessing cost and benefit with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks. Lancet Oncol. 18, 887–894 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge V. Chopra and I. Tannock for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    Christopher M. Booth

  2. Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen’s Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    Christopher M. Booth

  3. Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Allan S. Detsky

  4. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Allan S. Detsky

  5. Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital and University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Allan S. Detsky

Authors
  1. Christopher M. Booth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allan S. Detsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher M. Booth.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Booth, C.M., Detsky, A.S. Why patients receive treatments that are minimally effective?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 16, 3–4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-018-0101-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-018-0101-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing