0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Special Communication |

Unintended Consequences of Expensive Cancer Therapeutics—The Pursuit of Marginal Indications and a Me-Too Mentality That Stifles Innovation and Creativity The John Conley Lecture

Tito Fojo, MD, PhD1; Sham Mailankody, MD1; Andrew Lo, PhD2
[+] Author Affiliations
1Medical Oncology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
2Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(12):1225-1236. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2014.1570.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Cancer is expected to continue as a major health and economic problem worldwide. Several factors are contributing to the increasing economic burden imposed by cancer, with the cost of cancer drugs an undeniably important variable. The use of expensive therapies with marginal benefits for their approved indications and for unproven indications is contributing to the rising cost of cancer care. We believe that expensive therapies are stifling progress by (1) encouraging enormous expenditures of time, money, and resources on marginal therapeutic indications and (2) promoting a me-too mentality that is stifling innovation and creativity. The modest gains of Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies and the limited progress against major cancers is evidence of a lowering of the efficacy bar that, together with high drug prices, has inadvertently incentivized the pursuit of marginal outcomes and a me-too mentality evidenced by the duplication of effort and redundant pharmaceutical pipelines. We discuss the economic realities that are driving this process and provide suggestions for radical changes to reengineer our collective cancer ecosystem to achieve better outcomes for society.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Graphical Representation of the Results in Table 1: Gains in Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) for the 71 Drugs Approved by the FDA From 2002 to 2014 for Metastatic and/or Advanced and/or Refractory Solid Tumors

The horizontal lines represent the median values for PFS (A) and OS (B) of 2.5 and 2.1 months, respectively. The oldest approval (imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor, February 1, 2002) is at the left, and the most recent (ceritinib in ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer, April 29, 2014), at the right. In 3 cases the “gains” were 0 months. In all others where a bar does not appear, it is because for this indication either PFS or OS was not a prespecified end point (or neither was an end point for drugs 29 and 55). Because these were not end points, the values were not reported in the FDA approval announcement and in most cases have also not been published.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Comparison of Cancer Therapies in the Pipelines of Pharmaceutical Companies According to Their Putative Mechanisms of Action

For this analysis we began by identifying the top 10 pharmaceutical companies based on 2013 earnings. Because Johnson & Johnson does not provide details of its pipeline, only 9 companies were included in this analysis totaling 168 agents in their oncology pipelines. We defined overlapping as a pharmaceutical agent whose mechanism of action is similar to that of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved agent and/or that of an agent in the pipeline of another top-10 company. Nonoverlapping was defined as a pharmaceutical agent whose mechanism of action is not similar to that of an FDA-approved drug and also not similar to that of a drug in the pipeline of another top-10 company. However, this does not exclude the possibility that the mechanism is similar to that of a drug in the pipeline of a company that is not in this list. With these somewhat arbitrary definitions, we found that 124 oncology agents (74%) in the pipelines of the 9 companies examined have an overlapping mechanism of action, 41 (24%) have a nonoverlapping mechanism of action, and 3 (2%) have a mechanism of action that is unknown since it is not listed on the company website. The drugs and companies, as well as the assignments, are summarized in the eTable in the Supplement.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

5,765 Views
23 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Breast Cancer

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Cancer, Family History

brightcove.createExperiences();