Do you have a link to that Kiplinger Washington Letter?
I do believe that, with cancer research moving on several fronts, and therapies targeted at quite different stages of the disease, I need much more CONTEXT information, before I can evaluate the potential of any one drug or program.
I need to better understand the "gold standard" therapies already in place (for EACH of about 5 different stages of therapy), and the drugs-in-progress closest to supplanting them, or best able to compliment them.
Add to that the need to be aware of new "delivery systems" that are making the old gold standards strikingly more effective. (This approach seems to me to be especially logical and hopeful -- with better targeting of known drugs, improve the positives, reduce the negatives, and benefit from the long track record of experience with the drug and its interactions with other drugs.)
Furthermore, it seems to me that even at the same stage of a particular cancer, there are variations necessitating an array of "gold standards" -- so that 40% success with 20% of a target population might represent terrific results for a new drug.
In other words, I feel the need for a thorough "alternatives analysis."
----------------
On another thread, Mike Head posted an article that looks interesting to me. It might have significance not too many years hence, for both screening and therapy -- for both prostate and breast cancer:
Message 8188089
Regards,
Cheryl |
