Interesting article in the New York Times today about a new class of cancer treatments that don’t cure but reduce cancer to a chronic condition.

“No one could take chemotherapy for two years straight; it would just wear you out,” said Mr. Smith, a designer for an auto parts company who lives in Cherry Hill, N.J. “But this is simple.” The main side effect, he said, is a hoarse voice.
. . .
Some experts see Mr. Smith’s experience as a harbinger of a future in which cancer, while not cured, will be held in check for years by drugs tolerable enough to take on a continuing basis.

I have to admit I’m not certain how I feel about this development. Of course, I believe that any new option in treating cancer and other diseases is a good thing, but the incurable paranoid cynic in me sees it more as a strategic business move for the pharmaceutical industry. The same industry made rich by turning diabetics, asthmatics, HIV-positives and countless others into addicts can now do the same to cancer patients. I sincerely doubt that many of the ailments listed above can be cured as long as the pharmaceutical industry’s patents on long-term maintenance therapies remain profitable. I don’t think it has anything to do with science or research – it’s just business. As a drug manufacturer, would you throw away a treatment earning $1000-$20,000 per year per patient in order to market a cure for the particular disease? Somehow I doubt it unless an obscenely high price for the “cure” could be extracted.

More personally, would BorgHealth have fronted the cash to try to cure my cancer if they thought they could just maintain it with a pill until I died or missed a premium payment? While I trust my doctors, I do not trust their accountants.

One Response to “Cancer Maintenance”

1. Tim Glisson says:

   August 04, 2004 at 8:16 am

   What is the name of this new maintenance therapy for cancer and who makes it?
   Thank you