I keep hearing folks restate an industry talking point

"Even if cancer drugs don& #39;t improve overall survival, improving PFS keeps patients going just in case a new drug comes along that is a game-changer!"

Let& #39;s evaluate that claim, shall we?
@Plenary_Session

Basically, they are saying, even if a drug only does what the red arrow shows, it INCREASES the chance a person may benefit from a future-- hitherto unavailable-- treatment

Let& #39;s think about that shall we?

The prerequisites to getting said newer therapy are being alive, and being of appropriate performance status (though if it is really a miracle-- this may be relaxed somewhat).

Is not progressing for a longer time initially a part of those prerequisites?

If we are perfectly honest the window to give the new drug looks more like this https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten" aria-label="Emoji: Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten">

Drugs that improve initial PFS without OS DON& #39;T increase the chance of getting a future new drug

That doesn& #39;t even make sense

And yet, it is widely repeated

Here is an alternative view of a new drug that is really much more average (and the windows of opportunity to give

So why do people repeat this talking point that not only lacks evidence, but is not even logical

Because that& #39;s what people do; repeat things without considering them fully

I wonder who was the marketing person who first dreamt this up

Read Malignant and think better about cancer drugs https://www.amazon.com/Malignant-Policy-Evidence-People-Cancer/dp/1421437635/">https://www.amazon.com/Malignant...