Gyawali Bishal, Pantziarka Pan, Crispino Sergio, Bouche Gauthier
Anticancer Fund, Boechoutlaan 221-1853, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium.
Department of Medical Oncology, Civil Service Hospital, Minbhawan Marg Min Bhawan, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal.
Ecancermedicalscience. 2018 Jan 16;12:ed76. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2018.ed76. eCollection 2018.
Among the various measures proposed to combat the challenge of financial toxicity in cancer care, an important strategy is the use of lower-priced drugs instead of expensive alternatives. However, the oncology community seems to either ignore or more readily reject cheaper drugs in cancer care compared to more expensive alternatives. In this commentary, we present three examples of lower-priced drugs rejected or ignored by the oncology community and contrast this with three expensive drugs where persistent optimism remained despite negative clinical trial results. We argue that all drugs be held to the same rigorous standards - this not only includes skepticism in the absence of sound evidence, but also the suspension of premature judgement as has happened in the cases of repurposed drugs.
在为应对癌症治疗中经济毒性挑战而提出的各种措施中，一项重要策略是使用低价药物而非昂贵的替代药物。然而，与价格更高的替代药物相比，肿瘤学界在癌症治疗中似乎要么忽视要么更轻易地拒绝使用价格较低的药物。在这篇评论中，我们列举了肿瘤学界拒绝或忽视的三种低价药物的例子，并将其与三种昂贵药物进行对比，尽管这些昂贵药物临床试验结果为阴性，但人们对它们的乐观态度依然持续。我们认为，所有药物都应遵循同样严格的标准——这不仅包括在缺乏充分证据时保持怀疑态度，还包括像在药物重新用途案例中那样避免过早下判断。
