More than half of the newly developed anti-cancer drugs are useless

Physicians are studying the effects of drugs on people with cancer

There are a lot of different medicines used to treat cancer. Researchers have now discovered that most oncology anticancer drugs have done little to improve the survival or well-being of patients with cancer.

The researchers from the London School of Economics and King's College London found in their study that many novel anticancer drugs do not really improve well-being and barely improve their chances of surviving. This raises the question of how meaningful the intake of such drugs really is for people with cancer. The physicians published the results of their study in the journal British Medical Journal (BMJ).

There are a lot of new drugs on the market designed to treat cancer. However, physicians now realize that many of these drugs do not improve the well-being or survival of cancer patients. (Image: monropic / fotolia.com)

In almost two-thirds of the cases, no improvement was found

From 2009 to 2013, the European Medicines Agency approved a total of forty-four cancer medicines for therapeutic use in 68 different indications. However, the results of the current study show that at the time of testing the new therapies, there was no conclusive evidence to improve survival in nearly two-thirds of the indications.

Experts reviewed improvements in well-being and survival

In addition, the use of the drugs only improved the quality of life of patients in ten percent of the time. Overall, 57 percent of uses showed no benefit in terms of survival or quality of life, the researchers explain. Their goal was to test whether these medications that are already available on the market really help to improve their well-being or survival, explains author Dr. med. Huseyin Naci from the London School of Economics.

Even after eight years, about 49 percent of the drugs led to no significant improvements

The team found that after three to eight years of follow-up, 49 percent of the approved uses of the drugs were not associated with a clear sign of improvement in survival or quality of life. If survival benefits were found, they were clinically meaningless in almost half of the cases, the experts add.

Few studies are about overall survival or quality of life

According to Dr. Naci also finds it surprising that not many studies consider overall survival or quality of life as their primary goal. Instead, most studies are looking at indirect measures, such as laboratory tests. These measures were believed to show evidence of the survival benefits of a drug. When new drugs are launched, it is expected that companies will invest in longer-term studies to identify the benefits of survival and make them public. This does not necessarily correspond to the truth. However, the findings are not intended to cause patient concern, adds author Dr. Naci added.

Many drugs launched without improved effects

The lack of drug improvement in survival is disappointing, say the doctors. It is not without reason that experts are calling for a stricter approach to the evaluation of cancer drugs. It also raises the question of why about half of all medications are approved if they do not provide any clinically meaningful benefit.

Real effects on well-being and survival must be taken into account

Ideally, studies should attempt to measure early markers of treatment failure so that health authorities can make balanced decisions, the researchers say. Real effects on the well-being and survival of patients should therefore be taken into account, not just data from clinical trials. This will help to understand how well medicines work in a real environment and how strong their effectiveness is. (As)