Close X
Get more out of
by joining the site for free
Free 17-point plan to great health
Twice weekly e-news bulletins
Access to our News, Forums and Blogs
Sign up for free and claim your
17-point plan to great health
Free 17-point plan to great health

Twice weekly e-news bulletins

Access to our News, Forums and Blogs

If you want to read our in-depth research articles or
have our amazing magazine delivered to your home
each month, then you have to pay.

Click here if you're interested
Helping you make better health choices

What Doctors Don't Tell You

In shops now or delivered to your home from only £4.25 an issue!

September 2020 (Vol. 5 Issue 6)

The 'wonder' cancer drugs that don't work
About the author: 
Bryan Hubbard

The 'wonder' cancer drugs that don't work image

Those 'wonder drugs' for cancer we read about all the time in the media aren't helping the patient live longer—or even improving the quality of their life, a new study has discovered.

They are the two major goals of every cancer drug, but almost none of the 'wonder' drugs approved by Europe's drug regulator are achieving either, even after three years of use.

Yet, they are heralded as the next major breakthrough in cancer treatment by the media and cancer support groups—many of which get funding from the pharmaceutical industry—and the forgotten once they win approval.

These failings cast doubt on the initial research that was carried out in order to get the drugs approved in the first place, say researchers from King's College London.

They took a look at the track record of 48 cancer drugs—heralded as 'wonder' and 'breakthrough' drugs before their approval—that were approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2009 to 2013.

In truth, almost none of them had much evidence that they could improve survivability or quality of life when they won approval, and there was still little evidence even more than three years after they had been on the market.

This is usually because they are achieving success with what is known as 'surrogate markers', which means they achieved the principle aim of reducing tumour size, for instance, usually in a laboratory, but the way a patient was affected wasn't tracked. Around 57 per cent of the drugs the researchers investigated had won approval on the basis of surrogate markers.

The practice is dangerous and expensive. It's dangerous because cancer patients are not being given older drugs with some evidence of success and instead being given one of the new 'wonder' drugs that aren't working; the new drugs are usually very expensive, and that means somebody is having to pay for them.


(Source: BMJ, 2017; 359: j4530)

You may also be interested in...

Support WDDTY

Help support us to hold the drugs companies, governments and the medical establishment accountable for what they do.


Latest Tweet


Since 1989, WDDTY has provided thousands of resources on how to beat asthma, arthritis, depression and many other chronic conditions..

Start by looking in our fully searchable database, active and friendly community forums and the latest health news.

Positive SSL Wildcard

Facebook Twitter

© 2010 - 2020 WDDTY Publishing Ltd.
All Rights Reserved