Although better science and technology has been linked with better health care, however, reality is much different. Although America and most of Europe are equipped with most advanced science and technology, paradoxically cancer incidence is highest in the world. This indicates that science and technology alone is not sufficient in treating diseases like cancer. It is also now well recognized that more than 95% of the drugs/compounds that kill either cancer cells in culture or regress the tumors in animals, fail in phase I clinical trials in humans, indicating that most pre-clinical models of cancer are inadequate. In addition, most of the anticancer drugs that are approved by the regulatory agencies such as FDA either has no effect on the overall survival of the cancer patient or may provide an increase in few months in overall survival. This is despite the fact that most targeted therapies that are currently available are highly expensive; thus suggesting the lack of affordability. This review is meant to focus on some of these problems in detail and then provide potential solutions since most cancers are caused by multiple genes, and thus multi-targeted therapies are needed such as natural products which are inexpensive, safe and have been used for thousands of years for both prevention and treatment of cancer.
Impact statement
The success rate for cancer drugs which enter into phase 1 clinical trials is utterly less. Why the vast majority of drugs fail is not understood but suggests that pre-clinical studies are not adequate for human diseases. In 1975, as per the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, pharmaceutical industries expended 100 million dollars for research and development of the average FDA approved drug. By 2005, this figure had more than quadrupled, to $1.3 billion. In order to recover their high and risky investment cost, pharmaceutical companies charge more for their products. However, there exists no correlation between drug development cost and actual sale of the drug. This high drug development cost could be due to the reason that all patients might not respond to the drug. Hence, a given drug has to be tested in large number of patients to show drug benefits and obtain significant results.
HasimaNAggarwalBB.Cancer-linked targets modulated by curcumin. Int J Biochem Mol Biol2012;
3:328–51
2.
BordoloiDSailoBLManteghiNPadmavathiGKunnumakkaraAB.Introduction and basic concepts of cancer. Cancer cell chemoresistance and chemosensitization.
Hackensack, NJ:
World Scientific, 2018, pp.1–14.
3.
BordoloiDBanikKShabnamBPadmavathiGMonishaJArfusoFDharmarajanAMaoXLimLHKWangLFanLHuiKMKumarAPSethiGKunnumakkaraAB.TIPE family of proteins and its implications in different chronic diseases. Int J Mol Sci2018;
19:E2974
4.
BrayFFerlayJSoerjomataramISiegelRLTorreLAJemalA.Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin2018;
68:394–424
5.
ThakurKKBordoloiDKunnumakkaraAB.Alarming burden of triple-negative breast cancer in India. Clin Breast Cancer2018;
18:e393–9
6.
WhitemanDCWilsonLF.The fractions of cancer attributable to modifiable factors: a global review. Cancer Epidemiol2016;
44:203–21
7.
HarshaCBanikKBordoloiDKunnumakkaraAB.Antiulcer properties of fruits and vegetables: a mechanism based perspective. Food Chem Toxicol2017;
108:104–19
8.
KhwairakpamADBordoloiDThakurKKMonishaJArfusoFSethiGMishraSKumarAPKunnumakkaraAB.Possible use of Punica granatum (pomegranate) in cancer therapy. Pharmacol Res2018;
133:53–64
9.
AggarwalBBDandaDGuptaSGehlotP.Models for prevention and treatment of cancer: problems vs promises. Biochem Pharmacol2009;
78:1083–94
10.
YiSLinSLiYZhaoWMillsGBSahniN.Functional variomics and network perturbation: connecting genotype to phenotype in cancer. Nat Rev Genet2017;
18:395–410
11.
KhuranaEFuYChakravartyDDemichelisFRubinMAGersteinM.Role of non-coding sequence variants in cancer. Nat Rev Genet2016;
17:93–108
12.
ZhangWBojorquez-GomezAVelezDOXuGSanchezKSShenJPChenKLiconKMeltonCOlsonKMYuMKHuangJKCarterHFarleyEKSnyderMFraleySIKreisbergJFIdekerT.A global transcriptional network connecting noncoding mutations to changes in tumor gene expression. Nat Genet2018;
50:613–20
13.
DrostJCleversH.Who is in the driver's seat: tracing cancer genes using CRISPR-barcoding. Mol Cell2016;
63:352–4
14.
WatsonIRTakahashiKFutrealPAChinL.Emerging patterns of somatic mutations in cancer. Nat Rev Genet2013;
14:703–18
15.
RoerinkSFSasakiNLee-SixHYoungMDAlexandrovLBBehjatiSMitchellTJGrossmannSLightfootHEganDAPronkASmakmanNvan GorpJAndersonEGambleSJAlderCvan de WeteringMCampbellPJStrattonMRCleversH.Intra-tumour diversification in colorectal cancer at the single-cell level. Nature2018;
556:457–62
16.
WarisGAhsanH.Reactive oxygen species: role in the development of cancer and various chronic conditions. J Carcinog2006;
5:14
17.
AggarwalBBSungB.NF-κB in cancer: a matter of life and death. Cancer Discov2011;
1:469–71
18.
BosJL.ras oncogenes in human cancer: a review. Cancer Res1989;
49:4682–9
19.
MonishaJRoyNKBordoloiDKumarAGollaRKotokyJPadmavathiGKunnumakkaraAB.Nuclear factor kappa B: a potential target to persecute head and neck cancer. Curr Drug Targets2017;
18:232–53
20.
PadmavathiGRoyNKBordoloiDArfusoFMishraSSethiGBishayeeAKunnumakkaraAB.Butein in health and disease: a comprehensive review. Phytomedicine2017;
25:118–27
21.
VivancoISawyersCL.The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase AKT pathway in human cancer. Nat Rev Cancer2002;
2:489–501
22.
KansanenEKuosmanenSMLeinonenHLevonenAL.The Keap1-Nrf2 pathway: mechanisms of activation and dysregulation in cancer. Redox Biol2013;
1:45–9
23.
ZhanTRindtorffNBoutrosM.Wnt signaling in cancer. Oncogene2017;
36:1461–73
24.
CurtinNJ.DNA repair dysregulation from cancer driver to therapeutic target. Nat Rev Cancer2012;
12:801–17
25.
DoroshowJHKummarS.Translational research in oncology-10 years of progress and future prospects. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2014;
11:649–62
26.
WildingJLBodmerWF.Cancer cell lines for drug discovery and development. Cancer Res2014;
74:2377–84
27.
DanielaFFilomenaARaquelC.The importance of cancer cell lines as in vitro models in cancer methylome analysis and anticancer drugs testing. Oncogenomics Cancer Proteomics2013;139–66
28.
GardanehM.Human cancer modeling: recapitulating tumor heterogeneity towards personalized medicine. Multidiscip Cancer Invest2017;
1:1–12
29.
IorioFKnijnenburgTAVisDJBignellGRMendenMPSchubertMAbenNGonçalvesEBarthorpeSLightfootHCokelaerTGreningerPvan DykEChangHde SilvaHHeynHDengXEganRKLiuQMironenkoTMitropoulosXRichardsonLWangJZhangTMoranSSayolsSSoleimaniMTamboreroDLopez-BigasNRoss-MacdonaldPEstellerMGrayNSHaberDAStrattonMRBenesCHWesselsLFASaez-RodriguezJMcDermottUGarnettMJ.A landscape of pharmacogenomic interactions in cancer. Cell2016;
166:740–54
30.
PathakSMultaniASNarayanSKumarVNewmanRA.Anvirzel, an extract of Nerium oleander, induces cell death in human but not murine cancer cells. Anticancer Drugs2000;
11:455–63
31.
GutmannDHHunter-SchaedleKShannonKM.Harnessing preclinical mouse models to inform human clinical cancer trials. J Clin Invest2006;
116:847–52
32.
DayCPMerlinoGVan DykeT.Preclinical mouse cancer models: a maze of opportunities and challenges. Cell2015;
163:39–53
33.
ZhangWMooreLJiP.Mouse models for cancer research. Chin J Cancer2011;
30:149–52
34.
HurtleyS.Humans as model of human disease. Res Sci J2018;
361:763–4
35.
JacksonSJThomasGJ.Human tissue models in cancer research: looking beyond the mouse. Dis Model Mech2017;
10:939–42
36.
DrostJCleversH.Organoids in cancer research. Nat Rev Cancer2018;
18:407–18
37.
IngberDE.Developmentally inspired human 'organs on chips'.Development2018;
145:dev156125
38.
AdamsDJ.The Valley of Death in anticancer drug development: a reassessment. Trends Pharmacol Sci2012;
33:173–80
39.
EatonAIasonosAGounderMMPamerEGDrilonAVulihDSmithGLIvySPSpriggsDRHymanDM.Toxicity attribution in phase I trials: evaluating the effect of dose on the frequency of related and unrelated toxicities. Clin Cancer Res2016;
22:553–9
40.
BraunTM.The current design of oncology phase I clinical trials: progressing from algorithms to statistical models. Chin Clin Oncol2014;
3:2
41.
MarkVHendrik-TobiasA.Challenges of patient selection for phase I oncology trials. Drug Discov Dev IntechOpen2015;65–82
42.
MolifeLRAlamSOlmosDPuglisiMShahKFehrmannRTraniLTjokrowidjajaAde BonoJSBanerjiUKayeSB.Defining the risk of toxicity in phase I oncology trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: a single centre experience. Ann Oncol2012;
23:1968–73
43.
SmithSMPitcherBNJungSHBartlettNLWagner-JohnstonNParkSIRichardsKLCashenAFJaslowskiASmithSEChesonBDHsiELeonardJP.Safety and tolerability of idelalisib, lenalidomide, and rituximab in relapsed and refractory lymphoma: the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A051201 and A051202 phase 1 trials. Lancet Haematol2017;
4:e176–82
44.
SonaliMSBrandelynNPSin-HoJNancyLBNinaWJStevenIPKristyLRAmandaFCAnthonyJScottESBruceDCEricHJohnPL.Safety and tolerability of idelalisib, lenalidomide, and rituximab in relapsed and refractory lymphoma: the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A051201 and A051202 phase 1 trials. Lancet Haematol2017;
4:Pe176–82
45.
PongasGFojoT.BEZ235: when promising science meets clinical reality. Oncologist2016;
21:1033–4
46.
RoyNKBordoloiDMonishaJPadmavathiGKotokyJGollaRKunnumakkaraAB.Specific targeting of Akt kinase isoforms: taking the precise path for prevention and treatment of cancer. Curr Drug Targets2017;
18:421–35
47.
MorenoLPearsonAD.How can attrition rates be reduced in cancer drug discovery?Expert Opin Drug Discov2013;
8:363–8
48.
KolaILandisJ.Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?.Nat Rev Drug Discov2004;
3:711–5
49.
GossTFPicardEHTarabA.Recognizing value in oncology innovation.
Boston, MA:
Boston Healthcare, 2012
50.
SteinWDFiggWDDahutWSteinADHoshenMBPriceDBatesSEFojoT.Tumor growth rates derived from data for patients in a clinical trial correlate strongly with patient survival: a novel strategy for evaluation of clinical trial data. Oncologist2008;
13:1046–54
51.
US Food and Drug Administration, https://www.fda.gov (accessed 31 August 2018)
52.
WongCHSiahKWLoAW.Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics2019;
20:273–86
53.
Amiri-KordestaniLFojoT.Why do phase III clinical trials in oncology fail so often. J Natl Cancer Inst2012;
104:568–9
54.
PrasadV.Do cancer drugs improve survival or quality of life?BMJ2017;
359:j4528
55.
Salas-VegaSIliopoulosOMossialosE.Assessment of overall survival, quality of life, and safety benefits associated with new cancer medicines. JAMA Oncol2017;
3:382–90
56.
MailankodySPrasadV.Overall survival in cancer drug trials as a new surrogate end point for overall survival in the real world. JAMA Oncol2017;
3:889–90
57.
JawedIWilkersonJPrasadVDuffyAGFojoT.Colorectal cancer survival gains and novel treatment regimens: a systematic review and analysis. JAMA Oncol2015;
1:787–95
58.
FojoTParkinsonDR.Biologically targeted cancer therapy and marginal benefits: are we making too much of too little or are we achieving too little by giving too much?.Clin Cancer Res2010;
16:5972–80
59.
BatesSEFojoT.Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors: a moving target?.Clin Cancer Res2005;
11:7203–5
60.
MasseyPRPrasadVFiggWDFojoT.Multiplying therapies and reducing toxicity in metastatic melanoma. Cancer Biol Ther2015;
16:1014–8
61.
OzaAMCookADPfistererJEmbletonALedermannJAPujade-LauraineEKristensenGCareyMSBealePCervantesAPark-SimonTWRustinGJolyFMirzaMRPlanteMQuinnMPovedaAJaysonGCStarkDSwartAMFarrellyLKaplanRParmarMKPerrenTJ.ICON7 trial investigators.
Standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON7): overall survival results of a phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol2015;
16:928–36
62.
FojoTBatesS.Arsenic trioxide (As(2)O(3)): still a mystery. Cell Cycle2002;
1:183–6
63.
WilsonWHSchenkeinDPJerniganCLWoodcockJSchilskyRL.Reevaluating the accelerated approval process for oncology drugs. Clin Cancer Res2013;
19:2804–9
64.
FuerederT.Immunotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Memo2016;
9:66–9
65.
LeDTDurhamJNSmithKNWangHBartlettBRAulakhLKLuSKemberlingHWiltCLuberBSWongFAzadNSRuckiAALaheruDDonehowerRZaheerAFisherGACrocenziTSLeeJJGretenTFDuffyAGCiomborKKEyringADLamBHJoeAKangSPHoldhoffMDanilovaLCopeLMeyerCZhouSGoldbergRMArmstrongDKBeverKMFaderANTaubeJHousseauFSpetzlerDXiaoNPardollDMPapadopoulosNKinzlerKWEshlemanJRVogelsteinBAndersRADiazLAJr.Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science2017;
357:409–13
66.
PrasadVKaestnerVMailankodyS.Cancer drugs approved based on biomarkers and not tumor type-FDA approval of pembrolizumab for mismatch repair-deficient solid cancers. JAMA Oncol2018;
4:157–8
67.
PrasadVKaestnerVMailankodyS.Clarification of the FDA accelerated agnostic approval of pembrolizumab and the opportunities arising from the required confirmatory studies-reply. JAMA Oncol2018;
4:1300–1
68.
PrasadVMailankodyS.The accelerated approval of oncologic drugs: lessons from ponatinib. JAMA2014;
311:353
69.
New Drug Approval, United States Government Accountability Office. FDA needs to enhance its oversight of drugs approved on the basis of surrogate endpoints, https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09866.pdf (2009, accessed 3 September 2018)
70.
KimCPrasadV.Strength of validation for surrogate end points used in the US Food and Drug Administration's approval of oncology drugs. Mayo Clin Proc2016;
91:713–25
71.
PrasadVKimCBurottoMVandrossA.The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology: a systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses. JAMA Intern Med2015;
175:1389–98
72.
RuppTZuckermanD.Quality of life, overall survival, and costs of cancer drugs approved based on surrogate endpoints. JAMA Intern Med2017;
177:276–7
73.
KempRPrasadV.Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions. And are they currently overused?BMC Med2017;
15:134
74.
KimCPrasadV.Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: an analysis of 5 years of US Food and Drug Administration approvals. JAMA Intern Med2015;
175:1992–4
75.
WilkersonJFojoT.Progression-free survival is simply a measure of a drug's effect while administered and is not a surrogate for overall survival. Cancer J2009;
15:379–85
76.
VaduganathanM.Modern drug development which patients should come first?.JAMA2014;
312:2619–20
77.
TalaricoLChenGPazdurR.Enrollment of elderly patients in clinical trials for cancer drug registration: a 7-year experience by the US Food and Drug Administration. J Clin Oncol2004;
22:4626–31
78.
HayesMJKaestnerVMailankodySPrasadV.Most medical practices are not parachutes: a citation analysis of practices felt by biomedical authors to be analogous to parachutes. CMAJ Open2018;
6:E31–8
79.
MarquartJChenEYPrasadV.Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who benefit from genome-driven oncology. JAMA Oncol2018;
4:1093–8
80.
GillJObleyAJPrasadV.Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: the implications of the US FDA's first marketing authorization for BRCA mutation testing. JAMA2018;
319:2377–8
KaiserJ.Is genome-guided cancer treatment hyped?.Science2018;
360:365
83.
MoscowJAFojoTSchilskyRL.The evidence framework for precision cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2018;
15:183–92
84.
PrasadV.Perspective: the precision-oncology illusion. Nature2016;
537:S63
85.
GarberK.Blood test may predict cancer immunotherapy benefit. Science2018;
360:1387
86.
ParikhRBPrasadV.Blood-based screening for colon cancer: a disruptive innovation or simply a disruption?.JAMA2016;
315:2519–20
87.
RixeOFojoT.Is cell death a critical end point for anticancer therapies or is cytostasis sufficient?.Clin Cancer Res2007;
13:7280–7
88.
StewartDJStewartAAWheatley-PricePBatistGKantarjianHMSchillerJClemonsMBradfordJPGillespieLKurzrockR.The importance of greater speed in drug development for advanced malignancies. Cancer Med2018;
7:1824–36
89.
PrasadVMasseyPRFojoT.Oral anticancer drugs: how limited dosing options and dose reductions may affect outcomes in comparative trials and efficacy in patients. J Clin Oncol2014;
32:1620–9
90.
ArmstrongKAndersonMECarethersJMLoscalzoJParmacekMSWachterRMZeidelML.International exchange and American medicine. N Engl J Med2017;
376:e40
91.
BurottoMPrasadVFojoT.Non-inferiority trials: why oncologists must remain wary. Lancet Oncol2015;
16:364–6
92.
LuEShatzelJShinFPrasadV.What constitutes an "unmet medical need" in oncology? An empirical evaluation of author usage in the biomedical literature. Semin Oncol2017;
44:8–12
93.
PrasadVKumarHMailankodyS.Ethics of clinical trials in low-resource settings: lessons from recent trials in cancer medicine. J Glob Oncol2015;
2:1–3
94.
AggarwalAUnger-SaldañaKLewisonGSullivanR.The challenge of cancer in middle-income countries with an ageing population: Mexico as a case study. ecancermedicalscience2015;
9:536
95.
MailankodySPrasadV.Thinking systematically about the off-label use of cancer drugs and combinations for patients who have exhausted proven therapies.Oncologist2016;
21:1031–2
96.
DavisCNaciHGurpinarEPoplavskaEPintoAAggarwalA.Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009–13. BMJ2017;
359:j4530
97.
LammersAWangRCetnarJPrasadV.Time from US Food and Drug Administration approval to publication of data for cancer drugs: a comparison of first and subsequent approvals. Blood Cancer J2017;
7:637
98.
AggarwalAFojoTChamberlainCDavisCSullivanR.Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?- lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund. Ann Oncol2017;
28:1738–50
99.
CifuASPrasadVK.Medical debates and medical reversal.J Gen Intern Med2015;
30:1729–30
100.
BlagoevKBWilkersonJFojoT.Hazard ratios in cancer clinical trials – a primer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2012;
9:178–83
101.
RossJS. Clinical trials – we get what we pay for. JAMA Intern Med2018;178:1457
102.
FojoTGiannakakouP.Decade in review – funding in cancer research: National Cancer Institute awards – a work in progress. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2014;
11:634–6
PignataMChouaidCLe LayKLucianiLMcConnachieCGordonJRozeS.Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of afatinib after platinum-based therapy for the treatment of squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in France. CEOR2017;
9:655–68
BergerKSchopohlDRiegerCOstermannH.Economic and clinical aspects of intravenous versus oral busulfan in adult patients for conditioning prior to HSCT. Support Care Cancer2015;
23:3447–54
MengJListerJVataireALCascianoRDinetJ.Cost-effectiveness comparison of cabozantinib with everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma following the failure of prior therapy in England. CEOR2018;
10:243–50
129.
GrullichC.Cabozantinib: a MET, RET, and VEGFR2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Recent Results Cancer Res2014;
201:207–14
DalalAAGuerinAMutebiACulverKW.Treatment patterns, clinical and economic outcomes of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer receiving ceritinib: a retrospective observational claims analysis. J Drug Assess2018;
7:21–7
132.
FojoTGradyC.How much is life worth: cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer, and the $440 billion question. J Natl Cancer Inst2009;
101:1044–8
133.
ReyesCGazauskasGBeckerUMorenoSVeenstraDL.Cost-effectiveness analysis of obinutuzumab versus ofatumumab for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Blood2014;
124:1324
134.
National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics. Cost-effectiveness of cobimetinib (Cotellic®) for the treatment of unresectable or advanced metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600: mutation, only in combination with vemurafenib, http://www.ncpe.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Web-summary-cobimetinib.pdf (2017, accessed 2 November 2018)
KruseGBAmonkarMMSmithGSkoniecznyDCStavrakasS.Analysis of costs associated with administration of intravenous single-drug therapies in metastatic breast cancer in a U.S. population. JMCP2008;
14:844–57
CurlPVujicIvan 't VeerLJOrtiz-UrdaSKahnJG.Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. PLoS One2014;
9:e107255
141.
LertkhachonsukAAHanvoravongchaiP.Comparison of cost-effectiveness between actinomycin D versus methotrexate-folinic acid in the treatment of low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. J Reprod Med2016;
61:230–4
142.
Del ReyCAsanoE.Accumulated treatment cost of new therapies in multiple myeloma: comparing the combination of daratumumab, bortezomib and dexamethasone with carfilzomib and dexamethasone for who have received at least one prior therapy in Brazil. Value Health2017;
20:A876
WilesSKabalanMSharmaRShatzelJPangJYiDAlatovicISaifSNarasimhaDLaPennaJTroitinoAAttwoodKYinYWetzlerM.Decitabine is more cost effective than standard conventional induction therapy in elderly acute myeloid leukemia patients. Blood2013;
122:2699
145.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dasatinib, nilotinib and high-dose imatinib for treating imatinib-resistant or intolerant chronic myeloid leukaemia. Technology appraisal guidance [TA425],https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta425/chapter/2-The-technologies (2016, accessed 16 October 2018)
146.
GeskinLMaloneDC.An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of systemic treatments for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Dermatolog Treat2018;
29:522–30
OjedaBde SandeLMCasadoAMerinoPCasadoMA.Cost-minimisation analysis of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride versus topotecan in the treatment of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain. Br J Cancer2003;
89:1002–7
ShettyNGuptaS.Eribulin drug review. South Asian J Cancer2014;
3:57–9
153.
HurtaudADonnadieuAEscalupLCottuPHBaffertS.Costs associated with eribulin treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer in a comprehensive cancer center in France. Breast2016;
30:73–9
DoyleJJDeziiCMSadanaA.A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of cisplatin in combination with either etoposide or etoposide phosphate in small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol1996;
23:51–60
TilleulPJacotWEmeryCLafumaAGourmelenJ.Management and cost analysis of cancer patients treated with G-CSF: a cohort study based on the French national healthcare insurance database. J Med Econ2017;
20:1261–7
159.
SuhDCPowersCABaroneJAShinHKwonJGoodinS.Full costs of dispensing and administering fluorouracil chemotherapy for outpatients: a microcosting study. Res Social Adm Pharm2010;
6:246–56
160.
YoonJPhibbsCSChowAWeinstockMA, Veterans affairs keratinocyte carcinoma chemoprevention Trial Group.
Impact of topical fluorouracil cream on costs of treating keratinocyte carcinoma (nonmelanoma skin cancer) and actinic keratosis. J Am Acad Dermatol2018;
79:501–7.e2
GoldsteinDAKrishnaKFlowersCREl-RayesBFBekaii-SaabTNoonanAM.Cost description of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer. Med Oncol2016;
33:48
166.
ScottJRZhouYChengCWardDASwansonHDMolinelliARStewartCFNavidFJehaSRellingMVCrewsKR.Comparable efficacy with varying dosages of glucarpidase in pediatric oncology patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer2015;
62:1518–22
167.
KeatCHGhaniNA.Cost-effectiveness analysis of granisetron-based versus standard antiemetic regimens in low-emetogenic chemotherapy: a hospital-based perspective from Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev2013;
14:7701–6
168.
PrasadMBen-PoratLHoppeBAghajanianCSabbatiniPChiDSHensleyML.Costs of treatment and outcomes associated with second-line therapy and greater for relapsed ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol2004;
93:223–8
169.
WarrenEWardSGordoisAScuffhamP.Cost-utility analysis of imatinib mesylate for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia in the chronic phase. Clin Ther2004;
26:1924–33
170.
ShanafeltTDBorahBJFinnesHDChaffeeKGDingWLeisJFChanan-KhanAAParikhSASlagerSLKayNECallTG.Impact of ibrutinib and idelalisib on the pharmaceutical cost of treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia at the individual and societal levels. J Oncol Pract2015;
11:252–8
171.
SorensenSVPengSDormanECoteSTambourMPanFSenguptaN.The cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in treatment of relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Health Econ Outcome Res2016;
2:2
AritsAHSpoorenbergEMosterdKNelemansPKelleners-SmeetsNWEssersBA.Cost-effectiveness of topical imiquimod and fluorouracil vs. photodynamic therapy for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol2014;
171:1501–7
FellnerC.Ipilimumab (yervoy) prolongs survival in advanced melanoma: serious side effects and a hefty price tag may limit its use. P T2012;
37:503–30
177.
EgertonN.Ixabepilone (ixempra), a therapeutic option for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. P T2008;
33:523–31
178.
AyyagariRNearyMLiSRokitoAYangHXieJBensonAB 3rd.Comparing the cost of treatment with octreotide long-acting release versus lanreotide in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors. Am Health Drug Benefits2017;
10:408–15
GossTFSzendeASchaeferCTottenPJKnightRJäderstenMHellström-LindbergEListAF.Cost effectiveness of lenalidomide in the treatment of transfusion-dependent myelodysplastic syndromes in the United States. Cancer Control2006;
13:17–25
181.
KotlaVGoelSNischalSHeuckCVivekKDasBVermaA.Mechanism of action of lenalidomide in hematological malignancies. J Hematol Oncol2009;
2:36
182.
TakeuchiSShigaTHirataKTaguchiJMagotaKArigaSGoudaTOhharaYHommaRShimizuYKinoshitaITsujiYHommaAIijimaHTamakiNDosaka-AkitaH.Early prediction of lenvatinib treatment efficacy by using (18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with unresectable or advanced thyroid carcinoma that is refractory to radioiodine treatment: a protocol for a non-randomized single-arm multicenter observational study. BMJ Open2018;
8:e021001
GulbrandsenNWisloffFNordELenhoffSHjorthMWestinJ; Nordic Myeloma Study Group.
Cost-utility analysis of high-dose melphalan with autologous blood stem cell support vs. melphalan plus prednisone in patients younger than 60 years with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol2001;
66:328–36
Bladder cancer: diagnosis and management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK356297/ (2015, accessed 2 November 2018)
189.
HelwickC.Will necitumumab be cost-effective?.Am Health Drug Benefits2015;
8:11
VuTEllardSSpeersCHTaylorSCde LemosMLHuFKuikKOlivottoIA.Survival outcome and cost-effectiveness with docetaxel and paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a population-based evaluation. Ann Oncol2008;
19:461–4
197.
MamiyaHTaharaRKTolaneySMChoudhryNKNajafzadehM.Cost-effectiveness of palbociclib in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol2017;
28:1825–1831
AmdahlJDiazJSharmaAParkJChandiwanaDDeleaTE.Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom. PLoS One2017;
12:e0175920
200.
AndrewsA.Treating with checkpoint inhibitors – figure $1 million per patient. Am Health Drug Benefits2015;
8:9
ZhuSLiuJSunWTaoLXiaoD.Cost-effectiveness analysis of regorafenib for third-line metastatic colorectal cancer compared to cetuximab plus irinotecan in China. J Health Med Econ2018;
4:5
207.
StrumbergDSchultheisB.Regorafenib for cancer. Expert Opin Investig Drugs2012;
21:879–89
208.
SuriGMistryRYoungKCHettleRMayJRBrixnerDOderdaGBiskupiakJTangDBhattacharyyaDBhattacharyyaS.Cost effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole for the treatment of post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer from a US private third-party payer perspective. Value Health2017;
20:A436
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Sunitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, Technology appraisal guidance [TA169], https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta169/chapter/3-the-technology (2009, accessed 16 October 2018)
GarrisonLPJrWangSTHuangHBa-ManciniAShiHChenKKorvesCDhawanRCakanaAvan de VeldeHCorzoDDuhMS.The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment of multiple myeloma in the U.S. with bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone versus thalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone or lenalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone with continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment. Oncologist2013;
18:27–36
217.
LinJKLermanBJBarnesJIBoursiquotBCTanYJRobinsonAQLDavisKLOwensDKGoldhaber-FiebertJD. Cost effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in relapsed or refractory pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:3192-3202
The Medical Letter. The medical letter on drugs and therapeutics. In: Brief: trifluridine/tipiracil (lonsurf) for metastatic colorectal cancer, https://secure.medicalletter.org/w1496f (2016, accessed 16 October 2018)
MooreTJZhangHAndersonGAlexanderGC. Estimated costs of pivotal trials for novel therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2015–2016. JAMA Intern Med 2018;178:1451-1457
228.
HowardDHBachPBBerndtERContiRM.Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs. J Econ Perspect2015;
29:139–62
MailankodySPrasadV.Five years of cancer drug approvals: innovation, efficacy, and costs. JAMA Oncol2015;
1:539–40
231.
PrasadVDe JesusKMailankodyS.The high price of anticancer drugs: origins, implications, barriers, solutions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2017;
14:381–90
232.
PrasadVFojoTBradaM.Precision oncology: origins, optimism, and potential. Lancet Oncol2016;
17:e81–6
233.
PrasadVMailankodyS.Research and development spending to bring a single cancer drug to market and revenues after approval. JAMA Intern Med2017;
177:1569–75
234.
PrasadVWangRAfifiSHMailankodyS. The rising price of cancer drugs – a new old problem? JAMA Oncol 2017;3:277-278
235.
FojoTLoAW.Price, value, and the cost of cancer drugs. Lancet Oncol2016;
17:3–5
236.
SullivanRAggarwalA.Health policy: putting a price on cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2016;
13:137–8
237.
MailankodySPrasadV.Implications of proposed medicare reforms to counteract high cancer drug prices. JAMA2016;
316:271–2
238.
PrasadVMailankodyS.How should we assess the value of innovative drugs in oncology? Lessons from cost-effectiveness analyses. Blood2015;
126:1860–1
239.
Galkina ClearyEBeierleinJMKhanujaNSMcNameeLMLedleyFD.Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010–2016. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2018;
115:2329–34
240.
KaestnerVEdmistonJBPrasadV.The relation between publication rate and financial conflict of interest among physician authors of high-impact oncology publications: an observational study. CMAJ Open2018;
6:E57
241.
WagnerJMarquartJRubyJLammersAMailankodySKaestnerVPrasadV.Frequency and level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines beyond approvals of the US Food and Drug Administration: retrospective observational study. BMJ2018;
360:k668
242.
SinhaMSNajafzadehMRajasinghEKLoveJKesselheimAS.Labeling changes and costs for clinical trials performed under the US Food and Drug Administration pediatric exclusivity extension 2007 to 2012.JAMA Intern Med2018;
178:1458–66
243.
PrasadSGuptaSCAggarwalBB.Serendipity in cancer drug discovery: rational or coincidence. Trends Pharmacol Sci2016;
37:435–50
244.
PadmaVV.An overview of targeted cancer therapy. Biomedicine2015;
5:19
245.
GuptaSCPrasadSTyagiAKKunnumakkaraABAggarwalBB.Neem (Azadirachta indica): an Indian traditional panacea with modern molecular basis. Phytomedicine2017;
34:14–20
246.
RoyNKDekaABordoloiDMishraSKumarAPSethiGKunnumakkaraAB.The potential role of boswellic acids in cancer prevention and treatment. Cancer Lett2016;
377:74–86
247.
BanikKHarshaCBordoloiDLalduhsaki SailoBSethiGLeongHCArfusoFMishraSWangLKumarAPKunnumakkaraAB.Therapeutic potential of gambogic acid, a caged xanthone, to target cancer. Cancer Lett2018;
416:75–86
248.
AggarwalBBSethiGBaladandayuthapaniVKrishnanSShishodiaS.Targeting cell signaling pathways for drug discovery: an old lock needs a new key. J Cell Biochem2007;
102:580–92
249.
DeorukhkarAKrishnanSSethiGAggarwalBB.Back to basics: how natural products can provide the basis for new therapeutics. Expert Opin Investig Drugs2007;
16:1753–73
250.
GullettNPRuhul AminARBayraktarSPezzutoJMShinDMKhuriFRAggarwalBBSurhYJKucukO.Cancer prevention with natural compounds. Semin Oncol2010;
37:258–81
251.
RahamanSTSaiPR.A short review on carnivorous plants and recent developments in the field of cancer research. iJP2018;
5:205–12
252.
SiddiquiAAIramFSiddiquiSSahuK.Role of natural products in drug discovery process. Int J Drug Develop Res2014;
6:172–204
253.
HarveyAL.Natural products in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today2008;
13:894–901
254.
HarveyALEdrada-EbelRQuinnRJ.The re-emergence of natural products for drug discovery in the genomics era. Nat Rev Drug Discov2015;
14:111–29
255.
KoehnFECarterGT.The evolving role of natural products in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov2005;
4:206–20
256.
VuorelaaPLeinonenbMSaikkucPTammelaaPRauhadJPWennbergeTVuorelaH.Natural products in the process of finding new drug candidates. Curr Med Chem2004;
11:1375–89
257.
FuRGSunYShengWBLiaoDF.Designing multi-targeted agents: an emerging anticancer drug discovery paradigm. Eur J Med Chem2017;
136:195–211
258.
FojoT.Commentary: novel therapies for cancer: why dirty might be better. Oncologist2008;
13:277–83
259.
JimenoAHidalgoM.Multitargeted therapy: can promiscuity be praised in an era of political correctness. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol2006;
59:150–8
260.
KunnumakkaraABBanikKBordoloiDHarshaCSailoBLPadmavathiGRoyNKGuptaSCAggarwalBB.Googling the Guggul (Commiphora and Boswellia) for prevention of chronic diseases. Front Pharmacol2018;
9:686
261.
SarkarFHLiY.Harnessing the fruits of nature for the development of multi-targeted cancer therapeutics. Cancer Treat Rev2009;
35:597–607
262.
ZhengWZhaoYLuoQZhangYWuKWangF.Multi-targeted anticancer agents. Curr Top Med Chem2017;
17:3084–98
263.
PadmavathiGRathnakaramSRMonishaJBordoloiDRoyNKKunnumakkaraAB.Potential of butein, a tetrahydroxychalcone to obliterate cancer. Phytomedicine2015;
22:1163–71
BordoloiDRoyNKMonishaJPadmavathiGKunnumakkaraAB.Multi-targeted agents in cancer cell chemosensitization: what we learnt from curcumin thus far. Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov2016;
11:67–97
266.
KunnumakkaraABBordoloiDPadmavathiGMonishaJRoyNKPrasadSAggarwalBB.Curcumin, the golden nutraceutical: multitargeting for multiple chronic diseases. Br J Pharmacol2017;
174:1325–48
267.
RamasamyKAgarwalR.Multitargeted therapy of cancer by silymarin. Cancer Lett2008;
269:352–62
268.
LiYLiPKRobertsMJArendRCSamantRSBuchsbaumDJ.Multi-targeted therapy of cancer by niclosamide: a new application for an old drug. Cancer Lett2014;
349:8–14
269.
SailoBLBanikKPadmavathiGJavadiMBordoloiDKunnumakkaraAB.Tocotrienols: the promising analogues of vitamin E for cancer therapeutics. Pharmacol Res2018;
130:259–72
270.
KunnumakkaraABSungBRavindranJDiagaradjanePDeorukhkarADeySKocaCYadavVRTongZGelovaniJGGuhaSKrishnanSAggarwalBB.{Gamma}-tocotrienol inhibits pancreatic tumors and sensitizes them to gemcitabine treatment by modulating the inflammatory microenvironment. Cancer Res2010;
70:8695–705
271.
JacksonKNahataMC.Rising cost of anticancer medications in the United States. Ann Pharmacother2017;
51:706–10
272.
SteensmaDPKantarjianHM.Impact of cancer research bureaucracy on innovation, costs, and patient care. J Clin Oncol2014;
32:376–8
273.
FojoTMailankodySLoA.Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics – the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: the John Conley Lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2014;
140:1225–36
274.
CarreraPMKantarjianHMBlinderVS.The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment. CA Cancer J Clin2018;
68:153–65
275.
SullivanRPeppercornJSikoraKZalcbergJMeropolNJAmirEKhayatDBoylePAutierPTannockIFFojoTSiderovJWilliamsonSCamporesiSMcVieJGPurushothamADNarediPEggermontABrennanMFSteinbergMLDe RidderMMcCloskeySAVerellenDRobertsTStormeGHicksRJEllPJHirschBRCarboneDPSchulmanKACatchpolePTaylorDGeisslerJBrinkerNGMeltzerDKerrDAaproM.Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol2011;
12:933–80
276.
KantarjianHMFojoTMathisenMZwellingLA.Cancer drugs in the United States: Justum Pretium – the just price. J Clin Oncol2013;
31:3600–4
277.
LopesGVultoAWilkingNvan HartenWMeierKSimoensS.Potential solutions for sustaining the costs of cancer drugs. Eur Oncol Haematol2017;
13:102–7
278.
MertensSde JonghFE.[Lower costs for anticancer drugs by safety margin around calculated dose and by fine-tuning on ampoule strength]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd2009;
153:B162
279.
ZafarMZ.Pharmacological study and overcome the cardiotoxicity associated with anticancer drug doxorubicin. QualPrim Care2017;
25:368–71
280.
GriggsJJ.Reducing the toxicity of anticancer therapy: new strategies. Leuk Res1998;
22:S27–33
281.
AnandPKunnumakkaraABSundaramCHarikumarKBTharakanSTLaiOSSungBAggarwalBB.Cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes. Pharm Res2008;
25:2097–116
282.
DivisiDDi TommasoSSalveminiS.Diet and cancer. Acta Biomed2006;
77:118–23
283.
MonishaJPadmavathiGRoyNKDekaABordoloiDAnipAKunnumakkaraAB.NF-κB blockers gifted by Mother Nature: prospectives in cancer cell chemosensitization. Curr Pharm Des2016;
22:4173–200
284.
SteinmetzKAPotterJD.Vegetables, fruit, and cancer prevention: a review. J Am Diet Assoc1996;
96:1027–39
285.
SchilskyRL.Implementing personalized cancer care. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2014;
11:432–8
286.
OgdenARidaPCAnejaR.Let's huddle to prevent a muddle: centrosome declustering as an attractive anticancer strategy. Cell Death Differ2012;
19:1255–67
287.
BeerTMPrasadV.Taking care of our friends and neighbors: DeVita's the death of cancer and the challenge of letting go. JAMA Oncol2017;
3:16–7
288.
PatwardhanK. Governance of higher education in Indian systems of medicine: issues, concerns, and challenges. Perspectives on governance of higher education, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University Pune, India, 2010, pp.127–39
