Be more permissive. Our model provides guidance in the described situation of daratumumab and pomalidomide (phase I data show safety; no efficacy data). Given current prices, it should not be attempted, but if the drugs were priced modestly or Stattic custom synthesis patients were willing to incur the cost, it perhaps could be. Others may feel differently about any of the boxes in Figure 1, and we encourage others to formalize their thinking about off-protocol use of novel combinations in clinical oncology. This practice is widespread and in need of standardization.DISCLOSURES The authors indicated no financial relationships.COSTThe cost of cancer drugs is a critical issue in cancer care. Cancer drugs cost more in 2016 than in any time in history, and analyses show the cost is not proportionate to novelty, basis of approval, or clinical benefit [2]. In defiance of all traditional market principles, the price of many cancer drugs, such as imatinib, has risen from approximately 30,000 per year to more than 100,000, as patent exclusivity has wound down and the number of competitors has grown [5, 6]. Furthermore, these high prices are for drugs that often offer simply marginal benefits and, thus, have extraordinarily high cost-effectiveness ratios. For instance, pertuzumab prescribed for metastatic breast cancer costs 700,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [7] and regorafenib costs more than 900,000 per QALY [8]. Thus, any consideration of off-label use of cancer drugs cannot ignore the elephant in the room: cost. The reality is cancer doctors have at least some obligation to society to consider the financial impact of care [9], and this is especially the case in situations where unproven care is attempted. We believe thata framework to consider the feasibilityof a medical practice must include cost because whether something is worth pursuing differs based on whether insurers (society) incurs the bill or whether individual patients choose to use their own funds (patients, of course, have substantially more freedom to do what they want with their money). As an intermediate scenario (Fig. 1), we consider the possibility that the patient requests a medication that is priced moderately (e.g., an off-patent cytotoxic, or ketoconazole in prostate cancer).
Visible and near infrared (NIR) radiation, although a miniscule part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum, have provided us with a vast palette of applications in which we may not only “see” but also harness this energy for therapeutic purposes. The inquisitiveness that drove early pioneers to understand light-tissue interactions and to use electromagnetic radiation to peer at tissues residing deep within the body led to the identification and characterization of several physiological chromophores, including melanin, hemoglobin and water. As photonics technology advanced, thorough characterization of the wavelength dependent optical absorption and scattering coefficients of these purchase SIS3 common chromophores became possible, leading to the identification of the so called “optical window,”http://www.thno.orgTheranostics 2016, Vol. 6, Issuewhich exists between 600-900 nm light (Fig. 1). Absorption of light within the optical window by the common physiological chromophores is low, thereby allowing incident light between these wavelengths to penetrate more deeply into the tissue. For example, a 70 reduction in optical absorption of melanin in the skin is observed (i.e., 1.8-fold enhancement in penetration depth,.Be more permissive. Our model provides guidance in the described situation of daratumumab and pomalidomide (phase I data show safety; no efficacy data). Given current prices, it should not be attempted, but if the drugs were priced modestly or patients were willing to incur the cost, it perhaps could be. Others may feel differently about any of the boxes in Figure 1, and we encourage others to formalize their thinking about off-protocol use of novel combinations in clinical oncology. This practice is widespread and in need of standardization.DISCLOSURES The authors indicated no financial relationships.COSTThe cost of cancer drugs is a critical issue in cancer care. Cancer drugs cost more in 2016 than in any time in history, and analyses show the cost is not proportionate to novelty, basis of approval, or clinical benefit [2]. In defiance of all traditional market principles, the price of many cancer drugs, such as imatinib, has risen from approximately 30,000 per year to more than 100,000, as patent exclusivity has wound down and the number of competitors has grown [5, 6]. Furthermore, these high prices are for drugs that often offer simply marginal benefits and, thus, have extraordinarily high cost-effectiveness ratios. For instance, pertuzumab prescribed for metastatic breast cancer costs 700,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [7] and regorafenib costs more than 900,000 per QALY [8]. Thus, any consideration of off-label use of cancer drugs cannot ignore the elephant in the room: cost. The reality is cancer doctors have at least some obligation to society to consider the financial impact of care [9], and this is especially the case in situations where unproven care is attempted. We believe thata framework to consider the feasibilityof a medical practice must include cost because whether something is worth pursuing differs based on whether insurers (society) incurs the bill or whether individual patients choose to use their own funds (patients, of course, have substantially more freedom to do what they want with their money). As an intermediate scenario (Fig. 1), we consider the possibility that the patient requests a medication that is priced moderately (e.g., an off-patent cytotoxic, or ketoconazole in prostate cancer).
Visible and near infrared (NIR) radiation, although a miniscule part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum, have provided us with a vast palette of applications in which we may not only “see” but also harness this energy for therapeutic purposes. The inquisitiveness that drove early pioneers to understand light-tissue interactions and to use electromagnetic radiation to peer at tissues residing deep within the body led to the identification and characterization of several physiological chromophores, including melanin, hemoglobin and water. As photonics technology advanced, thorough characterization of the wavelength dependent optical absorption and scattering coefficients of these common chromophores became possible, leading to the identification of the so called “optical window,”http://www.thno.orgTheranostics 2016, Vol. 6, Issuewhich exists between 600-900 nm light (Fig. 1). Absorption of light within the optical window by the common physiological chromophores is low, thereby allowing incident light between these wavelengths to penetrate more deeply into the tissue. For example, a 70 reduction in optical absorption of melanin in the skin is observed (i.e., 1.8-fold enhancement in penetration depth,.