I think this HuffPo post may have gotten lost in the summer shuffle. I found Schattner’s article very compelling. She writes in part:
The reason I believe Avastin should be available for breast cancer treatment is that it helps a fraction of women, albeit a small one, to live active, enjoyable lives. Critics say, rightly, that there’s no biomarker or genetic abnormality to test for susceptibility to this costly, sometimes toxic treatment. Because there’s no way to tell in advance who will respond, most women who receive the drug don’t benefit, while all are exposed to its potential risks.
I’d counter that the judicious use Avastin — or any cancer therapy, for that matter — rests on two points: that patients be relatively young and sufficiently well to enter a doctor’s office, communicate about its risks and provide informed consent; and that oncologists, who might recommend the drug to their patients, have no potential to profit by its prescription.
[End of excerpt]
See the entire piece here: