The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And gastrointestinal stromal tumor, which was the first solid tumor, big targeted therapy success where imatinib was being repurposed for the fact that it's a C-kit inhibitor and C-kit is mutated in two-thirds of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. That drug first showed benefit in metastatic patients, overt metastatic patients. Then in a series of adjuvant trials, one year, three years, now ongoing therapy beyond that, incrementally better.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Whole-body MRI screening in healthy adults produces more incidentaloma harm than cancer-mortality benefit.
Starting colonoscopy screening at 45 (vs 50) prevents enough early-onset cancers to justify the population cost.
Multi-cancer liquid-biopsy tests like Galleri detect early cancers at a stage that meaningfully improves survival.