Peter Attia· MD
It seemed to actually collaborate reasonably well and improve survival in big phase three trials when HER2 antibody was given with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone.
Loading…
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.
It seemed to actually collaborate reasonably well and improve survival in big phase three trials when HER2 antibody was given with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone.
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.
So whatever you start with, so it's depending on the trial, a third to a half of the recurrences that would have occurred don't happen by the addition. This is, you're right to mention placebo, but by historical fact, in this case, everybody got chemo. Everybody gets the same, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, chemo plus minus, if you will. So the addition of the HER2 antibody or not. And this is how many subsequent studies and other cancer types have been done to try to show the same kind of benefit of treating only microscopic or digital disease as opposed to overt metastatic disease. So a third to a half. reduction in risk of relapse over long periods of time now and stably so in the case of HER2.
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.