Peter Attia· MD
because we know that adjuvant treatment even given the brute force way like we've done for decades where we basically give it to everybody the same drug in adjuvant is more effective than the same drug in metastatic
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.
because we know that adjuvant treatment even given the brute force way like we've done for decades where we basically give it to everybody the same drug in adjuvant is more effective than the same drug in metastatic
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.
I would point to two of the most common cancers as examples of that which are breast and coloral cancer where the treatments are virtually indistinguishable in the adant setting versus the metastatic setting and yet the outcomes are profoundly different
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.