Because thedrugs havedistinct(andnon-interacting)mechanisms ofaction and non-overlapping toxicities.Thus, clinicians must consider that safetyexists on a continuum, with drugs or combinations for which either no safety data exist (i.e., no phase I trials), phase I trial data exist and show relative safety at usual doses, or phase I trial data exist and confirm toxicity (e.g., the case of vemurafenib and ipilimumab). In all cases where phase I trial data demonstrate toxicity precluding further drug development, or are absent, we do not believe combinations should be attempted, irrespective of cost.EFFICACYThe majority of cancer drug approvals are based on a surrogate endpoint, which may or may not predict improved survival or quality of life–true, patient-centered efficacy endpoints. Moreover, just 8 of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines are based on level I SIS3 chemical information evidence [4]. For these reasons, it is incredibly common that oncologists have to make treatment recommendations for patients while lacking strong evidence that ourchoiceseitherimprovesurvivalorqualityoflife[1]overplacebo [2] or other available standards of care. In some cases, however, randomized trials may have been performed and the results may be positive or negative. In the latter case (well-done, negative randomized trials), we believe that insurers should not be asked to pay for refuted treatments. Forexample, societal payers should not pay for sorafenib in the adjuvant setting of hepatocellular cancer. In some cases of contradicted practices with severe toxicity, noCorrespondence: Vinay Prasad, M.D., M.P.H., Oregon Health Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, Oregon 97239, USA. Telephone: 503-494-3159; E-Mail: [email protected] Received March 1, 2016; accepted for publication March 18, 2016; published Online First on July 8, 2016. �AlphaMed Press 1083-7159/2016/ 20.00/0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-The Oncologist 2016;21:1031?032 www.TheOncologist.com�AlphaMed PressOff-Label Use of Cancer DrugsFigure 1. Decision-making model for off-protocol use of the novel treatment combination of daratumumab and pomalidomide in clinical oncology. *, For compelling, but still hypothesis-generating, subgroups and relatively low toxicity interventions.provider should offer the treatment regardless of patient desire or willingness to pay (e.g., autologous stem cell transplantation for breast cancer).PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHERAt the outset, we concede that there is no single right answer when the off-label use of drugs is permissible, but Figure 1 captures how we think about the issue. In the figure, “Maybe” is used to signal dispute between the two authors of this piece, and likely others may wish to make other alterations. We believe that unsafe drugs or combinations should not be attempted irrespective of theoretical efficacy or where the cost falls. We believe that safe combinations of varying levels of efficacy (untested, contradicted, or validated) can be attempted and covered but that the cost, and whether and to what degree society bears those costs, may provide additional PD173074MedChemExpress PD173074 guidance. In general, we favor patients’ right to use their own money as they see fit; however, grossly unsafe practices should not be allowed. Nevertheless, we understand that others see it differently. We have spoken to academic oncologists who believe the answer to nearly all the boxes (except the last row in Figure 1) should be no or, alternatively, that we should.Because thedrugs havedistinct(andnon-interacting)mechanisms ofaction and non-overlapping toxicities.Thus, clinicians must consider that safetyexists on a continuum, with drugs or combinations for which either no safety data exist (i.e., no phase I trials), phase I trial data exist and show relative safety at usual doses, or phase I trial data exist and confirm toxicity (e.g., the case of vemurafenib and ipilimumab). In all cases where phase I trial data demonstrate toxicity precluding further drug development, or are absent, we do not believe combinations should be attempted, irrespective of cost.EFFICACYThe majority of cancer drug approvals are based on a surrogate endpoint, which may or may not predict improved survival or quality of life–true, patient-centered efficacy endpoints. Moreover, just 8 of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines are based on level I evidence [4]. For these reasons, it is incredibly common that oncologists have to make treatment recommendations for patients while lacking strong evidence that ourchoiceseitherimprovesurvivalorqualityoflife[1]overplacebo [2] or other available standards of care. In some cases, however, randomized trials may have been performed and the results may be positive or negative. In the latter case (well-done, negative randomized trials), we believe that insurers should not be asked to pay for refuted treatments. Forexample, societal payers should not pay for sorafenib in the adjuvant setting of hepatocellular cancer. In some cases of contradicted practices with severe toxicity, noCorrespondence: Vinay Prasad, M.D., M.P.H., Oregon Health Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, Oregon 97239, USA. Telephone: 503-494-3159; E-Mail: [email protected] Received March 1, 2016; accepted for publication March 18, 2016; published Online First on July 8, 2016. �AlphaMed Press 1083-7159/2016/ 20.00/0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-The Oncologist 2016;21:1031?032 www.TheOncologist.com�AlphaMed PressOff-Label Use of Cancer DrugsFigure 1. Decision-making model for off-protocol use of the novel treatment combination of daratumumab and pomalidomide in clinical oncology. *, For compelling, but still hypothesis-generating, subgroups and relatively low toxicity interventions.provider should offer the treatment regardless of patient desire or willingness to pay (e.g., autologous stem cell transplantation for breast cancer).PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHERAt the outset, we concede that there is no single right answer when the off-label use of drugs is permissible, but Figure 1 captures how we think about the issue. In the figure, “Maybe” is used to signal dispute between the two authors of this piece, and likely others may wish to make other alterations. We believe that unsafe drugs or combinations should not be attempted irrespective of theoretical efficacy or where the cost falls. We believe that safe combinations of varying levels of efficacy (untested, contradicted, or validated) can be attempted and covered but that the cost, and whether and to what degree society bears those costs, may provide additional guidance. In general, we favor patients’ right to use their own money as they see fit; however, grossly unsafe practices should not be allowed. Nevertheless, we understand that others see it differently. We have spoken to academic oncologists who believe the answer to nearly all the boxes (except the last row in Figure 1) should be no or, alternatively, that we should.