R those most likely to gain a sufficient prolongation of life to justify the cost of the drug? As things are now, i.e., very little predictive genetic testing related to expected outcomes and only marginal reliability, we provide these very expensive targeted therapies more or less indiscriminately to patients for whom these drugs are likely to provide some degree of HIV-1 integrase inhibitor 2 supplier clinical benefit, i.e., some progression free survival [51]. If predictive genetic testing were to show that a cancer patient would almost certainly derive no clinical benefit from one of these drugs, then there is clearly nothing unjust about failing to offer the drug to such patients. But should we identify, for the sake of a fairer and more prudent use of health care resources, some minimal clinical gain that would be sufficient to justify the very high costs associated with these targeted therapies? Here are some other examples of ragged edge issues that ultimately raise this same ethical issue. What sort of clinical benefit should count toward justifying these large costs? In one recent study of HER-2 metastatic breast cancer patients, one group was given letrozole alone while the other group was given letrozole plus lapatinib [52]. There was a five-month difference in progression free survival between the two groups, which looks like a somewhat significant clinical benefit. But overall survival showed no significant difference between the two groups. Lapatinib has an annual cost of about 48,000. Should lapatinib be provided in these clinical circumstances by a just and caring commissioning group in the UK, or a managed care plan in the US, or a sickness fund in Germany? What measure of clinical benefit is most appropriate in these circumstances? With regard to this last example as well as our prior example we note that what is being compared are median gains in progression free survival or overall survival. There are tails that go in both directions. Suppose, for example, that we had social agreement that one-year survival was necessary to justify a social expenditure of 100,000 for one of these targeted therapies. Suppose we also knew that 5 of the patients in the five-month median survival cluster with bevacizumab and a specific VEGF genotype did in fact survive a year. We have no way of identifying before the fact which individuals might be in that 5 group. Would considerations of health care justice require that we then provideJ. Pers. Med. 2013,bevacizumab to that entire cohort in order to satisfy the just claims of that 5 ? Or would we be permitted to disregard that 5 and not be judged unjust? Would it be morally permissible and/or economically desirable to avoid doing the research and identifying the predictive biomarkers that would give us the knowledge that generates these sorts of painful ethics issues? Should research such as this be seen as a threat to the social value of solidarity in a European context? Our discussion started with the problem of drug resistance, genomic instability, and heterogeneity in many tumors. The emerging strategy for addressing this problem is to use combinations of these targeted therapies with the goal of defeating several drivers of a metastatic cancer at once in order to purchase CBIC2 increase both progression free survival and overall survival. The ragged edge questions that arise in this context would be the following: If the cost of such combination therapies is substantially greater than the cost of a single targeted drug, should.R those most likely to gain a sufficient prolongation of life to justify the cost of the drug? As things are now, i.e., very little predictive genetic testing related to expected outcomes and only marginal reliability, we provide these very expensive targeted therapies more or less indiscriminately to patients for whom these drugs are likely to provide some degree of clinical benefit, i.e., some progression free survival [51]. If predictive genetic testing were to show that a cancer patient would almost certainly derive no clinical benefit from one of these drugs, then there is clearly nothing unjust about failing to offer the drug to such patients. But should we identify, for the sake of a fairer and more prudent use of health care resources, some minimal clinical gain that would be sufficient to justify the very high costs associated with these targeted therapies? Here are some other examples of ragged edge issues that ultimately raise this same ethical issue. What sort of clinical benefit should count toward justifying these large costs? In one recent study of HER-2 metastatic breast cancer patients, one group was given letrozole alone while the other group was given letrozole plus lapatinib [52]. There was a five-month difference in progression free survival between the two groups, which looks like a somewhat significant clinical benefit. But overall survival showed no significant difference between the two groups. Lapatinib has an annual cost of about 48,000. Should lapatinib be provided in these clinical circumstances by a just and caring commissioning group in the UK, or a managed care plan in the US, or a sickness fund in Germany? What measure of clinical benefit is most appropriate in these circumstances? With regard to this last example as well as our prior example we note that what is being compared are median gains in progression free survival or overall survival. There are tails that go in both directions. Suppose, for example, that we had social agreement that one-year survival was necessary to justify a social expenditure of 100,000 for one of these targeted therapies. Suppose we also knew that 5 of the patients in the five-month median survival cluster with bevacizumab and a specific VEGF genotype did in fact survive a year. We have no way of identifying before the fact which individuals might be in that 5 group. Would considerations of health care justice require that we then provideJ. Pers. Med. 2013,bevacizumab to that entire cohort in order to satisfy the just claims of that 5 ? Or would we be permitted to disregard that 5 and not be judged unjust? Would it be morally permissible and/or economically desirable to avoid doing the research and identifying the predictive biomarkers that would give us the knowledge that generates these sorts of painful ethics issues? Should research such as this be seen as a threat to the social value of solidarity in a European context? Our discussion started with the problem of drug resistance, genomic instability, and heterogeneity in many tumors. The emerging strategy for addressing this problem is to use combinations of these targeted therapies with the goal of defeating several drivers of a metastatic cancer at once in order to increase both progression free survival and overall survival. The ragged edge questions that arise in this context would be the following: If the cost of such combination therapies is substantially greater than the cost of a single targeted drug, should.