Canine Chemotherapy

In June, the Associated Press reported that a new drug will soon be released to help fight cancer specifically in dogs. Up to now, most cancer drugs used in veterinary medicine were developed for use in humans and weren't specifically approved for animals. That's about to change with the new drug "Palladia" (manufactured by Pfizer Animal Health, Inc).

According to the Food and Drug Administration, this drug has been approved to treat a specific type of skin cancer (canine cutaneous mast cell tumors). These tumors can appear small and insignificant initially. While some are quite easily removed, others can be life threatening.

This is an important "first" for veterinary medicine. It shows that people are willing to spend money and time on cancer treatment just for animals alone. Of course, clinical trials with Palladia are just now starting so it will take some time before we know this particular drug's efficacy. Like most veterinarians, we'll need to hear from respected veterinary oncologists (who are not on Pfizer's payroll) before we consider treating patients with it.

What do you all think? Is this a good use of research money and time? Is it right to focus on just one type of cancer that doesn't even involve humans? We are all aware of the power of the human-animal bond...is this just a logical consequence of that bond?

--Dana

Comments

[Laurel]

Great topic, Dana. I love these ethical, philosophical challenges and this one is really interesting. The bigger question is, are we really just interested in ways to fight canine cancer because we might also find treatments that can be translated to people? I can honestly say that I haven't really thought about this before and that's saying a lot because I worked with the Animal Cancer Center at CSU, one of the leading veterinary oncology research and treatment facilities in the world, for 20 years...

My initial response is, "yes, we should pursue it...there is nothing wrong with developing a drug that is just for use with animals. There are certainly drugs and other therapies for other animal conditions that aren't for use with humans (like euthanasia, for instance!)

I think the thing that has to be considered is, is this drug being developed only because there is a market for it and the drug company has an exclusive 'niche'? If they see a way to make money, they may put time and effort there when, in reality, a similar investment elsewhere may benefit many more people and animals.

So, my question is, how much profit is this drug likely to make for the drug company? Or are they doing it simply because it's needed? How do we know?

[Ingrid]

Since drug companies are in the business of making moneythey must believe that there's profit to be made from this drug. I'm not a scientist, but I would imagine that even though the research for this particular drug focuses on one particular cancer that doesn't occur in human, there are probably numerous other discoveries that are made along the way that might at some point benefit both animals and humans.

Dana, your comment about wanting to hear from oncologists who are not employed by Pfizer before using this drug on canine patients is an excellent one. It's also the reason why I'm not all that excited about this announcement. Human chemo drugs have been used successfully in treating cancer in animals for a long time. They're expensive, but I seriously doubt that Pfizer is going to price this drug much lower than human cancer drugs. Maybe this new drug will be safer with fewer side effects for dogs? But it's still a cancer drug, so it will have side effects.

It will be fascinating to watch this play itself out.

[turtlecookie]

This is an excellent question with so many dimensions. The treatment of animals, research geared towards treating animals, the role of profit (if there were no profit motive, would the research still be done), use of resources (time, money) towards a product exclusively geared towards animals, and so on. Generally speaking, I think that what benefits one group (whether of people or animals) tends to benefit the whole. An example might be handicapped portolets, which benefit not only those with physical disabilities but also mothers with young children. (Granted, they are still stinky.) Or the space program inventions that have trickled into societal use. It's hard to believe that research in animal treatments wouldn't somehow have some kind of transfer to humans. But even if it doesn't, isn't ok to help our animal friends? We humans do seem to think that we are the end all and be all species on the planet. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

Turtlecookie

[Dana Durrance]

Ingrid and Turtlecookie,

Thank you for your comments and thoughts. Your thoughts about drug companies is quite accurate. I'm sure that they wouldn't divert many financial resources towards something they're not sure they could sell.

Turtlecookie,
I agree that doing things to help our pets ends up "helping" us too. I feel the same way you do...we're not necessarily the "end all,be all" of our world!

[Dana Durrance]

Laurel,
I realized that I did not respond to your comments yesterday. It's a good and fair question to wonder about the motives of the drug company if they're manufacturing a product for animal use only. My somewhat jaded response is that they're doing it because they feel that they can make good money from it (it's needed, but as you pointed out, there are many needs for many new drugs out there for both animals and people).

[Mike]

Laurel,
Your comment about drugs and other therapies for animal conditions that are not for use in humans -- and your example of euthanasia -- got me thinking. There are four places where human euthanasia is openly legal (according to a 2005 article from the Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization, ERGO): Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the state of Oregon.

Since there are times when animal euthanasia is an obviously kinder decision than continuing an unacceptable living condition, why are we so reluctant to see that the same is sometimes true of humans? Since I am just about to euthanize my beloved cat, I understand that euthanasia is an extremely difficult decision to make for a creature who can't provide clear input regarding their wishes. Is it really more difficult when the creature being euthanized is the one saying that they desire the euthanasia? I simply find it odd that a therapy widely considered to be a necessary option for animals is generally not even on the table for humans.

I do apologize if my comments are beyond the scope of your animal health-oriented blog. However, I believe that reexamining our feelings about human euthanasia can clarify and inform our feelings and decisions about animal euthanasia.

[Laurel]

Hi Mike,
Well stated and so true! I have long been an advocate for human euthanasia and, as I've learned from the literature surrounding it, the biggest drawback to legalizing it seems to be the 'slippery slope' argument, that being those families who would decide to euthanize Grandpa because they don't want to spend money on his long-term care etc. If we could get past the legal battles, I think many dying people would choose a conscious death, surrounded by those who love them.

I'm so sorry to hear about the impending loss of your cat. I know how difficult this decision has been for you and Tammy. I am comforted, though, by the knowledge that you can give her the kind of death she deserves and that will comfort you in the process--peaceful, painless, and consciously loving. My thoughts will be there with you....

[Dana Durrance]

Mike,
I'm also sorry to hear about your cat. I cannot think of many things in this world that are harder than making a decision to help a loved one die.

I enjoyed your discussion of euthanasia in human medicine. I think that this issue will continue to be a hot button for many years to come.

Again, I'm sorry about your cat. Please take care of yourself,

Dana