Submitted by Dr. Robert F. Lane on
Standard Therapy-What is It?
Have a conversation with your physician about "standard therapy".It is defined as a time-tested regimen consisting of a combination of medicines given in a particular sequence over a particular time period for a particular cancer that over the years has over the years yielded the best responses for a large heterogeneous group of patients. In order to have reached this status, a regimen has had to be created and tested over a period of time and the results have been observed for at least five years or more.
There are two potential drawbacks to such standard therapy. The first occurs if the unique characteristics of your disease do not match the majority of patients studied, in which case it is unwise to assume that the study results of the standard therapy will reliably apply to your special situation. For example breast cancers are like apples; not every one is the same. Some apples are red, other yellow or green, some sweet others tart. The best recipes for pie vary depending on the apple. A standard regimen/recipe for breast cancer is perfect for the average Granny Smith Apple/breast cancer but not for others. Your doctor will try to identify what subtype of cancer you have and make creative adjustments in your treatment.
The second potential drawback is that there may be new effective drugs or combination of drugs that have been discovered in the last five years that have not had a chance yet to become part of the good old standard therapy. While many times standard therapy is precisely what you need, it is worth asking your physician if there are other therapies or newer drugs worth considering that might better suit your unique situation. Standard therapy is an easy and safe recommendation for a physician who is anxious about lawsuits. Expressing interest in other therapies invites him to treat you as a unique individual rather than as a category.
Research Options
Proffered questions about other therapies may also open the door to discussing various research options. If he doesn’t know of any, you may want another opinion, not because you necessarily want to be on a study but because you want a doctor who is at least familiar with the cutting edge of knowledge and active areas of research.
Participating in a research study often means being randomized by the flip of a coin to taking a standard therapy or one of new design: old drugs in a new combination or new drugs. New is not always better hence the reason for the study, so it is worth asking the physician which arm of the study he favors. He should know the results of the latest research which were the basis for designing the newest study. If he doesn't have an opinion about which arm he would choose for himself, then going on the study is a fine choice. If, however, he has a reason to believe one arm of the study is better than another for your unique situation, then it is worth seriously considering taking the treatment in that arm - but without going on the study. His recommendation may well become the new standard when the results of the study are analyzed 5 to 10 years down the road. Waiting for the results is never an option so it could be worth gambling on your physician’s best hunch as learning the results 5-10 years from now will do you no good. Sometimes new studies are done just to confirm what we are pretty sure we already know. Unless you ask your doctor, he probably won’t tell you which arm of the study he favors, so ask her/him.
Alternative Therapy
Some individuals have a distrust of doctors. Sometimes this is well justified, and other times it is inherited. There are some terrible doctors out there and even good ones can make mistakes. Listening to friends who have bad stories, it is easy to understand where their feelings come from and why they have turned away from traditional medicine. Other individuals are disappointed when their doctors and their therapies don't offer enough promise but have potential serious side effects. Both groups can launch out on an odyssey to find an alternative therapy.
If you are one of these, beware of the siren song on the Internet or of friends extolling the miraculous responses, maybe even cures, to alternative therapies. When such extraordinary benefits are claimed and often with little toxicity, they can pique anyone's curiosity, especially when labeled "natural."
Some are indeed harmless and only separate you from your money, but others can dissuade you from taking truly effective conventional treatment or worse yet may render traditional treatments ineffective or even more toxic. So beware of a cocktail of alternative therapies if they have not been carefully studied in randomized controlled trials alone or in combination with the traditional therapies. Some alternative therapies such as laetrile and vitamin C have been studied in such a fashion and been found to be worthless. Another, coffee enemas, while unstudied and unproven will, as one patient put it, leave you “clean as a whistle and high as a kite”. Most are just unstudied but instead are promoted with testamonials.
The Federal Trade Commission is using education and enforcement to guard vulnerable patients from the con artists. It maintains a website, www.ftc.gov. I would encourage you to check out. It cautions people to be skeptical by helping them to sort truth from fiction, as some therapies are just plain scams. It provides a few useful tips similar to what I've been telling people for 30 years, such as to be leery of any product that asserts it works for all cancers and all people. Every cancer is different - no treatment works for all cancer types such as stomach, breast and brain. Extensive studies also show that individuals with the same cancer type don't always respond to the same medicine. Cancers are different and so are people. To assert otherwise is wishful but false.
A product labeled "natural" does not guarantee it is either effective or safe. It doesn't even mean that it is natural. It does mean that it has not been evaluated or tested for safety by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). (Testimonies may seem heartfelt and honest and still be totally false. Personal stories from sincere people are often unintentionally unreliable and inaccurate. In particular, beware of endorsements by celebrities.
Technical jargon does not mean it is scientific or effective even though it sounds impressive. A money back guarantee is no substitute for scientific evidence. Beware of meaningless terms such as all natural, antioxidant–rich, clinically proven, anti-aging, and other vague but seductive claims.
Beware of adulterated products that can be obtained over-the-counter, hand-to-hand, or through the mail. The FDA has withdrawn over 140 products that were laced with undisclosed pharmaceutical ingredients. Perhaps the most shameful example was PG-SPES, a supplement easily obtainable without a prescription, which was heavily promoted to treat prostate cancer. The stuff actually did lower prostatic specific antigen (PSA) levels, a standard test used to monitor prostate cancer therapy, but not because of its eight mysterious Chinese herbs, but rather because it was laced with potent pharmaceuticals: an estrogen (diethylstilbestrol), along with an anticoagulant (warfarin) and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (indomethacin)”all of which have potential dangerous side effects in some individuals *7. Supplements are not evaluated by the FDA and therefore do not offer the protection of prescription medications-
Figure 1------------------------------ CON ARTIST SCAM INDICATORS
Product is asserted to work for
Many or all cancers
Many or all people
Several diseases of different origins
Products labeled as “natural, anti-oxidant, or anti aging”
Personal testimonials – especially from celebrities
Impressive technical jargon, including “clinically proven”
Money back guarantee
Add new comment