|
You've just heard about a possible new cancer treatment. It
may be in the form of a drug or a machine, a new invention, or a new
approach. If you have cancer, you can't help but wonder if this
treatment might work for you. It is normal to be curious about methods
that your doctor hasn't mentioned to you, because you want to have
every possible chance of cure.
You may be thinking of spending your time, money, and energy
on something that may not be proven. At this point, you don't know if
it might help you, or even if it could harm you. Before you put your
time, your body, and your money on the line, you want to know more
about what you are looking at so you can decide if it is worth it.
It may be that the treatment you heard about is "in the
pipeline" to become a mainstream cancer treatment in the future. It is
usually not too hard to find information about these kinds of
treatments.
Sometimes, the treatment you have heard about is already used
to treat cancer. In that case, it is usually easy enough to learn more
about it. If the treatment was approved for another type of cancer or a
different illness, you can still find information. But it may be harder
to find out about how well it works for the type of cancer you have.
Other treatments may be herbs, vitamins, other dietary
supplements, traditional remedies, "body cleansings," special diets,
and systems that are supposed to allow the body to heal itself, among
many others. While it used to be that there were few studies that
looked at these methods, doctors are now researching more of them in
the same ways that they study other treatments.
Whatever treatment you are thinking about, you will want to
take the time to see what you can find out about it from sources you
can trust. Here are some ideas to help you when you are searching for
more information.
This document
only addresses ways to look at information on methods that are said to
be cancer treatments, although some of the same principles can be used
when looking at information on screening or diagnostic tests, symptom
management, and other aspects of cancer detection and care.
Look at where the information came from
To start, you will want to consider the source
- Was there a report in the newspaper?
- Was it discussed on a television or radio program?
- Did the news come from the Internet site that also happens
to be selling the treatment?
- Did a health food store employee suggest it?
- Was there a study report in a prominent, peer-reviewed
medical journal such as the New
England Journal of Medicine or the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute?
- Did someone tell you about someone else who used it, for
instance, the cousin of a friend who was cured of cancer?
Did it come from news reports?
Even if the report is in a respected newspaper, don't just
look at the headlines--sometimes they can be overstated or misleading.
You will need to read the article carefully to find out where the
reporter got his or her information.
- Was this a press release from a drug company announcing a
new breakthrough?
- Is it a report from a clinical study that was given at a
scientific conference?
- Is it a report from a clinical trial that was published in
a respected medical journal?
- What do you know about the research center where the
clinical trial took place?
If the report was on television or radio, you will want to
know if what you saw or heard can be trusted. Was the news reported or
reviewed by a doctor, or a non-medical person such as a reporter or
news anchor? Some news organizations get medical reporters so that
medical and health news can be reported more clearly to the public.
Journalists without medical training don't usually understand all the
medical background and previous related research on the subject, so
they are not as able to give a full, unbiased view.
Was it a commercial or an infomercial? Keep in mind that these
are ads that tell you only what they want you to hear. You have to look
carefully to learn if studies have been done, or find other reliable
sources to learn more (see "Seller promotions," below).
If you heard about a study on a reliable news report, try to
remember the details. Look for the kind of information that you would
get from a newspaper, including where the new information came from.
Getting these facts from broadcasts can be much harder than from
printed reports, because it's hard to remember everything from a short
TV or radio report. You can't always go back and search for the facts
after the broadcast is over. Even if you could remember everything you
heard, important details may be left out of the reports because they
have so little time to cover the subject.
Luckily, some news outlets post extra information or replay
their newscasts on their Web sites. If you are unable to find more on
their Web site, you may want to try contacting the TV or radio station
to get these questions answered. It is better to do this right away
rather than to wait. Sometimes, a question that might be answered
easily a day or two after the broadcast might become impossible to find
after a month or two.
Was it anecdotal information?
If someone told you about the cousin of a friend, or some
other person who got better on this treatment, that is called
"anecdotal" information. This often means that you get a second or
third-hand report that the treatment worked for a certain person.
Can you check the story and find its source? Is there a way to
be sure that what you were told really happened? Keep in mind that even
if one person got better on the treatment, it is impossible to say what
exactly caused the change. For instance, a person who has been treated
for cancer may take an herbal medicine because he still feels tired a
lot. Then he may notice he feels better, and his cancer doesn't come
back. He may credit the herb with feeling better, even though that
would have happened anyway without the herb. He may even believe that
the herb cured his cancer or kept it from coming back--even though he
got mainstream medical treatment first.
There have also been reports from people who had a lump or
spot on their skin and never saw a doctor for it. Some of these people
believed that their lump or spot was cancer, even if it wasn't, and
took an unproven treatment for it. There is no way of knowing if they
had an infection, a cyst, or something else. Still, some of these
people feel sure that their problem went away because their "cancer"
was cured by the treatment.
Other times, a person will report that their problem went away
after they got an unproven treatment. They gratefully tell everyone
that they have been cured. But if their problem comes back later, they
don't usually go back to all the people they told before and give them
an update. Sadly, people may believe even years later that the person
was cured by the treatment. They can end up taking a treatment that
didn't work even for one person.
Anecdotal information can cause problems even with proven
treatments if you don't know the whole story. Let's say a treatment
cures 2 out of 5 people with a certain problem. One of your friends who
took this treatment tells you that he was cured by it, and since you
have the same illness, it seems like a good idea. But if you didn't
find out more, you might pass up another treatment that cures 4 out of
5 people with the same problem. Even though you would have twice the
chance of cure with the second treatment, your friend's success makes
the first treatment seem like a good choice. This isn't likely to
happen with cancer treatments, since your doctor helps choose the best
treatment, but it does help show why one person's success doesn't mean
success for everyone.
There are many other ways that honest people with good
intentions can draw the wrong conclusion from a single person's
experience. That is why scientists test new cancer treatments under
careful conditions. They want to test the treatment on many people who
are known to have the disease, so they can be sure of the outcome.
Was it from a seller's promotion?
If the report came from an internet seller, you may have lots
of searching to do. Many companies that sell treatments on the internet
talk about the healing powers of herbs and supplements that have never
been proven to heal anything in people. Others use outright lies and
fraud to make their Web site look official. Some have even made up
studies or implied their product was endorsed by the American Cancer
Society. Some have written fake quotes from doctors. Others reported
studies that were either never done or were misrepresented and said
they were from well-known cancer treatment centers to make people
believe in their product. There have been instances where ads or Web
sites had people dressed up as doctors who appeared to use or endorse
the product.
Some marketers have falsely said that their treatment or
device was approved by the FDA. Others note that their device is
registered with the FDA. Even if that is true, registration is not the
same as approval. Registration does not require proof that the device
works or is safe. This is mostly a problem if the promoter markets it
for a different use than what was registered with the FDA. You can find
out more by calling the FDA (see the "Additional resources" section,
below.)
Sometimes the staff at nutrition centers and herbal shops will
make suggestions or even prescribe treatments for cancer and other
conditions. Studies have shown that treatments are often suggested that
have not been proven to help people with cancer. In fact, some of these
types of treatments can cause harm. (For more information on these
treatments, see the American Cancer Society documents, Complementary and Alternative
Methods for Cancer Management and Dietary Supplements: How to
Know What is Safe.)
There are also commercials and infomercials that present new
cancer treatments on television. These are often set up to look like
news interviews, and can be very misleading, since they are set up and
scripted by the sellers of the product. In fact, you may later learn
that some of the people who sell cancer cures or "secret cancer
information" in these ways have been jailed for fraud. But when the
reports first come out, they can sound so promising, and plenty of
people want to think there is a miracle that can help them. It can be
hard to know what to believe without more information.
Look at the science
If you want to take a tested, proven cancer treatment, you may
want to know how the treatment was tested. The way tests are set up can
affect the outcome, and sometimes can make a treatment look like it
works when it really doesn't.
Laboratory and animal studies
Scientists usually start by testing a new treatment on cancer
cells in a dish at the lab, to find out if the treatment has any effect
there. If it doesn't, they may change the formula or use different
types of cells the next time. If they find the effect they want in the
dish, they may move on to animals to find out if the substance is
absorbed from the stomach or intestine, and how it is distributed in
the body. They look for good and bad effects. Because some of these
study reports are published, you may hear about them on the news. Often
the headlines do not make it clear what kind of study is being
reported. Of all the substances that are tested in these early stages,
only about 1 in 1,000 look promising enough to even be tested in
humans.
This means that if you are looking at a report of a research
study--even one that says a treatment "stops the growth of cancer
cells"--you may notice that there is no mention of people. Some of
these lab studies use human cancer cells, although other times the
cancer cells are from animals. (These kinds of studies are called in vitro studies.)
At this point, anything that stops cancer cell growth may sound like
good news. But there are many things that can stop cancer cells from
growing in a lab dish that do not work when people take them. Some
reasons a treatment may not work for people is that the substance also
hurts or kills normal cells, or because the body cannot absorb it and
get it to the place where the cancer is. Sometimes, even if the
substance can be absorbed, can reach the cancer, and doesn't harm
normal cells, the amount of the substance that reaches the cancer isn't
enough to stop the cancer cells. There are many hurdles between lab
studies and human ones.
If the study was done in living animals, good outcomes may
sound promising. Keep in mind, though, that drugs that work in animals
do not always work out when they are tested on people. Animal studies
sometimes help scientists know which drugs may be toxic to people, and
which may show unexpected effects. Sometimes, the drug works in almost
the exact same way in people as animals. But as any veterinarian can
tell you, there are many drugs people use that don't work on animals,
and vice versa. Some animal drugs can hurt people, and some human drugs
can hurt animals. So while animal tests can give researchers certain
types of valuable information, they don't always reflect how the drug
will affect people.
Human testing
After testing in the lab, and possibly in animals, the
treatment may be ready to be tested in humans. Before this decision is
made, the results from lab and animal tests on the substance are
carefully looked at. Other evidence may be weighed, such as the effects
of related drugs, what is already known about the class of chemicals,
and other such information. If the drug is a new substance, the company
must tell the FDA why they think the drug will work in humans, and
share research from the lab and animal studies. If the FDA approves
human testing, researchers must decide how to design clinical trials
and find volunteers who are willing to take the drug.
This is why careful cancer researchers make sure what disease
each person in their study has before any treatment is given. After the
treatment, they watch for side effects, and regularly check on how the
patients are doing. That way, the researchers can be sure how people
who got the treatment fare for months or years after getting the
treatment. All this information becomes part of the study record.
What is a clinical trial?
Clinical trials are research studies in which people volunteer
to help doctors find ways to treat disease or improve care. Today's
cancer treatments are mostly based on what was learned in past clinical
trials. Cancer treatments have improved because of clinical trials, and
today many people treated for cancer are living longer. It is important
to continue this kind of research, so that cancer treatments can keep
getting better. Here are some factors to consider in clinical trials.
Who were the study subjects?
If you happened to get your information from a study done on
people, this is a good start. Still, a treatment must go through many
stages in human tests before it goes into widespread use to treat
cancer. It is possible that the study is an early (preliminary) one, or
a pilot study. These are small studies in which a drug or treatment is
tested on a few people just to get an idea if it is worth testing on
larger numbers of people.
If the treatment you heard about is being tested in large
groups of people, there is still a chance that the treatment can only
be given to those who are in the study. When a drug is being looked at
for FDA approval, there are several stages of clinical trials, starting
with smaller studies and building up to bigger ones. For new drugs,
there are phase I trials, then phase II and phase III trials which must
be completed before a new treatment is approved. This can take several
years. (For more information on the stages of clinical trials, see our
document, Clinical Trials: What you need
to Know.)
Was it a controlled study?
Did the study have a control group? If it did, this means that
the treatment has been compared to a proven treatment (or a placebo, a
sham treatment, if there is no standard treatment available) in similar
groups of people. This helps researchers find out if the people who get
the new treatment do better, live longer, or have fewer symptoms than
those who got the old treatment or the placebo. A study that has a
control group is called a controlled
study.
Not every clinical trial has a control group. This means that
the treatment being tested cannot be directly compared with other kinds
of treatment. There are other pitfalls to not having a control group.
For instance, if the cancer is a type that stops growing for a while
without treatment, a study without a control group can make it look
like the treatment is what stopped the cancer's growth. A control group
would show that the cancer stopped growing (and started back later) no
matter what treatment was used.
Some cancer treatment centers almost always have better
outcomes than others, which can pose problems when you compare
treatments in research studies. A good outcome may be partly because of
better supportive care (quicker treatment for infections, better use of
other medicines, expert nurses, and other factors.) It may also be
because they are known as excellent treatment centers, and people
travel great distances for care there. When this happens, the group in
clinical trials may be healthier (if they were healthy enough to travel
a long way to the cancer center, for instance), have other health care
problems under control (because they have more money or better
insurance), and be better-informed health care consumers (so they may
be more willing to stick with treatment). All of these factors can
improve survival, no matter which treatment the group gets. But control
groups from the same cancer center help to balance out these
advantages, as long as the control group is like the treatment group
(see "Randomization," below). If there is no control group from the
same cancer center, you can't take a 5-year survival rate from one
clinical trial and expect to compare it to one from a different
treatment that was tested at another cancer center.
Were the subjects randomly assigned to
study or control groups (randomization)?
This means that the treatment is compared using similar groups
of volunteers who were chosen completely by chance to be in one group
or the other ("randomized"). This reduces the risk, for instance, that
the sicker people end up in one group, which could change the study
outcome.
For instance, if more people who are healthier (those who are
younger, or have an earlier stage of cancer, for example) end up in the
group getting the new treatment, it may make the new treatment look
better than it really is. If more people with worse disease end up in
the new treatment group, that group may fare worse than the control
group. This could make the new treatment look less effective, because
it was tested on people who were sicker to start with. Because of this,
researchers put people into one group or the other by doing something
along the lines of flipping a coin (although in practice it is done by
computers instead of a coin toss).
Randomization lowers the odds that one group will be very
different from the other. This is why you don't know, when you agree to
take part in a controlled clinical trial, whether you will get the
standard treatment for your condition or the new one. Keep in mind that
in cancer clinical trials, there is almost never a group in which
anyone gets a placebo (inactive substance or sham treatment). The only
time that placebos are used is when there is no proven standard
treatment for the person's condition. If you are in a clinical trial in
which placebos are used, you are informed there is a chance you will
get one. Otherwise the new treatment is compared to the standard
treatment, which is the same treatment you would get if you were not in
a clinical trial.
Was it a blind study?
This means that the patient does not know which treatment he
or she is getting. This helps avoid responses that are based on
expectation. Sometimes people who expect a treatment to work will
appear to do better over the short term. (For more information, see our
document on Placebo Effect.)
If the patient knows the treatment that he or she is getting, the study
is called an "open label" study.
Was it a double-blind study?
This means that neither the doctors nor the patient know which
treatment the patient is getting until after the treatment is completed
and the observations are done. This helps to avoid bias, in which a
doctor or researcher expects one group of patients to do better and
that affects his or her observations. In clinical trials, observations
are carefully measured and written up. After that, the code is broken
so that the people who are analyzing the data can find out which group
(if any) did better than the other.
There are times when double blinding isn't possible; for
instance, when people get treatment at entirely different times in the
control group than the test group (like before surgery instead of after
chemotherapy). The doctors must know when to give the treatments and do
the surgery, so they cannot be blinded.
Did the results have statistical
significance?
The data are carefully looked at to see if the differences
between the groups could be due to chance. This is called a "test of
statistical significance." It means that if one group came out better
than the other by a large enough margin that it is very unlikely that
the differences were by chance, the results are said to be
"significant."
Is the study published and peer reviewed?
Publishing the findings in a respected, peer-reviewed journal
means that the methods and information from the study were looked at by
other doctors or scientists. When they look at the information, they
want to be sure that the scientific procedures were properly followed.
They also keep an eye out for any bias or other factors that would make
one group do better than the other for some reason other than the
treatment being studied. Sometimes you will find news based on other
sources (see "Other
questions about new treatments" below.)
The highest standard of proof that a treatment works is a
double-blind, randomized clinical trial on humans that has met the
strictest standards of scientific method. If blinded studies are not
possible, scientific procedures must still be carefully followed to be
sure that any difference in outcomes are due to the treatment, and not
due to other factors. This usually allows the study to be published in
a respected, peer-reviewed medical journal.
Good science is cautious
It takes more than one study to prove
something works
Even the best-sounding ideas take a lot of testing to show
that they work. Since many good ideas don't pan out for cancer
treatment, the failure rate can be high. One study with a good outcome
doesn't mean a treatment works. Future studies that try the same thing
doing it the same way, sometimes get different results. Science builds
on the studies in the lab, and sometimes animals. If the treatment
seems to be safe enough, it may next be tested on a small group of
people. Getting to this point often takes many years. If all of the
results look promising, a phase I clinical trial may be started.
It is rare to find a respected cancer researcher who wants to
use a new treatment based on just one study. Even if it looks that way,
behind that study is almost always a lot of other information that has
been built up over a long time. When one large clinical trial makes the
news, keep in mind that if a treatment actually works, it usually has a
good track record from earlier studies.
Other
questions about new treatments
Can a clinical trial find a cure?
Among possible drugs being studied for FDA approval, only
about 1 out of 5 that makes it to the stage of human clinical trials
will be approved to treat an illness. Cancer drugs may have an even
lower success rate.
Even when a drug or treatment works well, rarely will a
researcher or doctor say that a treatment cures cancer. In order be
sure of a cure, studies would have to keep up with each patient until
he or she died of something else. This is much harder to do than it
sounds--and think about how many years it would take before the study
results could be announced.
Even if a treatment is good enough to cure some patients, it
is not likely to cure everyone. But, for certain types of cancer that
are not very invasive, or that are found very early, treatment can
sometimes get rid of the cancer so that it doesn't come back. Because
it can be hard to tell in advance which cancers will come back, there
is always uncertainty, even with well-tested medical treatments.
What about treatments that are not in line
to be approved by the FDA?
There are many herbs and food extracts that are advertised as
having an effect on cancer. As long as these food-related products are
generally regarded as safe, there are few restrictions on their sales.
Many are simply packaged and sold. Because some of these supplements
have been found to not contain what is listed on the label, and others
have been found to include substances that were not on the label, the
FDA set up new rules for dietary supplements in 2007.
These rules will not fully take effect until 2010, but they
are intended to help be sure that the supplement contains what it says
on the label, with no extra ingredients or impurities. The new rules
will still not require those who make or sell the product to submit
proof that the herb or supplement is safe or effective, and it does not
address the supplements' effects on the body.
Since there is growing interest in these supplements,
researchers have started studying some of them. Large sums of money are
not usually available for clinical studies to look at herbs, so these
studies tend to be smaller. But because the safety of the substance is
not called into question, there is less need for animal testing. When
looking at studies of these herbs in people, you would want to look at
the same questions as for clinical trials. But, until recently, many of
these studies were poorly designed and some did not get published. Or,
if they did, some were published someplace other than a respected
scientific journal.
On the internet, in conferences, and in health food stores,
those who sell herbs will sometimes try to use lab studies or animal
studies as evidence that the herbs work. Some sellers will refer to
studies that are not published in peer-reviewed journals. The studies
may be written up in a "natural cures" book or posted on an internet
Web site. Sometimes they will show letters on a doctor's or hospital's
letterhead, often from another country where it is impossible to check
the facts. That leaves you with no way to know that the studies were
done as they are presented.
It also happens that researchers will isolate a chemical from
an herb and test it in the lab to find out if it affects cells. Because
the effects of the isolated chemical might be different (especially in
large doses), this kind of treatment is tested from the ground up, like
a new treatment. This type of study is usually written up in scientific
literature and can be found there.
However, if sellers of the herb know about scientific studies
done with herbal extracts, some of them will talk about the study's
findings as if the success in the study were a reflection of the whole
herb, not a concentrated extract of one of its parts. Purified extracts
do not work the same way as the whole herb, and the two types of
studies cannot stand in for one another.
What if different clinical trials show
different outcomes?
This can be very confusing, especially at first. When there
are just a few studies, as there may be on a compound that is generally
thought to be safe, tests on humans may be the first type done. There
may not be much understanding of how it might work from lab studies or
animal studies. Even when the studies are set up well, these clinical
trials often end up showing very little difference, if any, between the
people who took it and those who didn't. When the compound really
doesn't have any effect, chance will often tip the scales in one
direction or another--sometimes even enough that the results look to be
significant. This means that sometimes the placebo group will do a bit
better than the test group, while at other times, the group that gets
the new compound does a little better. When results conflict with one
another like this, it often means that the treatment has very little
effect. Or it can be a study design problem, or some other factor that
affected the outcome.
This leads to another problem that can creep in as studies are
published. Sometimes, the studies that show no difference between the
treatment and placebo, or the ones that show the placebo group doing
better, are not published. After all, it isn't exactly exciting news
when something doesn't work. But these kinds of studies could really
help people who are trying to decide whether it is worthwhile to take
the treatment. Worse, if the only clinical trials published are the
ones that show the treatment helps, a person reviewing the published
information might not be able to find studies that showed no
difference. He or she might conclude that the treatment was helpful,
because those are the only studies that were published. This is an
example of what is called publication
bias.
What about press releases?
Sometimes a company will put out a press release about some
promising treatment. Often, this is done after a lab or animal study,
or a small clinical trial. Even if it was done after a large study, the
company is only telling the press what they want you to hear. This is
not the same as having fellow scientists take a careful look at the
methods and outcome.
What about conference presentations?
This information is often an early look at a study that can
sometimes sound very dramatic and make headlines. It is important to
know who is doing the study and where they are. Sometimes, the study is
being done using all the careful methods of a clinical trial, and the
researcher is sharing his or her data with the audience. But, the final
outcome of these studies may not be complete at the time of the
presentation. The peer review that is needed before publication has not
generally been done.
What does this mean to you?
After going over what all of these things mean, here are some
questions about new treatments you will want answered:
- Was the new treatment tested in the lab (on cells in a
dish, "in vitro"), in animals, or in humans ("in vivo")?
- Who did the study? Was it done at a reputable cancer
treatment center?
- Are there other studies that were done before that support
this outcome?
- If the study was done in humans, how many were involved?
- Was there a control group (people who got standard
treatment)?
- Were people chosen at random to get either the standard
treatment or the new treatment (randomization)?
- Was the study blinded (were the patients and/or doctors
kept from knowing who got which treatment while the patient was being
watched for the effects of the treatment)?
- Was there a difference in outcome between the group taking
standard treatment and the group taking the new treatment?
- Was the difference in outcome measured in survival,
recurrence, symptoms, or some other marker?
- Was the study published in a respected, peer-reviewed
journal, or was it presented at a conference or sent out in a press
release?
- Is the treatment still in clinical trials in humans or has
it been approved by the FDA?
- If the treatment hasn't been approved, is it available
through expanded access or compassionate use? (Compassionate drug use
is when seriously ill patients use a new, unapproved drug when no other
treatments are available.)
- Is the treatment likely to be harmful to me? What is known
about side effects?
What difference might this treatment make to
people?
Is it useful in the real world?
Even if a study finds that the difference between an old
treatment and a new one is significantly different, it may not mean a
lot of benefit for the patient.
Sometimes, a treatment that shows a statistically significant
difference between the treatment and control group may not make that
much difference in people's lives. For instance, a very large clinical
trial can show that a treatment improves survival by an average of 10
days and that this was not by chance. Even though it is significant
statistically, for most patients, a treatment that extends life a bit
more than a week may mean that the treatment may not be worth the side
effects. Sometimes, it is hard for even doctors to know how helpful a
treatment may be when balancing its benefits with its side effects and
other costs. If you ask your doctor about a certain treatment that was
found helpful in a good study, he or she may be able to talk to you
about whether it may be worthwhile for you.
Of course, if a study is still in human trials, there is a
chance that you could take part in such a study (see the American
Cancer Society document Clinical
Trials, What You Need to Know). Often this can mean travel to
the study site, which may be expensive, although some study sponsors
pay for part of the expense. However, in the controlled clinical
trials, you do not get to choose whether you get the new treatment or
the proven treatment against which it is being tested. Also, you must
meet certain criteria to qualify for the study. Common standards
include being within a certain age range and having the type and stage
of cancer that is being looked at in the study. Depending on the study,
you may have to have certain blood counts to be in it. Most clinical
trials do not allow people who have complications such as kidney
failure, and other serious diseases including current infection (unless
that is part of the study.) There may also be requirements about
whether or not you've had certain treatments in the past.
Is the treatment available?
There are other situations where a drug may be used before the
FDA approves it for general use, even if you can't be in a clinical
trial.
Sometimes a new drug has already been approved by the FDA for
one purpose and is being studied for another. This means it may be
available to you if your doctor agrees it might help you (see our
document, Off-Label Drug Use
for more information.) Sometimes the drug can be used for certain
people even before the FDA has approved the drug if it allows "expanded
access" or "compassionate use." If this is the case, doctors can use
the drug for certain problems, usually when other treatments are not
working. Unfortunately, insurance companies will sometimes refuse to
pay for treatments when they are used to treat conditions for which
they were not approved. One strategy when your insurance won't pay for
an off-label drug is to ask your doctor whether any treatment
guidelines for your condition recommend the off-label treatment. If
they do, that can help your case with the insurance company.
What if I can't find much evidence but I
still want to try the treatment?
Of course, even if the evidence is not there, you may find a
way to get the treatment and decide to do it anyway.
If you choose to do this, talk about it with your doctor it to
get another opinion on the treatment. See what you can find out about
side effects, allergies, drug interactions, and other possible effects.
Oftentimes, studies of "natural remedies" do not collect this sort of
information, and it can be hard to find. We encourage you to learn all
you can. You can always call us to see if we can help you get more
information on any treatment you are considering.
Additional resources
More information from your American Cancer
Society
We have selected some related information that may also be
helpful to you. These materials may be ordered from our toll-free
number, 1-800-ACS-2345.
The American Cancer Society has information on many herbs,
supplements, and other treatments that are often marketed to people
with cancer. Please call us to ask about any specific one you are
considering, or visit us on the Web at www.cancer.org.
National organizations and Web sites*
In addition to the American Cancer Society, other sources of
patient information and support include:
First Gov for Consumers: Health
Web site: http://www.consumer.gov/health.htm
includes information and many links about health, including how to spot
health fraud
Food and Drug Administration
Toll free number: 1-888-463-6332 (1-888-INFO FDA)
Web site: www.fda.gov
National Cancer Institute
Toll free number: 1-800-422-6237 (1-800-4-CANCER)
Web site: www.cancer.gov
*Inclusion on
this list does not imply endorsement by the American Cancer Society.
No matter who you are, we can help. Contact us anytime, day or
night, for information and support. Call us at 1-800-ACS-2345 or
visit www.cancer.org.
References
American Heart Association: Science News Stories, How To
Evaluate. Available online at:
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4685. Accessed
January 7, 2008.
Gotay CC, Dumitriu D. Health food store recommendations for
breast cancer patients. Arch
Fam Med. 2000 Aug;9(8):692-9.
Miller JD. When is significant not important? Finding Clinical
Meaning in Cancer Data. Journal
of the National Cancer Institute 2007. 99(24):1832-1835.
Tufts Center for the Study of New Drug Development.
Backgrounder: How New Drugs Move through the Development and Approval
Process, 2001. Available online at:
http://csdd.tufts.edu/NewsEvents/RecentNews.asp?newsid=4. Accessed
January 18, 2008.
US District Attorney's Office, South District of Florida,
Press Release. Arthur Vanmoor charged in superseding indictment for
selling fake cancer cure, 2007. Available online at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/070827-01.html. Accessed
January 4, 2008.
Last Medical Review: 08/13/2008
Last Revised: 08/13/2008
|
