| Alternative Cancer Treatments | ||
|
|
|
|
      
|
 |
Complementary Help for
Cancer Patients
In
a recent review of trial data regarding the efficacy of chemotherapy,
three Australian oncologists concluded that the overall success rate was
in the region of just over 2%. Another Aussie professor disagreed. He
felt the overall success rate was more like 5 or 6%.... This is of great
interest to me because I have just recently completed a course of the
forty-year-old chemotherapy agent 5FU, after the surgical removal of a
colon cancer in August 2005. 5FU, I was told, would increase my chances
of survival over 5 years from around 50% to 55-60%. I took the course,
but the unpleasant side effects of the chemo. over the last 6 months has
often seemed a high price to pay for that extra 5-10%. Generally
speaking, these figures epitomize the abysmal success rate of
chemotherapy. In fact, although cancer deaths are decreasing marginally,
year on year, it is probable that this effect is largely due to more
intensive screening of the general population and the resulting surgery.
Spotting a cancer soon enough, followed by surgery where practical,
still represents the best option for long term survival. It is true that
there are a few cancers for which a specific, effective and targeted
drug is available. Chronic myeloid leukemia is one. But all in all,
chemotherapy is very expensive, not very successful, and has horrendous
side effects that can make the patient's life a misery, and leave
lasting damage in its wake. The
term ‘success rate’ needs to be defined. The three Aussie professors
defined it as ‘survival over 5 years’. On the other hand, for the
new, anti-angiogenesis colorectal cancer drug, Avastin, success is
defined as around two additional months survival. Oh, and death as a
‘side effect’ of Avastin (due to thrombosis, heart attack etc.) is
more than 4 times as likely than with the treatment it is intended to
replace. Incidentally, we are talking here about ‘absolute success
rates’. Cancer drug statistics are often presented as ‘relative
success rates’, because they look better. For example, if cancer drug
A shows a success rate of 2%, and cancer drug B shows 4%, the marketing
men and even oncologists will present drug B as being 100% more
effective than drug A, though the absolute success rate is a mere 2%
better. Yet this success rate may only equate to an additional month or
so of survival. Or not even that. Even some tumour shrinkage is claimed
as a success, though it may make no difference at all to patient
survival! As the saying goes, “There are lies, damned lies, and
statistics.” Nutriceuticals With
all the billions of dollars/pounds/euros etc. spent on cancer research
over the last half century, you would have thought that cancer treatment
would be more advanced. The reality is that a great deal of basic
medical research has been done into understanding the nature and causes
of cancer, but it rarely gets translated into better treatments. One of
the most thoroughly studied areas of research concerns the wide range of
naturally available substances that possess cancer preventative, cancer
inhibiting and even cancer curative properties. Mostly, these comprise 'phytochemicals'
from plants, mushrooms etc. – substances increasingly known as
nutriceuticals or nutraceuticals. Many of these have become the basis of
a huge nutritional supplements industry because despite all the
research, they are not available as a part of standard medical
treatment. The
reasons are various. Firstly, under current legislation, pharmaceutical
products require full clinical trials before they can be sold. Although
this is desirable, such trials are very costly – in the region of
several hundred million pounds/euros/dollars. No company will spend this
much on a product unless it can be patented, and – generally speaking
– plants and their extracts cannot be patented. Moreover, in many
instances, a plant extract may have a number of substances that act
together (synergy) to create the therapeutic effect, making isolation
and testing of a suitable saleable product far more complex. Therefore,
without changes to the legislation governing the use and availability of
nutriceuticals as adjuvants to standard cancer treatment, the only
option for a cancer patient who wants to make use of all this research
right now is either to consult a private and well-informed practitioner
of integrative medicine who specializes in cancer care, or to adopt a
do-it-yourself approach (not really recommended!) – or a combination
of the two. It
is no surprise to discover that more than half of chemotherapy patients
resort to the use of complementary or adjuvant treatments to help them
through. Not without reason. Some of the complementary treatment options
substantially reduce the rates of recurrence and metastases. Some are
even an accepted part of standard cancer treatment in countries outside
the UK and the USA. Among these are the medicinal mushroom extracts used
to great effect in China and Japan, Avemar in Hungary, Ukrain in
Austria, and mistletoe extract used in Switzerland and Germany. All of
these, and many more such options, can significantly increase a
person’s chances, not only of short-term survival, but of remaining
cancer-free for many years to come. They can also help reduce the side
effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Many
people know of the existence of some of these complementary and
alternative cancer therapies, but until faced with the disease either in
oneself or a loved one, few feel the need to investigate in detail. And
when a closer look is taken, it is not long before information overload
sets in. There is just so much data out there, so many possibilities, so
much sales hype, and so many hidden agendas, that to assimilate, assess
and act upon it is not so simple. There are probably over 100
complementary and alternative treatment options for cancer. Making use
of the best of these is a good idea, for it is generally accepted that
it is the pro-active cancer patients, who set about doing something to
help themselves, who have the best chances of recovery and longer-term
survival. But how to decide on which treatment options to use? Clearly
it’s an individual decision, but seeking the advice of an open-minded
professional who is conversant with all the options (i.e.
integrated medicine) is a good place to start. In the real world,
however, it is difficult to find such a person.
This means that you may need to gently educate your doctor! So,
when consulting an expert, it's as well to go forearmed with information
on the therapies that interest you. Choosing a Personal Treatment Regime As
an aid to decision-making in the field of complementary cancer
treatments, it is a helpful to categorize the various options according
to their function: immuno-modulators and boosters, inducers of cell
death (apoptosis), anti-angiogenesis agents (inhibitors of blood supply
to a tumour), antioxidants, and so on. This can help provide the basis
of a possible personal treatment plan. It could also be the subject of a
research project in itself. When
assessing complementary treatments, it always makes sense to question
the available data, adopting an attitude of open-minded skepticism. A
balanced approach is advisable. There are 'fundamentalists' and fanatics
in both the complementary and conservative camps. The 'quackbusters'
automatically jump on anything that smacks of an alternative, using
strong rhetoric, distorted information, and questionable logic to try
and discredit both the alternatives and their proponents. Most of the
mainstream cancer agencies and research centres are quick to point out
that many complementary therapies are founded on slender data, and feel
constrained to advise against their use until more information is
available. This is the “Do nothing till you hear from me” approach,
despite the fact that the one thing most cancer patients do not have is
time. On the other hand, some of the proponents of the alternatives are
so radical that they see conspiracies at every step. There probably are
a few cover ups (on both sides of the fence), but generally the inertia
of the system and the current insistence on costly trials of non-toxic
nutriceuticals prevent even the most useful adjuvants and complementary
options from being integrated into mainstream Western medicine. In
my personal experience, the doctors and nurses I have met in the UK's
National Health Service have been invariably supportive of the use of
complementary options. In fact, it was from their request to write down
what I was doing that my website (www.self-helpcancer.org)
detailing a great many of these options came into existence. Many of
these caring professionals are working within the constraints of a
system with which they themselves do not fully agree. It is the
restrictions of the unthinking system that prevents good alternatives
and adjuvants from being made available. But since it is human beings
who have created and who administer that system, we should also be able
to change it, despite the mindset of those who will always strive to
maintain the status quo, however outdated it may be. In
order for cancer patients to actually benefit from the all the research
that has been done, the nutriceutical and complementary approach needs
to be integrated into standard cancer treatment. Treatment regimens or
protocols need to be devised so that the most promising complementary
options get used. New legislation regarding the use of non-toxic
nutriceuticals is required in order to allow this to happen. Then
hundreds of thousands of cancer patients a year will reap the benefits.
And that, surely, must be the primary consideration.
Copyright 2006, John Davidson
Clinic | Medical Board | Breast Cancer | Library | Prostate Cancer | Lung Cancer | Colon Cancer | Contact Us! | Alternative Cancer Treatments-Newsletter |
 |
 |
|
"Alternative Cancer Treatments"
Michael Guthrie,
R.Ph. CGP 2003-2006
|
||
