|
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
way to give treatment. If you have cancer, you wonder if this treatment
might work for you. It is normal to be curious about methods you hear
about, because you want to have every possible chance of cure.
You may be thinking of spending your time, money, and energy
on something that science may not have yet proven to work. 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 will want to know more about what you are looking at so you can
decide if it's 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 being
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 we will give you 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, but 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. For cancer
prevention, see our document, Learning
About New Ways to Prevent Cancer.
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 well-known, respected,
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 and 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 the TV 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 groups use 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 the section, "Was it from a
seller's promotion?" 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. And 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 your 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 cancer went away
after they got an unproven treatment. They gratefully tell everyone
that they have been cured. But if the cancer comes back later, they
don't usually go back to update all the people they told about the
cure. Sadly, people may wrongly believe -- even years later -- that the
person was cured by the treatment. They may end up taking a treatment
that didn't work even for the one person they thought was cured by it.
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
a treatment will work for everyone.
There are many other ways that honest people with good
intentions can draw the wrong conclusion from a single person's
experience. This 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 written fake
quotes from doctors. Others reported on studies that were either never
done or were misrepresented, saying that they were from well-known
cancer treatment centers. There have been instances where ads or Web
sites had people dressed up as doctors who appeared to use or endorse
the product. Some have even implied that their product was endorsed by
the American Cancer Society.
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 our 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, look at
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 look at 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. But 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 in people. 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 when they are tested in 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 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. Researchers can then see how people who got the
treatment are doing for months or even 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. It
is important to continue this kind of research, so that cancer
treatments can keep getting better. Here are some things to think about
when looking at the results of clinical trials.
Who were the study subjects?
If you got 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 you heard about 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 already 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 a number of 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 (like 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. Still,
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 example, if more people who are healthier (such as those
who are younger, or have an earlier stage of cancer) end up in the
group getting the new treatment, it may make the new treatment look
better than it really is. In the same way, 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
it's really done by computers instead of a coin toss). Randomizing the
study volunteers into groups lowers the odds that one group will be
different enough from the other to affect the outcome.
Was it a blind study?
A blinded study
is one in which the patients did not know which treatment they got.
This helps avoid responses that are based on what was expected.
Sometimes people who think a treatment to work will appear to do better
over the short term. (For more information, see our document, Placebo Effect.)
If the patient knows which treatment 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 got 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 bias
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 it is very unlikely that the
differences were by chance. In this case, 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 about studies
that come from other sources, such as magazines or journals that are
not peer reviewed, books, or letters that are supposed to have been
written by experts. Be extra careful of this information.
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
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.
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 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
have not spread, 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 they do 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 herbs in people, look at the same questions as
for clinical trials. Keep in mind that 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 a 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. This 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 drug. This type of study is usually written up in scientific
literature and can be found there.
If sellers of a herb learn 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 2 types of studies cannot stand
in for one another. You can get more information in our document, Dietary Supplements: How to Know
What Is Safe.
What if different clinical trials show
different outcomes?
Different outcomes 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. This means there may not be much understanding of how the
substance 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,
random 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 treatment
does a little better. In most cases, when results conflict with one
another like this, it means that the treatment really has very little
effect. Or sometimes 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. This may be done after a lab or animal study, or
even a small clinical trial. But even if it is 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?
Researchers often share early results of their studies at
professional conferences. This can sometimes make a study sound very
dramatic and it can make news headlines. It is important to know who is
doing the study and where they are in the process of the study.
Sometimes, the study is being done using all the careful methods of a
clinical trial, and the researcher is sharing his or her early data
with the audience. But, in most cases, the final outcomes of these
studies are not complete at the time of the presentation. The peer
review that is needed before publication also has not generally been
done. By the time the study is published -- if it even gets published
-- the results may sound quite a bit different from the conference
presentation.
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 (randomized)?
- 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 our 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. But keep in mind that in controlled clinical
trials, you do not get to choose whether you get the new treatment or
the proven, standard treatment against which the new treatment 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 a
certain type and stage of cancer. 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, 1-800-227-2345.
We also have information on many herbs, supplements, and other
treatments that are often marketed to people with cancer. Please call
us to find out more about any specific one you are thinking about
trying, or visit us on the Web at cancer.org.
If you are interested in a clinical trial, we have a Clinical
Trials Matching Service, too. It is available at 1-800-303-5691 or on
our Web site at http://clinicaltrials.cancer.org.
National organizations and Web sites*
Along with the American Cancer Society, other sources of
information and support include:
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
Medline Plus (part of the National Library of Medicine)
Toll-free number: 1-888-346-3656
TTY: 1-800-735-2258
Web site: http://medlineplus.gov
Web site: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginformation.html
This sub-site links directly to reliable information on supplements and
drugs
*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 1-800-227-2345 or
visit www.cancer.org.
References
American Heart Association. Science News Stories, How To
Evaluate. Accessed at
www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4685 on July 30, 2009.
Gotay CC, Dumitriu D. Health food store recommendations for
breast cancer patients. Arch
Fam Med. 2000;9:692-699.
Miller JD. When is significant not important? Finding Clinical
Meaning in Cancer Data. Journal
of the National Cancer Institute 2007;99:1832-1835.
Tufts Center for the Study of New Drug Development.
Backgrounder: How New Drugs Move through the Development and Approval
Process, 2001. Accessed at
http://csdd.tufts.edu/NewsEvents/RecentNews.asp?newsid=4 on July 31,
2009.
U.S. District Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida.
Press Release: Arthur Vanmoor sentenced to 210 months in jail for
selling fake cancer cure. Accessed at
http://miami.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/mm20080411.htm on July 31,
2009.
Last Medical Review: 08/20/2009
Last Revised: 08/20/2009
|
