Re: Breast Cancer Research
- From: "Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:51:22 GMT
"george conklin" <george@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ii%8g.3447$u4.1926@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The New York Times today has a long article on breast cancer research. It
seems that current recommendations for chemotherapy were made before
anyone bothered to look at estrogen dependent tumors and non-estrogen
dependent tumors. Looking at the data with the one new variable, it turns
out that most of the benefits of the chemotherapy were from those who had
non-estrogen dependent tumors.
But guess what: the hidebound medical business states that since this one
variable was not thought of IN ADVANCE, the results of the actual
chemotherapy sessions do not meet the 'gold standard,' and thus they want
to start all over again. Now that is massive stupidity, but guess what,
that is what is going to happen.
You don't understand because you don't understand what is meant by a
scientific study or proof or study design. Suffice it to say, each
oncologist is free to decide for him/herself if chemo or hormone treatment
is the way to go. However, until the proper studies are done, they must
inform their patients that although such a treatment is felt to be
effective, there have not been any studies to prove it.
While I don't treat breast cancer, I do deal much with prostate cancer.
There are plenty of comparisons. We treat many men witth hormonal therapy.
Many of the studies out there are old before newer diagnostic and treatment
techniques were available. Those tests showed that early hormonal treatment
made no difference vs. later hormonal treatment, so we might as well wait
for a patient to become symptomatic before giving a treatment with
significant side effects. Newer studies have shown, however, that early
hormone treatment probably does help in a selected patient population.
We'll probably NEVER be able to prove this because those older studies, done
in the '70's, would be deemed unethical today. So we have studies that
suggest a difference but can't prove it. What do we do? Most oncologists
who treat prostate cancer would start early hormone therapy in those
patients who will probably benefit from it. We're now waiting on a large
European study which, though it won't be exactly what we need, will probably
help settle some of the debate.
I know you don't like much of medicine, but if you have a better way to get
at the truth in such matters we'd love to hear it. Things move slowly in
medicine, and for a good reason. For every new treatment with a small study
that shows that it works... and goes on to be a good treatment, there will
be 10 that eventually end in failure or worse. We can't just jump at every
fad.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Medical Research
- From: Herman Rubin
- Medical Research
- References:
- Breast Cancer Research
- From: george conklin
- Breast Cancer Research
- Prev by Date: Breast Cancer Research
- Next by Date: Medical Research
- Previous by thread: Breast Cancer Research
- Next by thread: Medical Research
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
