complementary vs. alternative?

Hi Kat,

Welcome, and sorry you have to join us.  

There was recently a thread on this site that delved deeply into a lot of questions you are asking. You can read it at this link, if you'd like. 

 http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/79/topic/765299?page=56#idx_1670

If you don't have the time or interest in plowing through all 50-some pages of it, I'll take a stab at some of the conclusions that the thread arrived at:

1) There are no guarantees that the cancer won't come back, no matter what you do

2) There is no trustworthy research on alternative or complimentary tactics that can rid you of cancer.

3) There IS research that shows that 'conventional' methods (chemo, etc.) do cure some percentage of women with early stage breast cancer.

Since you have led a healthy lifestyle (as did I) and still got a cancer diagnosis, why would you think that a healthy lifestyle would help rid you of cancer?

It looks like you have a more aggressive type of breast cancer (hormone receptor negative) and it looks like you are young, so I would encourage you to strongly consider chemotherapy, if it is offered to you. It *could* be the cure that you are hoping for! 

You could also (simultaneously or sequentially) try other methods you feel might help you. 

Best of luck with your decisions! 

Kat,



Sometimes people mean well, but don't realize the how much pressure and stress their advice can be during a time of decision-making. Here is what I've learned: 1) Do what YOU think is best for you and no one else. 3) Everyone does not need to know the details of what you are doing. Learn who is supportive and who is pushing their views on you. 3) You have to BELIEVE in whatever treatment plan and your treatment team.



I am doing both. I could not tolerate chemo (AC) and only had 2 cycles. I then had vitamin c infusions. I'm recovering from bilateral mastectomy and hysterectomy. I've been informed that I should try chemo again and I will despite strong objections by close family members. They don't have cancer so I told them to keep their opinions to themselves.



My suggestion is to talk to those who can help you and not stress you even more than you may be now. Sorry you have joined us, but welcome with open arms.

I too thought I was healthy.  Do Yoga, rarely eat meat, exercise etc.   I am now reading reading the Anti-Cancer book by David Schreiber.  He believes in all the healthy options but definately believes in the western approach first.   

Valgirl:  Since my own BS told me I am healthy (he's the expert), I don't believe that BC makes me unhealthy.  On the contrary, maybe I'm too healthy for my own good.  At 54, those ovaries of mine were still in overdrive (never missed a period).  Been told oftentimes I looked 15 years younger.  Unfortunatelty, due to chemo and Tamox, that is no longer the case.  My body has aged 50 years if not more and I look like I've been through hell and back many many times.  Chemo and Tamox are poisonning my body.  Maybe, I still had many many good years yet to come, had it not been for the mammograms.  Here, in Canada, doctors are not all that crazy about mammograms, as these in themselves can damage breast tissue enough to cause BC.

"Using Autopsy Series To Estimate the Disease "Reservoir" for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: How Much More Breast Cancer Can We Find?  

Purpose: To determine how many cases of breast cancer might be found if women not known to have the disease were thoroughly examined (the disease "reservoir")"

http://www.annals.org/content/127/11/1023.abstract

Luan, while many people think of complementary and alternative as the same thing, I tend to go with this explanation:

http://www.clarksnutrition.com/common/adam/CAM_Links.asp?storeID=2691B1FE187D41ACB869A85CA5957A0A

In case anyone doesn't want to read the entire piece, here's the difference explained:

The terms "complementary medicine" and "alternative medicine," although often used to mean the same thing, actually have quite different implications. Complementary medicine refers to medical practices used together with conventional medicine while alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. An example of complementary medicine is the use of hypnotherapy together with pain medications to reduce anxiety and enhance relaxation in people recovering from severe burns. Following a special diet rather than taking medications to treat attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is an example of alternative medicine.

So, based on this understanding, I believe Kat's topic heading is right on for what she's asking.  Deanna

Luann, I think you and I are reading her post a bit differently. I thought she was asking if using alternatives alone are sufficient, or do those of us who believe in them only use them along with traditional approaches. 

I totally embrace nutrition, physical activity, peaceful living, meditation, avoiding toxins and plastics, massage etc. etc. and will include them into my life more than ever now (for example - I am embracing every meal is an opportunity to kick cancer's ass!)... but can this alone take the place of surgery? Can this take the place of rads or chemo? Or does it just work along with the more traditional approaches?

And, sorry, but I don't understand your point about the yew tree.  Are you suggesting that pharmaceuticals are somehow natural (or not that far from alternative) because one of their many ingredients might be derived from a natural source?        Deanna 

Hi kks_rd,you've gotten some great information here (and a wonderful compassionate tone everyone).  I'm also doing the "complementary" therapies route. Many sources (like Block) that tout complementary therapies stress these should be considered in conjunction with the traditional onc. FWIW, all the cancer clinics around No. Calif.  offer a suite of free complementary therapies, so it doesn't have to be either-or, and some traditional ROs and MOs are at least somewhat open-minded.

Sorry to hear you came back positive for the BRCA gene. From my understanding, that changes the risk characteristics, so if that were my situation, I definitely wouldn't ignore the science behind traditional treatment.

FWIW, I've had a  few well-meaning people suggest alternative treatments. You might want to learn the facts of what they are recommending.  One neighbor told how he was able to excise a tumor from his back using some alternative salve, but when I told him  a) not all tumors are malignant and b) that his symptoms sounded like a cyst, not even a solid tumor, well, he didn't want to talk about it anymore. People are well intentioned, but I fear that some of their advice is based on hearsay and (don't want to sound mean) wishful thinking, vs. any solid science.   In contrast,  another neighbor said that her mother had eaten healthy (all organic for 30 years) and seemingly had done everything right, but got cancer twice (BC, and the after kicking that, got another cancer many years later). That was unsettling to hear because my first change after Dx was to eat all-organic, all-the-time. Wish that were the magic bullet, but since it's not, I want to consider all the options and make the choices that will improve my odds the most. Good luck! Stressful time for you, I'm sure. And I think you know this, but there are no guarantees in any of this. Dammit.  My inner (and outer) control freak really wishes there were.

Patzee, i totally relate, taking care of our bodies, now this, is really unfair. Being afraid is not going to help u though. u really have to work on your confidence in ure decision and listen to your heart and body. must have been an excruating decision to make, one i could not afford, being stage 3. do u have practionners following u ?

Plants can be poisonous don't forget. Now as for taxotere/taxol - I'm really glad someone discovered the Pacific Yew tree and what it could do even if it is a poison. Taxotere is a semi-synthetic derived from the European Yew tree.

Yasmin, we speak same language u say er/pr pos Her neg dont benefit from chemo...pleasssse elaborate



deanna, i guess what.i was trying gto get across is :



"Science-based" research, conventional med and pharmacos sleep in same bed and alternative, integrative and complementary in their own and in between there are those researchers with an open mind trying to get published



suepen, yew tree was most likely discovered eons and eons ago by indegenous tribes

kk, sorry about the bad news

After indiscriminately putting millions of women through chemo over the past decades, chemotherapy for ER+/PR+ started to be challenged in 2006: this issue started to be vastly publicized at that time:

Studies Challenge Traditional Breast Cancer Treatments (April 12, 2006)

By GINA KOLATA

Published: May 12, 2006

 Multimedia

Video: New Ideas on Chemotherapy

If the new ideas, supported by a recent report, are validated by large studies like two that are just beginning, the treatment of breast cancer will markedly change.

Today, national guidelines call for giving chemotherapy to almost all of the nearly 200,000 women a year whose illness is diagnosed as breast cancer. In the new approach, chemotherapy would be mostly for the 30 percent of women whose breast cancer is not fueled by estrogen.

So far the data are tantalizing, but the evidence is very new and still in flux. And even if some women with hormone-dependent tumors can skip chemotherapy, no one can yet say for sure which women they might be. Some doctors have already cut back on chemotherapy, but the advice a woman gets often depends on which doctor she sees.

It could be a decade before the new studies — one American, one European — provide any answers.

"It's a slightly uncomfortable time," said Dr. Eric P. Winer, who directs the breast oncology center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. "Some of us feel like we have enough information to start backing off on chemotherapy in selected patients, and others are less convinced."

Among the less convinced is Dr. John H. Glick, director of the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Glick tells his patients about the new data but does not suggest they skip chemotherapy. After all, he notes, the national guidelines were based on results from large randomized clinical trials. And the recent data indicating that some women can skip chemotherapy are based on an after-the-fact analysis of selected clinical trials.

"We're in an era where evidence-based medicine should govern practice," Dr. Glick said.

For women with breast cancer, of course, the uncertainty is excruciating. Faced with a disease that already causes indecision and anxiety, they are now confronted with incomplete data, differing opinions from different doctors and a choice that can seem almost impossible: Should they give up a taxing treatment when all the answers are not in and they have what may be a fatal disease?

"If the medical profession is not even close to being of one mind, how is the woman to know?" said Donald A. Berry, a statistician at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, the lead author of a recent paper questioning chemotherapy's benefits in many women.

Barbara Brenner, who has had breast cancer and is executive director of the advocacy group Breast Cancer Action, said, "There's a real problem," and added, "We finally tell people at the end of the day: 'You're going to get a lot of information. Trust your gut. Nobody has the answers.' "

"I'm really glad I was diagnosed 13 years ago," Ms. Brenner said, "when there were fewer choices."

Doctors worry, too. It took two years before the National Cancer Institute and its researchers could even agree on a design for the large new American study that will test the idea that many women might safely forgo chemotherapy.

The study, which starts enrolling patients at the end of this month, will involve women whose cancers are fueled by estrogen and have not spread beyond the breast. They will be randomly assigned to have the standard treatment — chemotherapy followed by a drug like tamoxifen that starves tumors of estrogen — or to skip chemotherapy and have treatment only with a drug like tamoxifen.

Unlike the American study, the one now planned in Europe will also include women whose cancer has spread beyond their breasts into nearby lymph nodes. The American study may eventually add such women, said Sheila E. Taube, who directs the cancer diagnosis program at the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Taube said the debate reminded her of one a few decades ago, when the question was whether all women with cancer needed mastectomies or whether many could have a lumpectomy instead. "To me, the situations are analogous," she said.

The chemotherapy question starts with American and European guidelines that say almost every woman with breast cancer that has gone beyond its earliest stages, when it is confined to the milk duct, should have the treatment. And for good reason, many cancer researchers say: a series of large studies has shown that chemotherapy saves lives and that newer and more aggressive regimens are improvements over older ones.

That has led doctors to feel most at ease giving very aggressive treatments to almost everyone.

_____________________________________________

And more recently (this other issue was also discussed at ASCO 2011):

"2 nodes positive and no chemo"

http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/108/topic/765323?page=4#post_2295096 

Hi again Kat,

You said, "I really was wondering if there is any solid evidence that one could be cured with solely alternative therapies. "

That's the million dollar question!   I suppose it depends on what you consider "solid evidence" and what exactly you define as "alternative."   For me, I've been researching a LOT since my diagnosis in 2008, and I have yet to find ANY solid evidence that one could be cured with solely alternative therapies.  So IMHO the short answer to your question is NO.  I consider alternative to be defined like most others - as alternative, i.e. "instead of" conventional.  So pure alternative treatment, IMHO, would exclude even surgery to remove the primary tumor.  There's a saying that there's no such thing as "alternative" medicine - if something is shown to work safely and effectively, it becomes part of "conventional" medicine.  Most of the alternative treatments you hear about are based on testimonials, rather than facts.  Conspiracy theories about "big pharma," rather than reality.  A lot of them are hawked by people who directly or indirect salespeople who may even contact you privately so they can't be disputed here in public. A lot of them use fear as a weapon - fear of the big bad "slash/poison/burn" treatments.  Fear of the awful neglectful, uninformed/unenlightened medical professionals who are just in it for the money.  One of their biggest arguments is that conventional treatment is not perfect or guaranteed, so instead they try to push "alternative" treatment that is often specifically UNproven or DISproven - makes absolutely no sense to me.  

There are a few people here who are very vocally anti-chemo and anti-rads, but again - the vast majority of us use a combination of conventional treatment and complementary/integrative therapies.  As several others have mentioned, a lot of large conventional, well-respected cancer treatment centers offer complementary and integrative options.  My very mainstream oncologist is a DO, and firmly believes in the benefit of adding integrative therapy to conventional options. It's not unusual, so be sure to talk with your doctor about his/her views and switch doctors if necessary to find one who is aligned with your values and expectations.

I don't see whether you are HER-2 positive or negative, but there are several things that stand out to me that would make your disease especially aggressive.  It's critically important to be realistic about your specific situation - in your case, BRCA positive, invasive, large tumor size, young age, and hormone-negative - all point to aggressive disease with a quite high recurrence risk.

When considering your options, please very carefully consider your sources.  Never rely on testimonials alone - look for facts and evidence.  Talk with your doctor and get another opinion if necessary - you need to know what your options are and exactly WHY they recommend treatment X instead of treatment Y.  

There are no guarantees with any treatment.  It's all about maximizing your odds of successfully beating this.  You have a good chance at success, but only you can decide how much risk you're are comfortable with. 

For me personally, I had a lot of the same factors as you, and I took every possible conventional treatment to mitigate my very aggressive disease.  I complement that with lots of other "complementary" treatments, but I knew my best chances were at the outset.  I'm triple negative, so I don't have any hormonals or other medically protective options to prevent recurrence, and experimental alternative treatments and monitoring didn't make sense to me.  I'd do all the same conventional treatments over again in a heartbeat.   

I realize I'm being long-winded here, but I just want you to have real evidence-based information and facts to base your decisions on.  

Question everything - ask here and elsewhere.  It sucks that you're in this situation, but there's a ton of really great information here and support for whatever path you choose!  HUGS!!!

Kat, I'm sorry about the surprise news from your MRI.  I think the potential for information to change prior to a final surgical pathology often isn't stressed enough to us.  I know I was totally blindsided at one point by a similar increase in staging.  It can be a huge emotional blow when our world has already been turned upside down and we're so emotionally vulnerable.

Two points about the shift in attitude about chemo for some early stage bc...  First, that research  assumes an ER+ woman will be doing either Tamox or an A/I, which happens to be something a percentage of women (like me) later decide against doing.    

Also... research like this is one reason I so strongly recommend to women that they go to or at least seek a 2nd opinion at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer facility, because those oncologists are often the ones doing the research, so are usually 6 mos. to a year ahead of the curve.  I was fortunate in 2008 to be told (@ UCLA) that a regimen containing Adriamycin (AC+T, which had been recommended to me by a local oncologist), was not effective for ER+ bc -- well ahead of the curve.  I did get TC, but mostly b'cuz of a lymph node with extracapsular extension (one of my surprises along the way).

Kat, at the risk of sounding anti-"alternatives only" (which I absolutely am not)...  the "alternatives only" people I talked to when I was desperately trying to figure out which way to go, all seemed to lump cancer into one disease or body dysfunction.  What concerned me at a gut level was their lack of sophistication re. what I have since learned is a very complex disease.  High-ph water, for example, the foundation of a program enthusiastically explained to me by a compounding pharmacist who claimed to know 8 individuals with lung and other cancers who had been cured by drinking volumes of it, just didn't exhibit the expertise about breast cancer or instill the trust I was looking for at the time; although I certainly learned something about body PH.  But, again, that's just me.     

Oh, one more point... if you do find women who have gone the "alternatives only" route, please be very careful to find out exactly what type of bc they had.   Even here on BCO, it seems like those who have refused more aggressive tx also didn't have the most aggressive bc's.      Deanna

Deanna, excellent points as usual!   Especially this:

"the "alternatives only" people I talked to when I was desperately trying to figure out which way to go, all seemed to lump cancer into one disease or body dysfunction. What concerned me at a gut level was their lack of sophistication re. what I have since learned is a very complex disease. "