I was speaking with my mom the other day about cancer and she
expressed her disfavor for conventional cancer treatment.  She felt
radiation treatment is horrible and would be looked back on as
barbaric by future generations.  She tends to prefer alternative
health treatments.

Anyways, I said that I’m sure people would let themselves be radiated
or spend millions on expensive machines if there was an alterative
approach that was equally effective.  She said “who’s to say what is
more effective”.  Not having any statistics about this particular
issue, I couldn’t say (only assume), but I wanted to find out.

I’d like to find some statistics on mortality rates for people who are
diagnoses with cancer and pursue various types of treatments
(chemotherapy, alternative health, nothing at all, etc).  Mainly I’m
looking for a breakdown into mainstream vs. alternative.

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 03 Nov 2003 07:55 PST

There are so many forms of cancer that I'd venture to say you'd
probably need to specify which type of cancer you are referring to in
order to even hope for credible research. Even then the question
remains quite broad in terms of age, region, etc. If you said, adults
with (a specific variety of) lung cancer, for example, there may be
some data to support one position or the other.

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

Doesn't look good for alternative medicine. 
Of course, cancer is a very broad diagnostic category 
and this is just one study.  And "quality of life" is an
important consideration.

However, I hope this citation is helpful.


Excerpts

"Death rates were higher in AM users (79%) than in those who did not
use AM (65%)."

"the hazard ratio of death for any use of AM compared with no use was
1.30, "



-----------------------------------------------------------
Eur J Cancer. 2003 Feb;39(3):372-7. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12565991&dopt=Abstract
Does use of alternative medicine predict survival from cancer?

Risberg T, Vickers A, Bremnes RM, Wist EA, Kaasa S, Cassileth BR.

Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Tromso, Tromso, Norway.
terje.risberg@umn.no

This study examines the association between alternative medicines (AM)
and cancer survival. A national multicentre study was carried out in
Norway in December 1992 to assess the prevalence of AM use among
cancer patients. One of the aims of this study was to assess the
association between AM and long-time survival. In January 2001,
survival data were obtained with a follow-up of 8 years for 515 cancer
patients. A total of 112 (22%) assessable patients used AM. During the
follow-up period, 350 patients died. Death rates were higher in AM
users (79%) than in those who did not use AM (65%). In a Cox
regression model adjusted for demographic, disease and treatment
factors, the hazard ratio of death for any use of AM compared with no
use was 1.30, (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.99, 1.70; P=0.056),
suggesting that AM use may predict a shorter survival. Sensitivity
analyses strengthened the negative association between AM use and
survival. AM use had the most detrimental effect in patients with an
ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (PS) of 0
(hazard ratio for use=2.32, 95% CI, 1.44, 3.74, P=0.001), when
compared with an ECOG PS of 1 or higher. The use of AM seems to
predict a shorter survival from cancer. The effect appears
predominantly in patients with a good PS.

Publication Types: 
Multicenter Study

PMID: 12565991 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]