Originally Posted by: Online Community Member
Isn't it common sense to at least try this approach if it isn't over risky ? The clinical oncologist I spoke to the other day said there was no evidence that such a course of treatment would be beneficial at this stage. Medics use the words 'no evidence' when they really mean there is insufficient data on the subject. Such treatment is probably beneficial and probably does no harm but it it is not proven. I am expecting that the oncologist will advise systemic treatment ie chemo instead of specific radiotherapy because as she repeatedly told me metastases will occur in other parts of my body even after the eradication of others.
They also say 'no evidence for' when they don't want to upset you by saying 'there's a fair bit of evidence against'
'Common sense' says that if you have metastatic disease, chasing it around the body is very likely less effective than a systemic approach, and will carry the risk of unpleasant side effects, secondary cancers and wasted scarce resources. A systemic approach will also, hopefully, catch the microscopic metastases that have yet to be identified.
There is some evidence that treating the primary can cause some disease reversal, and can certainly reduce the risk of further metastasis. But - beyond pain reduction, and other local benefits - there just isn't evidence that treating individual metastases has any overall effect on the disease, while it may bring proven drawbacks.
So if the metastasis is not causing pain or limiting movement, the risk/cost benefit looks a bit thin.
Edited by member 06 Oct 2019 at 10:07
| Reason: edited for clarity.