Is chemotherapy really all that effective in treating cancer?

Question

I did some recent digging on line for statistics regarding the absolute effectiveness of chemotherapy and came across a number of websites that are very critical of chemotherapy. They often cite a book by Ralph Moss entitled, "Questioning Chemotherapy," which apparently demonstrates that chemotherapy doesn't really provide any long term survival advantages for most types of cancer. While I'm skeptical of the many alternative therapies promoted to treat cancer, I also wonder if chemotherapy really has that much value, or if it's just being used by the medical profession because nothing else has come along yet to replace it.

Answer 1

Based on a cursory review of the posters here, it seems like the answers are pretty much evenly divided between "No" and "Yes", although many of those are qualified no's and yes's.

As someone who watched both of my parents die of cancer, and shared a great deal of psychological pain from the chemotherapy treatments my wife endured when facing breast cancer over seven years ago, I'll have to side with the NO answers here.

I also speak as someone with a medical background (technician, not M.D.), and broad education in the sciences, including physiology and biology. Apart from my day job, I am also a freelance science writer. When my wife endured chemotherapy and radiation treatments, I acquired a small library of literature on both mainstream and so-called alternative treatments for cancer, so I'm well versed in both.

In my humble, but well informed, opinion, chemotherapy has value only in two ways: 1) As a debulking agent for large tumors prior to surgery (I think one of the posters mentioned a son that went through this), and 2) as the primary treatment for a small minority of cancers where it has been shown to be highly effective--with childhood lymphomas, Hodgkin's disease, and testicular cancer--remember Lance Armstrong?--being especially vulnerable to the onslaught of chemo, just to name the few I can remember off the top of my head.

With respect to what are commonly called "epithelial" cancers--i.e. cancers of the epithelial tissues, like breast cancer, liver cancer, lung and pancreatic cancer--the overwhelming weight of evidence for long term survival gained through chemotherapy agents is NEGATIVE.

Many of the posters here--and many oncologists, sad to say--may not have heard of Ulrich Abel. Abel was a German medical doctor and statistician who did an exhaustive review of long term survival rates for all types of cancer treated by chemotherapy.

You can find Abel's study discussed in the following link:

http://users.navi.net/~rsc/chemorad.htm

I'll also include a choice quote from that link, in case readers and posters here don't have time to thoroughly review it:

QUOTE:
Abel further concluded, after polling hundreds of cancer doctors, "The personal view of many oncologists seems to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public." Abel cited studies that have shown "that many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer." (The Cancer Chronicles, December, 1990.) "Even though toxic drugs often do effect a response, a partial or complete shrinkage of the tumor, this reduction does not prolong expected survival," Abel finds. "Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns more aggressively than before, since the chemo fosters the growth of resistant cell lines." Besides, the chemo has severely damaged the body's own defenses, the immune system and often the kidneys as well as the liver.
ENDQUOTE

I also can't agree with the poster that dismissed Ralph Moss. Moss' book, Questioning Chemotherapy, is a real eye opener as is his much longer, well researched book, The Cancer Industry. The argument that Moss is not a medical doctor is largely a red herring. In fact, it may be a plus that he isn't a medical doctor, since he has the objectivity to see what many medical doctors--oncologists especially--remain blind to.

One thing that struck me during the treatment phase my wife endured was what one oncologist told us of a supposedly excellent double blind study involving chemotherapy. According to this study, the chemo afforded a five year survival year for recurrent breast cancer patients (and my wife was included in this category) of almost 30%. No offense to the good doctor, but this is a 70% FAILURE RATE!. If I only got 30 percent of my answers correct on a final exam in university course, do you honestly think I would pass the class?

Chemotherapy effective? Not by a long shot.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

I would say it depends on the cancer.

Among the reasons why chemotherapy is not that effective:
1) Chemotherapy works by killing rapidly dividing cells. Some cancers do not divide that fast such as some leukemias, some lymphomas, and some sarcomas. Therefore, the chemotherapy will kill many more healthy cells which divide rapidly such as intestinal lining, bone marrow, and hair than cancer cells.
2) Cancer cells often develop resistance to chemotherapy. Cancer cells mutate and pass their new traits to their offspring like cockroachs meaning chemotherapy is probably most effective at initial application. More generations usually means less differentiation and more resistance.
3) For central nervous system (CNS) tumors, there is a membrane system called the blood-brain barrier which prevents large molecules (chemotherapy) from entering the brain from the bloodstream.

I would almost question what is your definition of effectiveness. Almost every chemotherapy drug shows at least either survival benefit and/or progression free survival benefit for the majority of those who take it. You can check this information about each specific drug.

As for the cancers where chemotherapy is most effective, ALL has a 90% remission rate and the primary treatment is chemotherapy. Likewise for most lymphomas. Chemotherapy shows partial response (at least initially) in many different cancers. This can equate to survival benefit. With better understand and better supportive drugs (Neulasta, Procrit, steroids, etc.), they have made chemotherapy much more tolerable.

Answer 4

Chemotherapy was definitely effective in getting rid of my brother's Burkitt's Lymphoma (a very aggressive and rare cancer) 7 years ago! Because of his age at the time (21) and health, they were able to give him heavy doses for 6 months. He has been cancer free ever since and while I dislike many of the side effects of chemo, I am so thankful it was available.

Answer 5

What the oncologist told me about adriamycin/cytoxin (A/C) treatment for breast cancer and the arimidex pills afterwards (to suppress estrogen) is that only one or two more people will live with these treatments per 100 people who take them as opposed to 100 people with the same cancer who don't take the drugs. So it is definitely NOT a high or impressive figure. And these treatments are very expensive with serious side effects, some temporary and some permanent.

I did do the A/C, but declined on the Arimidex (as the side effect of that can be osteoporosis from estrogen suppression). A/C has temporary side effects of nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, hair loss, among other things. Cost is about $15,000 dollars. I did it out of fear, but it may or may not have been worth it...I am cancer free so far (3 years). A/C can have permanent side effects of peripheral neuropathy of the legs (which a coworker of mine got from it and had to quit work from leg pain).

On the other hand I read where Tammy Faye Bakker took surgery for here colon cancer but declined chemo because she felt it was "poison"...which is a common belief....then later it came back on her and now she is on hospice....so I am glad I did A/C, but if I had gotten peripheral neuropathy from the A/C I wouldn't feel that way....

Also I had a sister who did a different type of chemo for breast cancer before A/C came along. She did CMF (cyclophosphamide /methotrexate/ fluorouracil) It was for 6 months. My A/C treatment took 3 months. She was offered Nolvadex (to suppress estrogen) and she declined (it is expensive and the side effects can be blood clots). The oncologist told her it wasn't worth the cost for the benefit given, in his opinion. She has been cancer free for over 10 years.

Here is a link about different types of chemo...
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/dc/caz/canc/brca/brca_meds_type.jsp

Answer 6

Chemotherapy is only one modality used to treat cancer. It is often used to gain control of the disease before going for surgery.

For the people that I know who have cancer the answer is yes chemotherapy in combination with surgery and radiation is effective. Remember that chemo is only one modality in the treatment of many different cancers. It's not one drug, it is many, often used in various combinations and dosages to either shrink or kill cancer and tumors.

My son was diagnosed with stage IV abdominal sarcoma. He had multiple tumors, some the size of volley balls that had displaced his heart and other organs. The size of his tumors and the fact that the cancer had metastasized throughout the pelvic area, chest wall, lymphatic system, liver, lungs, and diaphragm . . well . . you can imagine. His cancer was not operable, nor was he a candidate for radiation. His cancer was very advanced and aggressive, but we were offered hope through chemotherapy. We researched his disease for other treatments and found out that the only survivors (less than 200 worldwide) of his type of disease were treated with high dose chemotherapy, surgery (usually one to debulk and a second to complete the removal), stem cell rescue, and whole body radiation. No one else had ever survived any other treatment. His only chance at survival was to respond to chemotherapy followed by complete surgical removal.

He underwent a nine month high dose chemotherapy protocol that included Vincristine, Cytoxan, and Doxirubicin cycled with Etoposide and Ifosomide. Because of his age and excellent health he was able to tolerate the treatment. He did far better than anyone expected. The chemotherapy literally saved his life. His largest tumors shrunk by 50 percent, smaller tumors totally disappeared from his lung and lymph nodes. The use of chemotherapy shrunk his tumor burden just enough to allow him to have surgery. The first surgery was able to remove about 80 percent of the tumors, and he still had hundreds of tiny tumors that had seeded into the peritoneum. We did more research looking for a way to kill off the small and microscopic tumors. His pediatric oncologist came across a treatment called hyperthermic chemperfusion where the chemo is heated and applied directly into the tumor bed. The high concentration of chemo killed off all minimal residual disease located within the abdominal cavity. My son, who was 17 at the time tolerated the chemoperfusion extremely well and was able to leave the hospital with no complications 8 days later.

After a third surgery, he is now no evidence of disease. Am I worried about this for him? Of course. There are no guarantees. There never were. But there is a chance. And, there is hope where none existed before. And, I do know survivors of this disease . . all who whose lives were literally saved by the use of chemotherapy.

As for Ralph Moss, none of his books are based on any scientific evidence or conclusive studies . . his book is based on his personal opinion.

Answer 7

Of course chemotherpay doesn't provide long term survival advantages. It destroys the good cells right along with the bad. But, I had a golf-ball sized tumor that basically disappeared (with the exception of scar tissue) in a little over 2 weeks...so chemo works, and with the right cancers it works fast. The problem isn't really whether chemo is right, it's what chemo is right for what cancer and when.

Answer 8

I believe that it's one of the most effective treatments (along with radiation therapy) *that we know so far,* but it truly has more disadvantages than advantages sometimes. My mom was once put on a high dosage of a chemo drug that they later found out she was allergic to, and it temporarily closed up her air passages. It can also lower white blood cell count and (the obvious one) make people lose their hair. Chemo gets the job done, but it takes such a toll on cancer patients that we're really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Answer 9

Chemotherapy and Radiation is the only treatment available for Cancer.
Depending on the Cancer, the stage of the cancer, the will of that person, determines the effectiveness.
But, lets, ask ourselves.
"How many years has that added to our life?"
What, quality of life do I have?
5, 6, maybe 10 years. I am not the same person.
No, thanks.
It will get me in the end.
So, my answer to your Question, is "NO"

Answer 10

Way to help increase the effectiveness of chemo:

N0V-002 (novo-two) is a New adjunct medication used with standard chemotherapy

tested for approval in the USA.

Increased the ability of patients to tolerate Chemo to the full 100%
Increased the Cancer Survival rate by 80%

They are accepting some patients under FDA Fast Track SPA Phase III in the USA.

See "Got the Script" message on this board, it's available outside the USA:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/NVLT.OB

Novelos' pipeline of drugs is based on oxidized glutathione, a natural metabolite that is part of the glutathione pathway. This pathway is the primary determinant of intracellular redox (oxidation/reduction) potential and, as such, plays a key role in cell protection (e.g. detoxification) and in regulation of cell signaling pathways (e.g. leading to cytokine production). Novelos’ lead products are believed to act, in part, via post-translational modification (glutathionylation) of critical regulatory proteins that mediate processes including immune function, cell proliferation and tumor progression (in combination with chemotherapy). They may also sensitize tumor cells to certain chemotherapeutic drugs by modifying drug detoxification processes.