I believe you have done an admirable job of explaining the lack of efficacy with the use of Neoplasene as a cancer therapy while maintaining a high level of decorum. You have the patience of Job.

Please keep up the good fight.

Mitchell

Thank you again, your kindness means so much!

1. If there is a lack of high-level clinical trial eveidence in dogs with your pet’s specific disease, then it is appropriate to turn to lower level evidence. For example, if humans with the same type and stage of tumors clearly benefit from chemotherapy, it is reasonable to suspect that the same would hold true in dogs, though it is not possible to definitively demonstrate that without doing the studies in dogs. From there, we go down the level of evidence hierachy quite a bit, and the conclusions become much less reliable. I am certain that if you ask you oncologist what lower level evidence there is to support the recommendation of chemotherapy (human clinical trials, observational studies is humans or dogs, etc), you will likley find at least some justification for the recommendation. You will probably not find anything aboslutely reliable, but we make the best decisions we can with the limited evidence available.

2. Neoplasene has no evidence at any level beyond the uncontrolled ancdote and a few in vitro studies to support it. Though the evidence supporting chemotherapy is not strong, it is undoubtedly far stronger than that behind Neoplasene. There is a degree of plausibility based on the underlying physiology behind cancer and the activity of chemotherapy drugs and the widespread use of chemotherapy for many types of cancer that does not exist for Neoplasene. Likewise, the risk of chemotherapy are pretty well known, whereas those for Neoplasene are less understood. So if there is no reason to think that lifelong treatment with low levels of a caustic cubstance is going to help (beyond anecdotes and the fact that, like bleach and many other things, it kills cancer cells in vitro), then for myself it seems not to be a justifiable treatment. Unknown benefits, unknown risk, and no immediate life-threatening condition to justify a blind leap of faith.

3. I do treat a lot of pets with chemotherapy, and my clients are frequently surprised to find that it does not really resemble how humans experience chemo. The ephasis in human medicine is on maximizing survival in most cases, and we are willing to tolerate great suffering to achieve longer life. Veterinary chemotherapy should not be worse than the disease, so we are much less aggressive about dosing, and the side effects are usually far less severe. In those rare cases in which the drugs cause significant discomfort, I usually counsel owners to consider stopping treatment. So apart from the cost, which is substantial, the hardship of chemo may not be as great as you fear.

Above all, I would try to be as specific as possible with the oncologist about the evidence base for their recommendations, the data (such as it is) about likely outcomes with and without treatment, and the likely experience your pet will have. While the information will not be as reliable as you, or your doctor, might want, it is still better than what exists for the alternative, which is a product with no proven benefits and siufficient risks that it has been banned for human use.

Good luck to you and your pet!

I also been to UPENN, after seeing our regular vet, and then an alterative therapy vet. Chemotherapy was recommended by UPENN, but they have no trials or data that can give me any survival rate for this treatment in dogs with mammary cancer. Neoplasene is recommended by the alternative therapy vet but they have no trials or data that can give me any survivial rate either. Is the research still that limited, even with chemo?

It’s clear you don’t recommend Neoplasene but do you feel there has been a true measure of success with chemo protocol in dogs, for mammary cancer? I am having an incredibly hard time finding any evidence that supports that. Do you feel you have seen evidence for more long term survival for dogs treated with chemo vs dogs with tumor removal only? If so can you please share that with me.

What I find doesn’t show much difference between the outcome of the two. Chemo will certainly be a hardship, phisically for my pet and financially for me. But if it is the right thing to try and improve the lenghth and quality of her life I’m ready to make that choice. But, it is hard to know what to do.

I have seen what Neoplasene can do to tumors and it looks really scary. Since my dog has no tumors currently the protocol would be orally only, at a low dosage, for the rest of her life. That would be done in hopes of keeping any circulating cells from getting a foothold.

I feel I’ve taken my research as far as I can…with no clear choice. Yet I still have to make one. I’m sure you have more resources than I do and I am just hoping you might give my situation some consideration, any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.

I understand that case studies are not conclusive, but you would have to prove that it fails 100% of the time to write it off completely. I have to concede to the fact that Neoplasene does not work in every situation, but that fact that it does work in others tells me that we have a lot more to understand before we are able to dismiss it as a potential alternative treatment. There are big pieces of this puzzle still missing for me and I’m not convinced that everything is known about this drug and its effects.

And the argument that it’s detrimental and causes more harm than good is incredibly debatable. If we applied this reasoning to human medicines, chemotherapy would be the first to go. I understand that a pet’s life is not as valuable as a human’s life. For a person, there is obviously a higher tolerance that allows for pain and suffering in order to prolong life. I’m not suggesting that we should do this to our pets. In many ways our society is kinder to its animals than to its people. If we experienced any negative effects, we would have reconsidered the use of Neoplasene.

It is a quite potent drug and protocols need to be followed. We have done everything to the letter and we are thrilled with the outcome. Is it possible that our dog developed some antibody to cancer or was saved by the prayers of us and our friends?? I guess it could be, but statically probability leaves me with the conclusion that this drug is what’s making the difference. If you chose to believe in divine intervention, I’m right there with you, but I believe it was in the finding of this drug and not in God’s healing rays of light miraculously curing him of a terminal illness.

Could he still die form this cancer? Absolutely, but we have more than beaten the odds and his test results have come back clear after 7 months of treatment. Our doctors are as amazed as we are and they’ve come to the same conclusions that we have – something is working here other than our prayers.

When you mentioned the NIH study, it sounds as if you’re referencing a study where some folks with pancreatic cancer opted for alternative as OPPOSED to conventional, not alternative AFTER conventional failed. I did not and am not espousing alternative in place of or instead of protocol. I hope this is clear now.

To re-iterate: beware of sharks and use your collective heads. You can take a guess at which company I’ll be using, and while I see plenty of holes in their ‘research’, I am going in with my eyes wide open. I’m a cynic at heart and a skeptic by nature, but once again, I don’t really think there is anything to be lost at this stage of the game for all reasons already cited.

I went protocol, which was sensible and responsible, but the sand in the protocol hourglass has run out. I don’t see the point of NOT taking my chances, all things considered. If it fails, it fails. I’d feel worse about his demise all told if I didn’t give him the opportunity for a different end. All I’d be doing right now with purpose it let nature take its course. If it’s the same end, I can live with that.