>Saying the runbook isn’t perfect is not a specific treatment plan. Of course, that's the point I'm trying to make. Doctors have very limited opportunity to r

>Saying the runbook isn’t perfect is not a specific treatment plan. Of course, that's the point I'm trying to make. Doctors have very limited opportunity to replace the runbook with a specific treatment plan because, at least based on my limited observation, they are not allowed to create specific treatment plans without the runbook. >The rules are very loose for studies on terminal people, The patient I was working with was terminal and the only rule that was loose seemed to be the ability to abandon a treatment plan early when it stopped showing promise. >but allowing random treatments without being part of a study has minimal utility. Something might prolong someone’s life but you have no way to verify and cancer treatment very often kills people before the cancer. Minimal utility to medicine maybe, but not to the individual. If a person invests hundreds or thousands of hours investigating adjuvant therapies, reviewing trial outcomes and talking to PI, researchers, clinicians and trial coordinators, I'm of the opinion their primary oncologist should at least entertain a suggestion, not just dismiss the conversation with 'that's not standard of care'. Anyway, I'm not going to change anything here on HN. Thanks for your time.