> culminating in his advocacy for a treatment - that none of the specialists had thought of - which proved critical in extending his dad’s life. I'm not sure h

> culminating in his advocacy for a treatment - that none of the specialists had thought of - which proved critical in extending his dad’s life. I'm not sure how your friend could know that it was critical in extending his dad's life. All treatment decisions in oncology are basically "look at the available data, make an educated guess which one is best for the patient". When it comes to some treatments, it's more an art than a science. Plenty of the available data is anecdotal at best - small trials (or retrospective data) on half a dozen patients with no control. The role of the oncologist is often being able to interpret that data to make the best recommendation they can. This isn't easy, and for most oncologists who aren't doing research (and arguing with other oncologists about the latest data), they are going to rely on guidelines which attempt to look at all the literature and make recommendations based on the most robust data. But whether your friend's dad has gotten therapy X or Y, nobody knows what the course of the disease would have looked like using the alternative.