(first published on AnCanSpeak substack; subscribe for free)
Less than 50% of Patients trust their Providers. Now that’s a handpicked statistic from a survey conducted during Covid and published in JAMA Network in 2024. Healthcare professionals amongst our readers may have grounds to push back. That said, AnCan’s frequent experience from virtual conversations in our daily groups corroborates that anecdotally perhaps half our participants doubt the medical advice received. Our own 2024 survey backs that up. From our GU ASCO 2026 abstract4:
Seventy percent brought information from AnCan to their providers, 49% added new providers, and 40% changed their lead provider. Over half (54%) reported AnCan influenced their treatment path.
That doesn’t bode well for a trusting Patient-Provider relationship!
“Medicine is characterized by an inherent asymmetry of information and power between physicians and patients.” And goes on to say: “Demonstrating trustworthiness and restoring trust… requires reconsidering the balance of power between patients and health care professionals.”
This brings to mind a cartoon AnCan has employed in presentations:
Both JAMA pieces agree that our system is broken. They recite a fact that AnCan has previously noted… on average Providers interrupt Patients after a median of 11 seconds. In front of Providers, Patients can’t even begin to collect our thoughts, never mind express them.
The article troops out a whole bunch of remedies. Starting with teaching HCPs how to listen, it moves to improving health systems so you actually see your doc – not a surrogate practitioner, encouraging longer patient visits – so Providers have time to listen, and address mis- and disinformation. On a more grandiose scale, the article points out that differences in wealth, insurance status and education also influence Patient-Provider trust levels.
The closest either article comes to balancing the scales between Patient and Provider is to say:
Empowering patients through patient education and skill building, increased transparency in care, and shared clinical decision-making would also increase the collaboration in physician-patient relationships. Mutual partnerships between patients and their physicians may foster more stable patient trust instead of requiring patients to take a more tenuous leap of faith.
Noble words, but who is to take on this Sisyphean task?
AnCan likes to think we lead the way. Name one other organization whose mission is to make you your own best advocate. Already this week we fielded one call from a longtime legal Volunteer whose trust in an inestimable Medical Institution was violated because the Provider they spoke to committed the inexcusable and cardinal sin of simply failing to read the file. Or another Participant, a Medical Provider himself, who needed advice because an Institution was knowingly yet improperly billing him.
Being your own best advocate may not fully restore trust in our health system, but it goes a long way to leveling the playing field. It certainly improves patients’ self-esteem and in doing so, makes us feel immeasurably better.
rick davis rd@ancan.org
References
Perlis RH, Ognyanova K, Uslu A, et al. Trust in physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic in a 50-state survey of US adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(7):e2424984. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.24984
Even little me speaks to a lot of people, some of whom have Prostate Cancer. And advanced Prostate Cancer and many of them are not acting as their own best advocate. It’s very important that people learn to take control and own and deal with their disease.
Maybe it’s a little long winded and boring, but it took me a year or 2, into my stage, 4, Prostate Cancer. Before I really took control and had one of those aggressive and idiot doctors who told me” i am a ph d in oncology, and you are a beginning student, ” and he tried to dictate to me everything, including his team of radiological, oncology, and his drugs and his procedures, and I watched a number of his patients who I know personally, because I worked with them die without doing all the things they could. Anyway, after a year two I was seeing consulting with good doctors and dana farber and at sloan, and I switched from advisors to sloan and very happy with my oncologist now…. It is very important for people to come to visit. Taking ownership and managing as their own number one, advocate. Okay, I’ll stop boring you because my doorbell is ringing. Thank you bye!”
AnCan’s ambitious CEO and Founder, Rick Davis, recently sat down with Rarity Life, the magazine published by Same But Different Creative, to share the deeply personal journey that led to the creation of AnCan.
In the interview, Rick reflects on his early days navigating a prostate cancer diagnosis — a moment that reshaped his life & his understanding of what true support should look like. Like so many survivors and thrivers, he quickly discovered that information alone isn’t enough. What people often need most is connection — the chance to speak openly with others who truly understand the lived experience of cancer.
That realization became the foundation of AnCan.
Rick shares how traditional support models don’t always meet people where they are. Geographic limitations, physical health challenges, financial strain, rare diagnoses, and even the emotional weight of walking into an in-person group can all create barriers. For many, simply showing up can feel overwhelming.
AnCan was built to remove as many of those barriers as possible.
Rick’s full interview in Rarity Life offers an inspiring look at leadership shaped by lived experience, and a reminder that meaningful change often begins with one person asking: How can we do this better?
(Here is my take on this article Therapeutic Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids A Review JAMA Network, 11/26/25. On a personal side, I use CBD to help me sleep, and with a little (5%) addition of THC, it is a great anxiety calmer – Sally Torgeson, AnCan Blood Cancer Moderator & Multiple Myeloma Coach)
Unapproved Cannabis
The FDA has NOT approved the cannabis plant (botanical marijuana) for any medical use or indication.
Because it is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, the FDA has not found it to be safe or effective for the treatment of any disease or condition [1.1, 1.7].
It is currently illegal to market CBD by adding it to food or labeling it as a dietary supplement in interstate commerce [2.1, 2.5].
FDA-Approved Cannabinoid Drugs
The FDA has approved a small number of prescription drugs containing either a purified cannabis-derived compound or synthetic cannabinoids:
Epidiolex (Cannabidiol or CBD): The only FDA-approved drug that contains a purified substance derived directly from the cannabis plant. It is approved to treat seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, Dravet syndrome, and Tuberous Sclerosis Complex in patients one year of age and older [1.8, 2.1].
Marinol and Syndros (Dronabinol): Contain synthetic Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Approved for:
Nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have not responded to conventional antiemetic treatments [2.2, 2.3].
Anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with HIV/AIDS [2.3].
Cesamet (Nabilone): Contains a synthetic substance that is chemically similar to THC. Approved for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting [1.1, 2.3].
Regulatory Context
The FDA maintains its authority to regulate products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds, even those derived from hemp (cannabis with less than 0.3% THC), under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act [1.4].
The FDA supports the development of new drugs through proper clinical trials to ensure they meet standards for safety and effectiveness [1.1, 2.4].
FDA-Approved Cannabinoid Drugs and Their Conditions
* Nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy (when other antiemetics have failed) * Anorexia (loss of appetite) associated with weight loss in patients with HIV/AIDS
Cesamet (Nabilone)
Synthetic cannabinoid (similar to THC)
* Nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy (when other antiemetics have failed)
Key Takeaway
Epidiolex is the only drug approved that contains a substance derived directly from the Cannabis plant (CBD). It represents the strongest evidence for cannabinoid efficacy in reducing seizure frequency in certain rare forms of epilepsy [1.1, 1.2].
The synthetic THC compounds (Dronabinol and Nabilone) are used primarily as a last resort for severe nausea/vomiting related to chemotherapy and for appetite stimulation in AIDS patients [1.2, 2.8].
The FDA has not approved the use of the whole cannabis plant for any medical condition, stressing the importance of standardized, tested pharmaceuticals for patient safety and proven effectiveness [1.7].1
Off-Label Use vs. Unapproved Use
1. Off-Label Use (Legal and Regulated)
This applies only to drugs that the FDA has already approved.
What it is: Using an FDA-approved drug (like Epidiolex, Marinol, or Cesamet) for a condition, dose, or patient population that is not specifically listed on the drug’s official label.
Legality: It is legal for a licensed physician to prescribe an approved drug for an off-label use if they believe it is medically appropriate for their patient.
FDA Position: The FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine; however, the manufacturer cannot market or promote the drug for the off-label use. The safety and efficacy for the off-label use have not been verified by the FDA’s rigorous testing process.
Example: A doctor prescribing Marinol (Dronabinol), which is approved for nausea from chemotherapy, to a patient for chronic pain. The drug is approved, but the condition (chronic pain) is not on the label.
2. Unapproved Use (Non-FDA Approved Products)
This applies to the cannabis plant itself and most CBD/cannabinoid products on the market.
What it is: Using the whole cannabis plant (botanical marijuana) or non-FDA-approved cannabis-derived products (like most CBD oils, edibles, or topicals) for any medical purpose.
Legality:
Federal: The whole plant is a Schedule I controlled substance and is not federally approved for any medical use.
State: Use may be legal under state medical or recreational cannabis laws, but this does not change its status as an unapproved drug under federal FDA law.
FDA Position: The FDA considers these products unapproved drugs and/or illegally marketed products (especially when CBD is added to food or marketed as a dietary supplement), as they have not been tested for safety, effectiveness, or quality assurance.
Example: A patient using a CBD tincture (which is not Epidiolex) to treat anxiety, or using THC flower to help with multiple sclerosis symptoms.
To correspond with Sally, please send an email to info@ancan.org, and we’ll be sure to send along.
“Someone I once loved gave me a box of darkness” –Mary Oliver
I was at a 12-Step-oriented workshop about grief recently, and it made me think about Men Speaking Freely (MSF). We are vaguely aware of grief in all MSF groups, it hangs over us, and we have at times focused on some specific griefs/losses, such as vitality, or a longer life. It is commonly thought that not thinking about a loss, not talking about it is the manly thing to do. Here in MSF we get relief by sharing our common losses with each other.
The presenter of that workshop, Marcia C., had some ways to specifically talk about grief that were new to me. She gave me permission to use some of her material here. She pointed out some types of losses that I hadn’t realized. For example, the loss of who I would have been if cancer didn’t happen, the grief of estrangement, loss of work, of status, of friendship; the loss of never having had something, that of aging, of trust, or of giving up something.
She said there is “unacknowledged grief” when such losses are never fully brought to consciousness. When I looked at her long list of examples I saw many that I have. We ought to watch for unacknowledged grief.
She described “non-finite” grief, which has no end-point other than death. Ours could be in that category, since as time goes by our loss increases instead of lessens.
Marcia said, ‘’Sharing your grief is a way to receive validation and compassionate witnessing. It can help you begin a path to healing and/or finding a way to live with grief.
Consider the questions below:
1. Are there griefs you haven’t realized you have or have been afraid to face?
2. Are there griefs about which you’d like to share?
3. Do you have grief practices that might be helpful to others?
4. Make a list of griefs you’ve experienced.
5. Choose a tool from the list that might help you process your grief.”
That list of “tools” was long; it included things like: write a letter or poem describing our loss…Create a ritual of letting go…Share with others who have had similar losses…Visit a place that is meaningful…Make or buy a talisman that helps you feel protected…Dance, run, yell to get your feelings out of your body…Plant something in remembrance or as a new beginning…Start a new tradition…Do an intentional funeral… These are ways to bring acknowledged, unacknowledged, and non-finite grief out for a conscious conversation. Moving from covert to overt, with the goal of making a relationship with the loss, and getting rid of the unconscious silent prolonged scream that I, for example, think I harbor.
We think of grief as emotional, but in “Dealing With the Physical Impact of Intense Grief” by Batya Swift Yasgur, the author describes the variety of physical reactions to grief. Ranging from elevated blood pressure to takotsubo cardiomyopathy — sometimes called “broken heart syndrome” — which is a “stress response that balloons the heart.” We often wonder about the reaction on our immune system, and its implications to our overall survival. In fact, probably nearly all our systems react to grief in some way.
There is a fairly new grief-related diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and the International Classification of Diseases, describing a “persistent and pervasive grief response” that goes on longer than a year., and is now called Prolonged Grief Disorder. In order to be diagnosed with Prolonged Grief Disorder, a person must experience at least three of eight additional symptoms that include “disbelief, intense emotional pain, feeling of identity confusion, avoidance of reminders of the loss, feelings of numbness, intense loneliness, meaninglessness, or difficulty engaging in ongoing life” according to Columbia University’s Center for Prolonged Grief. For an adult to meet the criteria for a PGD diagnosis, the death of a loved one must have occurred at least one year ago, and the symptoms must be present most days since the loss and nearly every day for at least the last month.
Our situation is different from losing a loved one (although it includes that) and waiting for the grief to go away. Instead of a major loss which goes farther and farther into the past, our major loss is in the future. We have sort of a reverse Prolonged Grief Disorder. For instance, I expect my losses to get worse and worse until death.
Helpful Tips to be Your Own Best Medical Researcher
AnCan asked Mike Wyn, a valued AnCan Frequent Flyer and intrepid researcher, to provide a little navigation to those who are new to research… as well as useful tips for some old hands like myself. I’ve already gathered some research nuggets from Mike’s wisdom… thank you, Mr. W.
Here are a few tips ensure the medical information you are researching is reliable and accurate
Book Research
Check the publication date: authors may need at least a year to write a book, and the average time between a book’s acceptance and its publication is typically between 9 to 12 months. Hence, the data may already be outdated when it hits the shelves
Professional Presentations
Check the credentials, disclaimers, and disclosures of the presenters. Who is the author? What is the sponsoring organization providing the information? Preferred sources are from reputable institutions, such as universities, hospitals, or government health agencies.
Google Web Searches
Use command “site:” to limit you search to top-level domains like .gov, ,org and ,edu. For example, type: latest NCCN guidelines for prostate active surveillance site: .gov OR site: .org OR site: .edu
Be cautious with .com sites unless they are from recognized and credible entities. Medical databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar are good sources for cross-referencing scientific research.
Articles, Online Posts
Check articles, online posts, videos etc. for their sources, including scientific studies, medical journals, or clinical trials. Information from peer-reviewed journals is typically more reliable than content from non-peer-reviewed sources. Poor reviewed means that other people similarly qualified to the author have reviewed teh article adn provided comments.
Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal evidence is information that has been observed by the person reporting but not verified. Be skeptical of anecdotal evidence such as personal stories. It is not scientifically reliable. Focus on information supported by scientific evidence and clinical studies. The quality levels of evidence from highest to lowest for medical data are:
Systematic reviews: collect and evaluate all available data/evidence within the researchers’ criteria. An example is the “Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews”. Meta studies are a systematic review.
Randomized controlled trials: participants are randomly assigned to experimental and control arms. The double-blind trial is the gold-standard of medical research where neither the participants nor the researchers know the placebo or medication/treatment is given. This is to prevent bias and to ensure the validity and reliability of the study.
Cohort observational study: participants with common traits or exposure to the proposed medications or treatments are followed over a long period of time.
Case study or report: a detailed report of result after treatment of an individual. This is formalized and reviewed anecdotal evidence.
Medical Trial Reports
The phases of medical trial studies cited by published medical papers are:
Pre-clinical studies: laboratory experiments using cell cultures, animal or computer models. In vitro means tested In Vitro – literally ‘in glass’ means testing outside a living organism, in a test tube or petri dish, In Vivo – literally in life -means testing in a living organism, often mice. Then studies move on to humans…
Phase I trials: assess safety, dosage and side effects of the proposed medications or treatment.
Phase II trials: expand P 1 to evaluate efficacy of the proposed medications or treatment – how well it works..
Phase III trials: confirm efficacy, safety, dosage and to evaluate side effects of the proposed medications or treatment in much larger samples. This is often where randomized blind and double blind design is used. Blind means the patient does not know what they are getting; double blind means neither the patient nor the clinician know what is being dosed.
Phase IV trials: monitor long term effectiveness and safety of the medication or treatment.
Statistical Terms
Some terms regarding statistical data cited in medical journals are explained as follows:
N = the number of participants: be wary of studies with a very low N.
HR = hazard ratio: HR=1 – there is no change in the proposed medication/treatment compared to control baseline. HR<1 – there is a reduction of risks with the proposed medication/treatment. HR>1 – there is an increase risk with the proposed medication/treatment.
CI = Confidence Interval: A trial shows that a particular drug has a 20% effect within a certain time frame with 95% CI. This shows that the study, if repeated many times, it will be 95% confident that the 20% reduction will be consistently observed.
P-value = Probability Value: This measures how strong the evidence is that the hypothesis, or effect being tested, is correct, rather than the result being random, or incorrect (null hypothesis). We seek a P-value that is <=0.05 meaning that there is a 95% or better likelihood the result is attributable to what is being tested..
What’s in a Clinical Trial? – Dr. John Antonucci’s Primer
On Tuesday, February 27 a squadron of AnCan specialists attempted the impossible: to condense the essence of arguably the best scientific meeting on genitourinary cancer research in the world into 1 hour of intelligible, useful information. A couple of hundred scientific poster and oral research presentations from the American Society of Clinical Oncologists annual GU meeting (GU ASCO24), made available and understandable to us AnCan’rs? You can view their attempt as well as the slides at https://ancan.org/patient-highlights-from-the-2024-asco-gu-conference/ and judge how they managed.
To prepare for the session, a basic understanding of research is very helpful. It starts when scientists comes up with a question. For example, “Does Lupron do any good?” They then design a study to answer the question.
Types of studies:
Not every study is an experiment. In an experiment, the scientist does something to the subjects, such as try a new drug, and compare them to a control group, which doesn’t get manipulated. In observational research, the scientist studies the subjects but doesn’t do anything to them.
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are a type of experiment that are highly thought of. If you want to find out if Lupron is any good, you can find 2 groups of subjects with prostate cancer, give one group Lupron, and the other group a placebo (ie no medicine, although you still administer the fake dose). You have to be careful that the 2 groups match, because if you accidentally put most of the healthy patients in group A, they will do better but mess up your conclusion. This is the controlled part: you have to make sure both groups match except for the experimental manipulation. This is partly done by randomizing, assigning the subjects at random to the groups. At the end, you find out how long each group lived (or some other pre-established endpoint) and make a conclusion. This type of study is an experiment. It is also prospective: you create data as you go along which makes it a good study.
One of the several types of observational studies is the cohort study. Cohort studies follow groups to see how they do. For example, you could follow 1000 men over time, and see if the smokers get more prostate cancer than the nonsmokers. This could give a clue into what contributes to prostate cancer and how to prevent it. These studies are often prospective (looking into the future) but can also be look-back, or retrospective as well. A well-known cohort study in prostate cancer is the Canary Cohort that looks at low/intermediate Active Surveillance; or the Framingham Heart Cohort.
A cross-sectional study can answer questions like, what percentage of 50-year-old men have had a PSA test? You have 500 fifty year old men answer the question, and get your conclusion. It’s at one point in time. (The opposite is a longitudinal study, following subjects over time.)
Qualitative studies don’t collect numerical data like the others. If you want to find out what life is like on Lupron, you interview lots of men on the drug and get the big picture. The opposite is quantitative, where numerical data is collected.
Naturally, it makes sense to have lots of subjects in any study so you don’t get fooled by chance. For instance, you could flip a coin twice, get heads twice, and wrongly conclude that all coin flips will be heads. So big studies are better than small ones. The number of subjects in a study is known as n. Small ‘n’smake results suspect.
The chosen study type depends on the question, the ethics, and the resources. Only an experiment, like an RCT, can make a cause-and-effect conclusion, because it’s randomized and has a control group. Other studies can discover correlation; that’s when two phenomena occur together but causation is unclear.
There are studies of studies as well: A Meta-analysis will review and combine several similar studies to make the results even more convincing. A Literature review will review many studies, pick the best, and create a summary for us.
Basic science research uses instruments like petri dishes and microscopes to study molecules or cells or tissues; these are in-vitro studies. Lupron started in basic science research. Then it progressed to animal or in-vivo studies. Treatments that look promising at this stage progress to human clinical studies.
Clinical Trial Phases
You will hear human clinical studies presented as Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III studies. According to the FDA, Phase 1 has 20 to 100 healthy volunteers or people with the disease/condition. It lasts several months and is to test for safety and dosage. About70% of drugs move to the Phase 2, where up to several hundred people with the disease/condition are studied for several months to 2 years looking atefficacy and side effects. Approximately 33% of drugs move to phase 3, where 300 to 3,000 volunteers who have the disease or condition are studies for 1 to 4 years to deeply look at efficacy and monitoring of adverse reactions.
A drug like Lupron, when it did well at all these phases, was then submitted to the FDA for approval. After approval it was still followed, in phase IV or post-marketing research, as it was given to thousand of patients. Keep the phases in mind if you volunteer to be a research subject.
Clinical tests One last thing. How do you measure if a test is any good? What if someone asks, “Is PSA any good as a test for prostate cancer?” There are two key measures to consider: sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity asks, “If prostate cancer is present, how good is the test at detecting it?” This measures the test’s ability to identify those with the disease correctly. Specificity, on the other hand, asks, “If prostate cancer is absent, how good is the test at correctly identifying those without the disease?” This measures the test’s ability to identify those who don’t have the condition correctly. Both measures are crucial in evaluating the effectiveness of a diagnostic test.
Clinical tests can be either predictive–A predictive test is designed to predict the likelihood of a specific outcome or response to a particular treatment or intervention. –or prognostic–a prognostic test is used to estimate the likely course or outcome of a disease, regardless of treatment.
Your AnCan team looked at all those ASCO meeting presentations with an eye toward good study design, importance, whether it’s an experiment or not and if so what phase it is, is it prospective, does it have a large-n, and is it of interest to men in our group. Hopefully reading this will make it easier to understand the ramblings of our AnCan Mods.
Off-Label Use vs. Unapproved Use
