Best-case analyses are - under certain circumstances - a useful method to d
ecide on the tumor-specific efficacy of unconventional treatments, without
performing formal clinical studies and with limited expenditure. As part of
the activities of the 'Arbeitsgruppe Biologische Krebstherapie', sponsored
by the 'Deutsche Krebshilfe', an analysis and second-opinion judgement (ac
cording to internationally accepted standards) of their 'best cases' was of
fered to 36 manufacturers and users of unconventional cancer drugs and meth
ods, who in public propagated these as effective cancer therapies. Only few
of the approached offerers were both willing to cooperate and able to prov
ide significant documentation for such an analysis. Therefore, only four be
st-case analyses could be performed completely. The work-up of the availabl
e documentation was not very convincing in all four cases, especially when
considering that a positive selection from hundreds or even thousands of ap
plications had taken place. The results of the analyses did not reveal any
well-founded evidence for a tumor-specific effectiveness of the correspondi
ng applications. The discrepancy between the offerers and the working group
's judgements results especially from the circumstance that the majority of
the treatments were not performed on patients with advanced tumor disease
without any other conventional therapies, but additionally to established t
herapies or as an adjuvant treatment protocol. Other reasons were the obvio
us misjudgement of findings, the assessment of unimportant or unsuitable pa
rameters, the misinterpretation of the probably normal development as a tre
atment success or also documentation inappropriate for evaluation.