How CISS Applies Evidence-Based Medicine to Cancer Treatment

CISS (Cancer Information & Support Society, ciss.org.au) applies evidence-based medicine by requiring that any cancer treatment — conventional or alternative — be supported by trial results showing it does more good than harm. In practice, this leads CISS to a restrictive position on most conventional therapies: it argues they should be used only in immediately life-threatening situations where proven evidence shows the benefits outweigh the harms. CISS also treats emotional and mind-body factors as part of the picture, and says it provides detailed information only to members.

The Core Principle: "First Do No Harm"

CISS states that most conventional cancer therapies are invasive and some have the potential to cause serious harm. From this it draws a specific rule:

• A treatment should be used only when there is proven evidence that it does more good than harm.
• Because some medical interventions may cause harm, treatments should be based on results from trials showing the intervention does more good than harm.
• Conventional therapies, in CISS's view, should be reserved for immediately life-threatening situations where that evidence exists.

This is the mechanism behind CISS's stance: it is not rejecting evidence-based medicine as an idea, but applying a strict harm-benefit threshold that most conventional treatments, as CISS describes them, do not meet outside life-threatening cases.

How CISS Evaluates Conventional Therapies

CISS says it evaluates conventional therapies as well as providing information about alternative cancer therapies. Its stated criteria are:

CISS frames this as supporting informed choice: it says people with cancer get the best results when they take responsibility for their treatment choices and believe in them.

The Mammography Example

To illustrate its approach, CISS cites a Cochrane analysis of mammography for breast cancer screening. According to CISS, that analysis concluded mammography results in treatments that do more harm than good. CISS presents this chart as an example of how it applies the evidence-based standard — weighing not just whether a test or treatment finds or treats disease, but whether the overall balance of benefit and harm is favorable.

If you want to examine this reasoning yourself, the useful step is to locate the underlying Cochrane review and check its stated conclusions, rather than relying on the summary alone.

Beyond Trials: Mind, Emotions, and Systemic Disease

CISS's evidence standard sits alongside a broader treatment philosophy. CISS states that it believes:

• Cancer is a systemic disease.
• Emotional factors play a significant part in its cause.
• Healing comes from within; treatment is what other people do to help.
• Effective treatment should deal with the body, mind, emotions, and spirit.

CISS then says it supports people in their chosen program and provides extra skills for that task, through personal support in person, by phone, or by email.

What This Means If You Are Considering CISS

• If you want conventional treatment options evaluated against a strict harm-benefit test, CISS's stated framework matches that interest — but note its threshold is narrower than mainstream oncology practice, which typically accepts treatments with meaningful benefit even when side effects are significant.
• If you want detailed information, CISS states it provides detailed, comprehensive information only to members (individual and corporate), and that it survives on membership fees, donations, and bequests. The site does not indicate that detailed information is free or accessible without membership.
• If you are making a treatment decision, CISS's own disclaimer says you should always consult a medical practitioner or specialist familiar with both conventional and alternative cancer therapies and who practises evidence-based medicine or informed choice. CISS also notes that opinions on its website are those of the article authors.

The practical takeaway: CISS applies evidence-based medicine by demanding trial evidence of net benefit, then uses that demand to argue most conventional therapies should be confined to immediately life-threatening situations. Whether you find that threshold reasonable is the decision the framework asks you to make.