Cancer Treatment Regimens: Conventional, Alternative & Integrative

Reaching a treatment decision took time, tears, and a lot of homework. Over the first month, we spoke with around 10 oncologists, 3 surgeons, and 4 alternative medicine practitioners in the U.S., while my sister met a few more conventional doctors in India. We read, researched, listened to stories, and compared opinions until our heads spun. At times it felt like ignorance might be easier, but all that effort meant that, whatever choice we made—whether it ultimately “worked” or not—was informed, deliberate, and deeply considered.

My diagnosis was stage IIb, triple‑positive invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast, which meant the cancer had broken out of the ducts, involved at least one lymph node, but hadn’t yet shown up elsewhere in the body. Standard advice was clear: this is aggressive, start treatment immediately—chemo, surgery, targeted therapy, and hormones. At the same time, I was exploring half‑conventional and more alternative paths, trying to find even one survivor who could say, “Do this; it definitely works,” or “Don’t do that; it doesn’t.” No one could. Outcomes were too individual, even when people made similar choices.​

One important lesson from that phase: most breast cancers, including mine, don’t become life‑threatening overnight. Doctors rightly emphasise urgency because cancer cells do multiply, and early treatment is linked with better outcomes, especially in triple‑positive disease where chemo, HER2‑targeted drugs like trastuzumab, and hormone therapy together significantly improve survival. But in many early‑stage cases, there is still a small window to pause, breathe, get second opinions, and weigh options without rushing blindly.​

In the end, no one could make the decision for me. The integrative path I chose—conventional treatment supported by lifestyle changes and complementary practices—came from that mix of science, stories, faith, and my own values. It may sound messy from the outside, but for me it was a hard‑won, well‑weighed “final regimen” that I could live with, whatever the outcome.

Surgery First

In my mind, surgery was never really optional; I knew I wanted the tumor out first. With stage IIb triple‑positive invasive ductal carcinoma, the cancer had broken out of the ducts and involved nearby lymph nodes, but had not spread to distant organs, which generally carries a strong five‑year survival outlook when treated. For early‑stage and regional breast cancer, five‑year relative survival rates are high (often around the high 80s–90% range), and surgery is a major contributor to that outcome, with chemo, targeted therapy, and hormone therapy adding further benefit on top.​

The way I understood it, surgery felt like dealing with the biggest “trash can” first. When you clean a house, you don’t start with tiny dust particles; you first take out the overflowing bin. Removing the main tumor and affected tissue was my way of clearing the largest visible burden, and then using chemotherapy, targeted drugs, and hormone therapy as the follow‑up cleaning crew for anything microscopic left behind. That simple, slightly odd analogy helped me commit to a surgery‑first plan that aligned with both my instincts and what most of the evidence‑based guidelines recommended for my stage and type of cancer.​

Chemo –

Chemo was a hard “no” for me in the beginning. I was terrified of the side effects and unsure whether the potential benefit was worth the pain. At the same time, I wasn’t fully convinced I could rely only on food and lifestyle forever; I come from a culture where everything is celebrated with food, and I knew that a strictly raw vegan life for decades might not be realistic for me. Add to that the fact that most solid data and long‑term studies exist for conventional regimens, not purely alternative paths, and the decision became even more complex.

In the end, instead of the standard TCHP regimen (Docetaxel/Taxotere, Carboplatin, Herceptin/Trastuzumab, and Perjeta/Pertuzumab), I chose TCH, leaving out Perjeta. I felt that the “major” work had already been done with surgery, and now we were talking about the remaining incremental benefit. One oncologist, while cautious, shared data showing that adding Perjeta offered only a small additional survival benefit—around a couple of percentage points—for early‑stage HER2‑positive disease, while increasing the risk of side effects. You can see a similar discussion here:

Some doctors and hospitals are unwilling to deviate from the standard regimen, and those who agree will often warn that there is no clear survival data for “modified” protocols and that you are accepting that uncertainty. But the truth is, even the standard regimen carries risk and no guarantees. Choosing TCH instead of TCHP was my way of balancing evidence, quality of life, my own limits, and my intuition—and owning that this, too, was a calculated risk I could live with.

Though lot of doctors will initially refuse going against standard regimen and lot of hospitals actually don’t entertain it, they will just not do it, you will still find oncologist ready to do it for you but be prepared to hear that “we don’t know the outcome and don’t know anything with regards to survival percentage and data if you choose to do it, basically you do it at your risk” but the fact is even the standard regimen is done at its own risk and doesn’t have any guaranteed outcome !

Tamoxifen –

Tamoxifen’s side effects are nowhere near as intense as chemotherapy, but the challenge is that the drug often stays in your life for many years—5 or even 10—so the impact can feel longer and more unpredictable. At the same time, when you look at the research and the risk–benefit balance, it’s clear why many doctors strongly recommend it: tamoxifen significantly lowers the risk of recurrence and offers long‑lasting protection for many people with hormone‑receptor‑positive breast cancer.​

If you’re exploring it, these are useful starting points:

It’s also worth reading about tamoxifen management strategies—dose adjustments, breaks, or switching to other hormone therapies—especially if side effects feel unbearable. Survival matters, but so does quality of life, and working with your oncologist to find a balance you can actually live with is just as important as following any guideline on paper.

**Please note that I am not a clinical expert, doctor or in any way qualified to make any medical claims about what regimen and what treatment is good, I am only sharing my experiences in the hope that it can help you make acknowledged choices and understand that there is no right or wrong choice.

Continue Reading: Life Wellness Center Knoxville

Your voice can help someone else—share your thoughts in the comments