English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There is significant public and scientific interest as regards unconventional anticancer agents (complementary and alternative medicine [CAM] agents). This article describes five principles pertaining to the question of which CAM agents should be taken to clinical trial: (1) many CAM agents have been proposed as cancer treatments, far more than could possibly be studied in clinical trials; (2) claims by patients or practitioners are generally unhelpful in choosing which CAM agents to test; (3) laboratory studies can help determine which CAM agents to take to trial and with which cointerventions; (4) preliminary laboratory studies are essential to confirm safety before trials can be considered; and (5) the vast majority of anticancer CAM agents will be ineffective; our aim should be to discard agents from consideration as rapidly as possible.

Which Botanicals or Other Unconventional Anticancer Agents Should We Take to Clinical Trial?