Our Methodology: How We Evaluate Cancer Treatment Pathways
How we decide what to recommend — and what not to. An evidence-based framework for clinical viability, logistical feasibility, and financial transparency.
Every day, families searching for advanced cancer treatment face the same quiet fear: how do I know if this source is telling me the truth? We built this page to answer that question honestly, not with a slogan, but with the actual process behind every recommendation we make.
We are not a hospital. We don't perform procedures, and we don't get to claim credit for anyone's outcome. What we do is evaluate — carefully, repeatedly, and with a bias toward telling you when something isn't right for you.
The Three Questions We Ask Before Recommending Anything
Every treatment pathway, hospital, or destination we mention on this site has been filtered through three lenses. If it fails any one of them, we don't recommend it — no matter how well it might perform in search results.
1. Is It Clinically Sound?
We look at what the evidence actually says, not what a brochure says. This means checking:
- Peer-reviewed literature
- Registered clinical trial data (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP)
- Regulatory approval status (FDA, NMPA, EMA) for the specific condition and treatment
A therapy that works well for one cancer type is not automatically relevant to another — we treat that distinction as non-negotiable, not a technicality.
2. Is It Logistically Real?
A brilliant treatment protocol means little if the institution offering it cannot actually support an international patient. We look at:
- Accreditation (JCI, ISO)
- Documented experience with cross-border care
- Language support
- Whether the center's stated capabilities match what independent sources confirm
We don't rely on what their own marketing says — we verify independently.
3. Is the Cost Structure Honest?
We check whether:
- Pricing is disclosed upfront
- "Package" costs quietly exclude things patients will need to pay for later
- The referral relationship (if any) is something we can openly explain to you
If we can't explain our own incentive in one sentence, we don't consider the arrangement transparent enough to stand behind.
How We Build and Maintain Our Content
Medicine moves fast, and information that was accurate a year ago can quietly become outdated. So our content follows a discipline, not a one-time effort:
Primary sources first
Every clinical claim traces back to a named source — a published trial, a regulatory database, or a named clinical guideline. If we can't cite it, we don't state it as fact.
Scheduled review, not "set and forget"
Pages covering fast-moving areas (approval status, cost ranges, trial availability) are revisited on a regular cycle, not left to age silently.
Correction over defense
When something we've published turns out to be outdated or wrong, we fix it. We do not quietly leave inaccurate information live because it performs well in search.
What We Will Never Do
Transparency means being just as clear about our limits as our process.
❌ Guarantee an outcome
No ethical source in oncology can promise a cure, a response rate, or a specific result for an individual patient.
❌ Let a partner institution write or edit our content
Editorial judgment stays with us, independent of who may eventually pay a referral fee.
❌ Hide a limitation to make an option look better
If a treatment is experimental, if a center has limited experience with a specific case type, or if a country isn't the right fit for a given diagnosis — we say so, even when it means recommending nothing at all.
Where This Connects
Our clinical and logistical review process works alongside a fully disclosed financial model — you can see exactly how we're compensated on our Financial Transparency page. For the legal structure behind this platform, see our Legal Framework.
If, after reading this, you still have a question about how a specific recommendation was reached, ask us directly. That question is one we expect — and welcome.
Continue Your Research
Explore our commitment to transparency and evidence-based decision-making.
Financial Transparency
How we are funded — $0 patient fees, institutional model.
View transparency →Legal Framework
Our role, liability boundaries, and physician protections.
Read legal →Our Model
How CancerCareE operates as an independent oncology access platform.
Learn about us →Contact Us
Ask us directly about how we reach our recommendations.
Get in touch →Still Have Questions About Our Methodology?
We welcome questions about how we evaluate treatment pathways, hospitals, and destinations. Contact us directly — we're transparent about our process.