Open conversation with Miriam Reichel, Prof. Dr. med. Drevs, and Prof. Dr. med. Jörg Spitz: Cancer care, patient autonomy, and individualized treatment pathways
In this open conversation, Miriam Reichel, Prof. Dr. Drevs, and Prof. Dr. Jörg Spitz discuss what many patients in oncology often feel is missing: time, clear and understandable explanations, and genuine shared decision-making. The discussion focuses on how cancer treatment can become more individualized and more humane again. It should be possible to move away from fear and rigid one-size-fits-all routines and instead keep a clear focus on what each person truly needs.
Fear and hope: How communication helps shape the course of care
A key point raised is that many people affected by cancer experience how hope is taken away early on, or how decisions are influenced by pressure and fear. The speakers emphasize how important communication is when it remains realistic while still providing stability and support. Mental strength is not a side issue. It can influence how well patients accept a therapy and how successfully they are able to get through it.
Guidelines provide orientation, but they are not a one-way street
Prof. Dr. Drevs and Prof. Dr. Spitz criticize the fact that, in everyday practice, clinical guidelines are often treated like laws. This can leave patients feeling disempowered. It can also lead physicians to use little room for maneuver because they fear negative consequences. This becomes particularly clear in the example of chemotherapy before surgery. The conversation describes how difficult it can sometimes be to implement an alternative sequence or to follow individual preferences, even when patients are well informed and weigh the options carefully.
What Prof. Dr. Drevs stands for, individualized, like every human being
Prof. Dr. Drevs repeatedly stresses that cancer is not a uniform disease, and that treatment decisions must not be based on statistics alone. His core message is to strengthen patients’ competence, explain options in an understandable way, and find a solution together. This solution should take the body, the immune system, and the person’s life situation into account. This also includes not treating personal contributions such as nutrition, exercise, and stress regulation as a dogmatic program. Instead, they should be seen as individualized building blocks that patients can realistically implement.
Conclusion
This open conversation is not a treatment plan. It is an invitation to think about cancer care differently, in an informed and individualized way, and on equal footing. Anyone looking for more clarity on next steps, and anyone who wants to speak more confidently with their treating physicians, will find many strong impulses here.
