Are you opposed to using new protocols you find in the literature before they become accepted as "evidence-based" medicine?

"A peer-reviewed journal that introduces a different therapy would have to pass muster as Level 4 or Level 5 according the established levels of evidence used in research. Therefore, I wouldn't consider using anything that hadn't been sutdied further using meta-analysis. But if such a protocol were to quaify according to those criteria, I would have no problem implementing them after any standard protocol had failed."

This question is similar to the one above that asks if you would venture out of the bell curve of evidence-based medicine. However, more than that, it is asking if you feel you have a 'pass' to 'try anything' with a patient who has cancer, since it is a diagnosis with mortality and survival rates that can be statistically cited. It asks if you can follow your 'art of medicine' beyond that of evidence-based protocols, regardless of your patient's prognosis, when you see something that seems more promising in the literature. This question is also a sneaky way of asking if you recognize difference levels of evidence.

"Until my therapeutic plan fails, I feel obligated to follow the established protocols. After a failure of therapy, I would seek out the protocols already established, vetted, and used for recalcitrant cases."