This is a time-sensitive matter. A recurrance of cancer was found by local physician who kindly referred patient (a family member) to a top specialist for evaluation. After initial evaluation, the specialist indicated there were several approaches to remove the cancer, which is in a precarious internal location. If a surface lesion, laser treatment would be most effective with least amount of bleeding/side effects. If it had accessed muscle tissue, either radiation (which would have significant side effects and impact quality of life), OR a new, non-FDA approved promising new surgical procedure, which would promised far less side effects/bleeding. Within a week, biopsy was scheduled which confirmed the cancer; the specialist indicated that it was not a large lesion, and the patient was an excellent candidate for the study procedure. The procedure was scheduled to be conducted within a week. Subsequently an MRI was taken, and at the pre-op consultation with specialist's assistant. MRI revealed that the lesion was a non-invasive surface lesion. We immediately faxed a letter to the specialist asking specifically what the benefits/detriments were for laser treatment v. the study surgery. We received a response from the specialist's office within hours stating that they received the fax, and only that he preferred the surgery. While honored to be considered for the study, I am concerned that there may be risks with the study surgery that we wouldn't have with the laser, and I don't want to anger the specialist by questioning his judgement. Also, I don't want my family member subjected to an unneccessary study. What should I do? How can I get an answer from the specialist without jeopardizing my family member's quality of treatment? I should note, the specialist developed the study surgery technique.