|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Study One
Study Two
Chemoprevention
of mammary, cervix and nervous system carcinogenesis
in animals using cultured Panax ginseng
drugs and preliminary clinical trials in
patients with precancerous lesions of the
esophagus and endometrium.
Bespalov
VG, Alexandrov
VA, Limarenko
AY, et al., J
Korean Med Sci. 2001 Dec;16 Suppl:S42-53
Group of Cancer Chemoprevention, N.N. Petrov,
Research Institute of Oncology of the Ministry
of Health of the Russian Federation
The anticarcinogenic effects and
mechanisms of the biotechnological drugs
of Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer cultivated in
Russia, bioginseng, panaxel and panaxel-
5, were studied. Bioginseng was produced
from a tissue culture of ginseng root cultured
on standard medium, whereas panaxel and
panaxel-5 were produced from ginseng tissue
root cultures using standard mediums enriched
with 2-carboxyethylgermanium sesquioxide
and 1-hydroxygermatran-monohydrate respectively.
All three ginseng drugs inhibited the
development of mammary tumors induced
by intramammary injections of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea
(MNU) in rats, the development of the
brain and spinal cord tumors induced
by transplacental administration of N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea
(ENU) in rats, and the development of
uterine, cervical and vaginal tumors induced by intravaginal applications of
7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (DMBA) in
mice. The ginseng drugs induced the cytotoxic
activity of macrophages in mice, enhanced
T-lymphocyte rosette formation in guinea
pigs exposed to cyclophosphamide, and stimulated
the production of thyroid hormones in rats.
These mechanisms may contribute to the anticarcinogenic
action of the ginseng drugs. The organic
germanium compounds present in panaxel
and panaxel-5 did not potentiate the anticarcinogenic
or immuno- stimulatory effects as much as
biogeinseng. Preliminary clinical trials
with panaxel and bioginseng were carried
out in patients with precancerous lesions
of the esophagus and endometrium. Panaxel
was found to have a strong therapeutic effect
in patients suffering from chronic erosive
esophagitis. Bioginseng induced the regression
of adenomatous-cystic hyperplasia of the
endometrium in some patients. Thus, we conclude
that the drugs of ginseng appear to hold
considerable promise for future cancer
chemoprevention.
Study Three
Preventive
effect of germanium dioxide on the inhibition
of gap junctional intercellular communication
by TPA.
Kang
KS, Yun
JW, Yoon
B, Lim
YK, Lee
YS, Cancer
Lett. 2001 May 26;166(2):147-53
Department of Veterinary Public Health,
College of Veterinary Medicine and School
of Agricultural Biotechnology, Seoul National
University
Gap junctional intercellular communication
(GJIC) is thought to be essential for maintaining
cellular homeostasis and growth control.
In order to detect any protective agent
against tumor formation, we examined the anticarcinogenic effect of a germanium
dioxide (GeO(2)) using a model system
of GJIC in F344 rat liver epithelial cells,
named WB cells. 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate
(TPA), known as tumor promoters, inhibited
GJIC in the epithelial cells as determined
by the scrape loading/dye transfer (SL/DT)
assay. And GeO(2) recovered this inhibition
of GJIC. Immunostaining of connexin 43 (Cx43)
protein in WB cells indicated that TPA caused
a loss of Cx43 protein from the cell membranes.
However, GeO(2) treatment showed re-appearance
of Cx43 protein on the membrane. Reverse
transcription-polymerase chain reaction
(RT-PCR) and Western blots were analyzed
to determine whether the test compounds
might have altered the steady-state levels
of gap junction mRNA and/or connexin protein
levels or phosphorylation. The inhibition
of GJIC by TPA in WB cells was correlated
with the hyperphosphorylation of Cx43 as
measured by mobility shifts of the western
blot bands of Cx43. TPA induced hyperphosphorylation
of Cx43 protein, while GeO(2) appeared to
partially block this hyperphosphorylation.
Here, we showed that pre- and co-incubation
with GeO(2) in TPA-treated WB-cells abolished
down-regulation of GJIC by TPA. These data
suggest that GeO(2) may inhibit tumor
promotion by enhancing GJIC.
“Unconventional Cancer Therapies: What We Need Is Rigorous Research, Not Closed Minds”
Edzard
Ernst, MD, PhD,.Chest. 2000 Feb; 117(2):307-8
Dr. Ernst is Director of the Department
of Complementary Medicine, School of Postgraduate
Medicine and Health Sciences, University
of Exeter.
On average, unconventional cancer therapies (UCTs) are used by 31% of all cancer patients.1 Many oncologists view this level of popularity with a mixture of bewilderment or worry and ask, "Why do patients insist on trying unproven and potentially hazardous treatments?" The answer is probably complex, and some people are tempted to refer to the zeitgeist or even point out the dawning of an "age of unreason." But cancer patients are desperate individuals who understandably want to "leave no stone unturned." Recently, it has been suggested that usage of UCTs might be a marker of anxiety in these patients.2 Cancer sufferers may also be disappointed with what they perceive as the depersonalized care of mainstream oncology and look toward the highly empathetic and personal attention of alternative practitioners.1
A case report is obviously no sound basis for an assessment of an UCT. The authors are therefore rightly cautious in their interpretation of this particular case. They point out that various phase II trials have not yielded promising results and that germanium is burdened with considerable toxicity. Other writers on the subject are less critical. They assure us that we are dealing with an "unusually nontoxic substance" and that it is "potentially effective in the treatment of cancer."5 This discrepancy between statements made by responsible scientists and authors of lay books on alternative medicine is no exception and may render lay books of this type a risk factor for good health.6 …….
Three things seem to follow. Firstly, we should do the necessary research as soon and as rigorously as possible. It seems a good idea to intimately involve the proponents of a given therapy in all stages of this research. Secondly, we have an obligation to make sure that the results of such investigations are not distorted and reach those patients who are desperate and likely to try anything. Thirdly, we must demonstrate more understanding of patients using UCTs. Many patients are afraid or embarrassed to tell their doctor of their UCT use.8 Our lack of understanding for and knowledge of UCTs significantly increases the risk of such therapies being used as true alternatives to mainstream medicine. If this is true, it is our closed minds that render UCTs more hazardous than they already may be.
References
- Ernst, E, Cassileth, BR (1998) The prevalence of complementary/alternative medicine in cancer. Cancer 83,777-782
- Burstein, HJ, Gelber, SG, Guadagnoli, E, et al (1999) Use of alternative medicine by women with early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 240,1733-1739
- Ernst E, Cassileth BR. How useful are unconventional cancer treatments? Eur J Cancer 1999
- Italian Study Group for the Di Bella Multitherapy Trials (1999) Evaluation of an unconventional cancer treatment (the Di Bella multitherapy): results of phase II trials in Italy. BMJ 318,224-228
- Pelton, R, Overholster, L (1994) Alternatives in cancer therapy, 96-102 Fireside (New York, NY).
- Ernst, E, Armstrong, NC (1998) Lay books on complementary/alternative medicine: a risk factor for good health? Int J Risk Safety 11,209-215
- Coppers, MJ, Anderson, RA, Egeler, RM, et al (1998) Alternative therapies for the treatment of childhood cancer. N Engl J Med 339,846-847
- Eisenberg, DM, David, RB, Ettner, SL, et al (1998) Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990–1997. JAMA 280,1569-1575