I got my copy of the University of Texas, M D Anderson Cancer Center publication ‘Conquest’ today, and saw two interesting articles on common dietary supplements that have been touted by the health food and supplement industry - hardly objective sources - to be effective against certain types of cancer.
This has long been a source of frustration for serious cancer researchers, advocates and patients. The inclination to take supplements with hopeful anti-cancer properties, when faced with a life threatening diagnosis, is very compelling. But at some point we have to leave the wishful thinking behind and address our disease honestly with what is known to work best.
-maven
Selenium Not Useful Against Lung Cancer
Selenium is a supplement taken daily by millions in hopes of protection against cancer and a host of other diseases. However, it has proven to be of no benefit in reducing a patient’s risk of developing lung cancer, either a recurrence or second primary malignancy, according to results of a decade-long, international Phase III clinical trial.
“Several epidemiological and animal studies have long suggested a link between deficiency of selenium and cancer development,” says Daniel Karp, M.D., professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology.
From 2000 to 2009, the international NCI-sponsored Phase III study enrolled 1,522 stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients, all of whom had their tumors surgically removed and were cancer-free for at least six months post-surgery.
The study was halted early after an interim analysis revealed that the progression-free survival was superior in the placebo arm. The researchers did find that in a small group of lung cancer patients who had never smoked, selenium provided a small benefit. However, the size of the group of patients, 94, was too small to be statistically significant.
“Our results demonstrate that selenium is not an effective chemoprevention agent in an unselected group of lung cancer patients, and it’s not something we can recommend to our patients to prevent a second cancer from developing or recurring,” Karp says. “These findings also remind us that people who never smoked may represent a unique disease and should be an area for special consideration for research focus.”
Reported in June at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Shark Cartilage Extract Shows No Benefit
Conquest - Fall 2010
In the first scientific study of its kind, shark cartilage extract, AE-941 or Neovastat, showed no benefit as a therapeutic agent when combined with chemotherapy and radiation for patients with advanced non-small lung cancer.
The absence of blood vessels in cartilage, as well as preclinical studies analyzing cartilage extracts, have supported the hypothesis that cartilage contains inhibitors of blood vessel formation. Also, shark cartilage has long intrigued the public because the incidence of cancer in this cartilaginous fish is very rare.
“This is the first large Phase III randomized trial of shark cartilage as a cancer agent. A unique and important aspect about this shark cartilage study was that this product, Neovastat, was never sold over the counter, unlike other shark cartilage compounds previously studied,” says Charles Lu, M.D., associate professor in MD Anderson’s Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology.
“Unfortunately, the study produced no data showing improvements in survival, tumor shrinkage and/or clinical benefits to patients,” Lu says. “Now when patients ask their oncologists about shark cartilage, physicians can point to this large NCI-sponsored Phase III trial and tell patients that, at this point, the only studies that have been done with cartilage-derived products have been negatives.”
Reported in the May issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Inst itute and first presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.