Randomised controlled trial of intermittent vs continuous energy restriction during chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Excess adiposity at diagnosis and weight gain during chemotherapy is associated with tumour recurrence and chemotherapy toxicity. We assessed the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) vs continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight control and toxicity reduction during chemotherapy. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-two women were randomised to follow IER or CER throughout adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were weight and body fat change. Secondary endpoints included chemotherapy toxicity, cardiovascular risk markers, and correlative markers of metabolism, inflammation and oxidative stress. RESULTS: Primary analyses showed non-significant reductions in weight (-1.1 (-2.4 to +0.2) kg, p = 0.11) and body fat (-1.0 (-2.1 to +0.1) kg, p = 0.086) in IER compared with CER. Predefined secondary analyses adjusted for body water showed significantly greater reductions in weight (-1.4 (-2.5 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.024) and body fat (-1.1 (-2.1 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.046) in IER compared with CER. Incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities were comparable overall (IER 31.0 vs CER 36.5%, p = 0.45) with a trend to fewer grade 3/4 toxicities with IER (18%) vs CER (31%) during cycles 4-6 of primarily taxane therapy (p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: IER is feasible during chemotherapy. The potential efficacy for weight control and reducing toxicity needs to be tested in future larger trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04156504.

Intermittent energy restriction induces changes in breast gene expression and systemic metabolism.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest weight loss and energy restriction reduce breast cancer risk. Intermittent energy restriction (IER) reduces weight to the same extent as, or more than equivalent continuous energy restriction (CER) but the effects of IER on normal breast tissue and systemic metabolism as indicators of breast cancer risk are unknown. METHODS: We assessed the effect of IER (two days of 65 % energy restriction per week) for one menstrual cycle on breast tissue gene expression using Affymetrix GeneChips, adipocyte size by morphometry, and systemic metabolism (insulin resistance, lipids, serum and urine metabolites, lymphocyte gene expression) in 23 overweight premenopausal women at high risk of breast cancer. Unsupervised and supervised analyses of matched pre and post IER biopsies in 20 subjects were performed, whilst liquid and gas chromatography mass spectrometry assessed corresponding changes in serum and urine metabolites in all subjects after the two restricted and five unrestricted days of the IER. RESULTS: Women lost 4.8 % (±2.0 %) of body weight and 8.0 % (±5.0 %) of total body fat. Insulin resistance (homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)) reduced by 29.8 % (±17.8 %) on the restricted days and by 11 % (±34 %) on the unrestricted days of the IER. Five hundred and twenty-seven metabolites significantly increased or decreased during the two restricted days of IER. Ninety-one percent of these returned to baseline after 5 days of normal eating. Eleven subjects (55 %) displayed reductions in energy restriction-associated metabolic gene pathways including lipid synthesis, gluconeogenesis and glycogen synthesis. Some of these women also had increases in genes associated with breast epithelial cell differentiation (secretoglobulins, milk proteins and mucins) and decreased collagen synthesis (TNMD, PCOLCE2, TIMP4). There was no appreciable effect of IER on breast gene expression in the other nine subjects. These groups did not differ in the degree of changes in weight, total body fat, fat cell size or serum or urine metabolomic markers. Corresponding gene changes were not seen in peripheral blood lymphocytes. CONCLUSION: The transcriptional response to IER is variable in breast tissue, which was not reflected in the systemic response, which occurred in all subjects. The mechanisms of breast responsiveness/non-responsiveness require further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77916487 31/07/2012.

Evidence-Based Review of BioBran/MGN-3 Arabinoxylan Compound as a Complementary Therapy for Conventional Cancer Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Conventional cancer treatment, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, may not be sufficient to eradicate all malignant cells and prevent recurrence. Intensive treatment often leads to a depressed immune system, drug resistance, and toxicity, hampering the treatment outcomes. BioBran/MGN-3 Arabinoxylan is a standardized arabinoxylan concentrate which has been proposed as a plant-based immunomodulator that can restore the tumor-induced disturbance of the natural immune system, including natural killer cell activity to fight cancer, complementing conventional therapies. OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively review the available evidence on the effects and efficacies of MGN-3 as a complementary therapy for conventional cancer treatment. METHODS: Systematic search of journal databases and gray literature for primary studies reporting the effects of MGN-3 on cancer and cancer treatment. RESULTS: Thirty full-text articles and 2 conference abstracts were included in this review. MGN-3 has been shown to possess immunomodulating anticancer effects and can work synergistically with chemotherapeutic agents, in vitro. In murine models, MGN-3 has been shown to act against carcinogenic agents, and inhibit tumor growth, either by itself or in combination with other anticancer compounds. Fourteen successful MGN-3 treated clinical cases were found. Eleven clinical studies, including 5 nonrandomized, pre-post intervention studies and 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were located. Reported effects include enhanced immunoprofile, reduced side effects, improved treatment outcomes; one RCT established significantly increased survival rates. There are no reports on adverse events on MGN-3. Most of the clinical trials are small studies with short duration. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient evidence suggesting MGN-3 to be an effective immunomodulator that can complement conventional cancer treatment. However, more well-designed RCTs on MGN-3 are needed to strengthen the evidence base.