Laetrile treatment for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Laetrile is the name for a semi-synthetic compound which is chemically related to amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside from the kernels of apricots and various other species of the genus Prunus. Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous. OBJECTIVES: To assess the alleged anti-cancer effect and possible adverse effects of laetrile and amygdalin. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1951-2014); EMBASE (1980-2014); AMED; Scirus; CINAHL (all from 1982-2015); CAMbase (from 1998-2015); the MetaRegister; the National Research Register; and our own files. We examined reference lists of included studies and review articles and we contacted experts in the field for knowledge of additional studies. We did not impose any restrictions of timer or language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We searched eight databases and two registers for studies testing laetrile or amygdalin for the treatment of cancer. Two review authors screened and assessed articles for inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We located over 200 references, 63 were evaluated in the original review, 6 in the 2011 and none in this update. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.

Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: High-dose or dose-intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy often causes myelosuppression and severe neutropenia among cancer patients. Severe neutropenia accompanied by fever, named febrile neutropenia (FN), is the most serious manifestation of neutropenia usually requiring hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. FN and neutropenia can lead to chemotherapy treatment delays or dose reductions, which potentially compromises the effectiveness of cancer treatment and prospects for a cure. Granulocyte-macrophage (GM) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are administered during chemotherapy in order to prevent or reduce the incidence or the duration of FN and neutropenia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) in reducing the incidence and duration of FN, and all-cause and infection-related mortality during chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR, International Health Technology Assessment, SOMED, AMED and BIOSIS up to 8 August 2011. We also searched three Chinese databases (VIP, CNKI, CBM), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and OpenGrey.eu up to August 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CSFs (any dose) with placebo or no treatment in patients with breast cancer at any stage, at risk of developing FN while undergoing any type of chemotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Trial authors were contacted for further details when information was unclear. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs involving 2156 participants with different stages of breast cancer and chemotherapy regimens. The trials were carried out between 1995 and 2008 and judged as being at least at moderate risk of bias. The strength of the evidence was weak for the majority of outcomes, which was mostly because of the small numbers of evaluable patients, varying definitions, as well as unclear measurements of the trials' outcomes and uncertain influences of supportive treatments on them. In most trials, the chemotherapy regimens had a risk of FN that was below the threshold at which current guidelines recommend routine primary prophylaxis with CSFs. Using CSFs significantly reduced the proportion of patients with FN (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12) but there was substantial heterogeneity which can be explained by possible differential effects of G-CSFs and GM-CSFs and different definitions of FN. A significant reduction in early mortality was observed in CSF-treated patients compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.77; NNTB 79). This finding was based on 23 fatal events in 2143 patients; wherein 19 of these 23 events occurred in one study and 17 events were attributed to progression of the disease by the study authors. For infection-related mortality, there were no significant differences between CSF and control groups (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). In CSF-treated patients, the risk for hospitalization was significantly reduced (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.30; NNTB 13), as well as the use of intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55; NNTB 18). The risks of severe neutropenia, infection or not maintaining the scheduled dose of chemotherapy did not differ between CSF-treated and control groups. CSFs frequently led to bone pain (RR 5.88; 95% CI 2.54 to 13.60; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 3) and injection-site reactions (RR 3.59; 95% CI 2.33 to 5.53; NNTH 3). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, CSFs have shown evidence of benefit in the prevention of FN. There is evidence, though less reliable, of a decrease of all-cause mortality during chemotherapy and a reduced need for hospital care. No reliable evidence was found for a reduction of infection-related mortality, a higher dose intensity of chemotherapy with CSFs or diminished rates of severe neutropenia and infections. The majority of adverse events reported from CSF use were bone pain and injection-site reactions but no conclusions could be drawn regarding late-term side effects.

Effects of yoga interventions on fatigue: a meta-analysis.

Background. Researchers aimed at systematically reviewing and meta-analyzing the effectiveness of yoga interventions for fatigue. Methods. PubMed/Medline was searched until January 2012 for controlled clinical studies. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. A meta-analysis was performed. Results. Nineteen clinical studies (total n = 948) were included in this review. Investigated yoga styles included Hatha, Iyengar, Asanas, Patanjali, Sahaja, and Tibetan yoga. Participants were suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis, dialysis, chronic pancreatitis, fibromyalgia, asthma, or were healthy. Yoga had a small positive effect on fatigue (SMD = 0.27, 59% CI = 0.23-0.31). Seven studies received 4 points on the Jadad score. There were baseline differences in at least 5 studies. Conclusion. Overall, the effects of yoga interventions on fatigue were only small, particularly in cancer patients. Although yoga is generally a safe therapeutic intervention and effective to attenuate other health-related symptoms, this meta-analysis was not able to define the powerful effect of yoga on patients suffering from fatigue. Treatment effects of yoga could be improved in well-designed future studies. According to the GRADE recommendations assessing the overall quality of evidence, there is a moderate effect of the confidence placed in the estimates of the effects discussed here.

Laetrile treatment for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Laetrile is the name for a semi-synthetic compound which is chemically related to amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside from the kernels of apricots and various other species of the genus Prunus. Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous. OBJECTIVES: To assess the alleged anti-cancer effect and possible adverse effects of laetrile and amygdalin. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (2011, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1951-2011); EMBASE (1980-2011); AMED; Scirus; CancerLit; CINAHL (all from 1982-2011); CAMbase (from 1998-2011); the MetaRegister; the National Research Register; and our own files. We examined reference lists of included studies and review articles and we contacted experts in the field for knowledge of additional studies. We did not impose any restrictions of timer or language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We searched eight databases and two registers for studies testing laetrile or amygdalin for the treatment of cancer. Two review authors screened and assessed articles for inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We located over 200 references, 63 were evaluated in the original review and an additional 6 in this update. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.

Thymic peptides for treatment of cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Purified thymus extracts (pTE) and synthetic thymic peptides (sTP) are thought to enhance the immune system of cancer patients in order to fight the growth of tumour cells and to resist infections due to immunosuppression induced by the disease and antineoplastic therapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of pTE and sTP for the management of cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, BIOETHICSLINE, BIOSIS, CATLINE, CISCOM, HEALTHSTAR, HTA, SOMED and LILACS (to February 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of pTE or sTP in addition to chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, compared to the same regimen with placebo or no additional treatment in adult cancer patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data from published trials. We derived odds ratios (OR) from overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates, tumour response (TR) rates, and rates of adverse effects (AE) related to antineoplastic treatments. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 26 trials (2736 patients). Twenty trials investigated pTE (thymostimulin or thymosin fraction 5) and six trials investigated sTP (thymopentin or thymosin α(1)). Twenty-one trials reported results for OS, six for DFS, 14 for TR, nine for AE and 10  for safety of pTE and sTP. Addition of pTE conferred no benefit on OS (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.25); DFS (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16); or TR (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25). Heterogeneity was moderate to high for all these outcomes. For thymosin α(1) the pooled RR for OS was 1.21 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.56, P = 0.14), with low heterogeneity; and 3.37 (95% CI 0.66 to 17.30, P = 0.15) for DFS, with moderate heterogeneity. The pTE reduced the risk of severe infectious complications (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78, P = 0.0008; I² = 0%). The RR for severe neutropenia in patients treated with thymostimulin was 0.55 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.23,  P = 0.15). Tolerability of pTE and sTP was good. Most of the trials had at least a moderate risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found neither evidence that the addition of pTE to antineoplastic treatment reduced the risk of death or disease progression nor that it improved the rate of tumour responses to antineoplastic treatment. For thymosin α(1), there was a trend for a reduced risk of dying and of improved DFS. There was preliminary evidence that pTE lowered the risk of severe infectious complications in patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tea is one of the most commonly consumed beverages worldwide. Teas from the plant Camellia sinensis can be grouped into green, black and oolong tea. Cross-culturally tea drinking habits vary. Camellia sinensis contains the active ingredient polyphenol, which has a subgroup known as catechins. Catechins are powerful antioxidants. It has been suggested that green tea polyphenol may inhibit cell proliferation and observational studies have suggested that green tea may have cancer-preventative effects. OBJECTIVES: To critically assess any associations between green tea consumption and the risk of cancer incidence and mortality. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched eligible studies up to January 2009 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Amed, CancerLit, Psych INFO and Phytobase and reference lists of previous reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all prospective, controlled interventional studies and observational studies, which either assessed the associations between green tea consumption and risk of cancer incidence or that reported on cancer mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently applied the study criteria, extracted data and assessed methodological quality of studies. Due to the nature of included studies, which were mainly epidemiological, results were summarised descriptively according to cancer diagnosis. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-one studies with more than 1.6 million participants were included. Twenty-seven of them were case-control studies, 23 cohort studies and one randomised controlled trial (RCT).Twenty-seven studies tried to establish an association between green tea consumption and cancer of the digestive tract, mainly of the upper gastrointestinal tract, five with breast cancer, five with prostate cancer, three with lung cancer, two with ovarian cancer, two with urinary bladder cancer one with oral cancer, three further studies included patients with various cancer diagnoses.The methodological quality was measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). The 9 nested case-control studies within prospective cohorts were of high methodological quality, 13 of medium, and 1 of low. One retrospective case-control study was of high methodological quality and 21 of medium and 5 of low.Results from studies assessing associations between green tea and risk of digestive tract cancer incidence were highly contradictory. There was limited evidence that green tea could reduce the incidence of liver cancer. The evidence for esophageal, gastric, colon, rectum, and pancreatic cancer was conflicting. In prostate cancer, observational studies with higher methodological quality and the only included RCT suggested a decreased risk in men consuming higher quantities green tea or green tea extracts. However, there was limited to moderate evidence that the consumption of green tea reduced the risk of lung cancer, especially in men, and urinary bladder cancer or that it could even increase the risk of the latter. There was moderate to strong evidence that green tea consumption does not decrease the risk of dying from gastric cancer. There was limited moderate to strong evidence for lung, pancreatic and colorectal cancer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient and conflicting evidence to give any firm recommendations regarding green tea consumption for cancer prevention. The results of this review, including its trends of associations, need to be interpreted with caution and their generalisability is questionable, as the majority of included studies were carried out in Asia (n = 47) where the tea drinking culture is pronounced. Desirable green tea intake is 3 to 5 cups per day (up to 1200 ml/day), providing a minimum of 250 mg/day catechins. If not exceeding the daily recommended allowance, those who enjoy a cup of green tea should continue its consumption. Drinking green tea appears to be safe at moderate, regular and habitual use.

Laetrile for cancer: a systematic review of the clinical evidence.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients treated with conventional therapies also try 'alternative' cancer treatments. Laetrile is one such 'alternative' that is claimed to be effective by many alternative therapists. Laetrile is also sometimes referred to as amygdalin, although the two are not the same. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to summarize all types of clinical data related to the effectiveness or safety of laetrile interventions as a treatment of any type of cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All types of clinical studies containing original clinical data of laetrile interventions were included. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1951), EMBASE (from 1980), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), Scirus, CancerLit, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL; all from 1982), CAMbase (from 1998), the MetaRegister, the National Research Register, and our own files. For reports on the safety of laetrile, we also searched the Uppsala database. No language restrictions were imposed. RESULTS: Thirty six reports met our inclusion criteria. No controlled clinical trials were found. Three articles were nonconsecutive case series, 2 were consecutive case series, 6 were best case series, and 25 were case reports. None of these publications proved the effectiveness of laetrile. CONCLUSION: Therefore, the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data.

Newspaper coverage of complementary and alternative therapies for cancer--UK 2002-2004.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative therapies (CATs) are increasingly being used by cancer patients. These patients often rely on information retrieved from the lay press, which can affect their choices towards unconventional treatments for their disease. In this study, we aimed at assessing UK newspapers' coverage of CATs for cancer. METHODS: The "Lexis Nexis" database was searched for 3-month periods in 2002, 2003 and 2004. The search terms were combined: "complementary OR alternative AND medicine OR therapy AND cancer". CATs were grouped and articles' contents were assessed according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: A total of 310 articles were found: 117 came from national newspapers; 193 came from local newspaper issues. The UK press showed an increasing interest towards CATs for cancer (in 2002, 81 articles; in 2003, 82 articles and in 2004, 147 articles). The most frequently mentioned alternative therapies were diets and supplements (17.7%). Articles mainly focused on CATs as possible cancer treatments (44.8%), and 53.4% of all CATs mentioned were not backed up by trial data. The tone of the articles was generally positive towards CATs. Promotional articles increased over the years, especially for cancer centres and clinics. CONCLUSION: UK national newspapers frequently publish articles on CATs for cancer. Much of this information seems to be uncritical with a potential for misleading patients.

Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment.

Many cancer patients use homeopathic approaches to increase their body's ability to fight cancer, improve their physical and emotional well-being, and alleviate their pain resulting from the disease or conventional treatments. Homeopathy is highly controversial as there is no plausible mode of action for these highly diluted remedies. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and critically evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic remedies used as a sole or additional therapy in cancer care. We have searched the literature using the databases: Amed (from 1985); CINHAL (from 1982); EMBASE (from 1974); Medline (from 1951); and CAMbase (from 1998). Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials including patients with cancer or past experience of cancer receiving single or combined homeopathic interventions were included. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed by Jadad score. Six studies met our inclusion criteria (five were randomised clinical trials and one was a non-randomised study); but the methodological quality was variable including some high standard studies. Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.