"Study shows antioxidant use may promote spread of cancer"

[Delta4Embassy]

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-10-antioxidant-cancer.html

"A team of scientists at the Children's Research Institute at UT Southwestern (CRI) has made a discovery that suggests cancer cells benefit more from antioxidants than normal cells, raising concerns about the use of dietary antioxidants by patients with cancer. The studies were conducted in specialized mice that had been transplanted with melanoma cells from patients. Prior studies had shown that the metastasis of human melanoma cells in these mice is predictive of their metastasis in patients.

Metastasis, the process by which cancer cells disseminate from their primary site to other parts of the body, leads to the death of most cancer patients. The CRI team found that when antioxidants were administered to the mice, the cancer spread more quickly than in mice that did not get antioxidants. The study was published online today in Nature.

It has long been known that the spread of cancer cells from one part of the body to another is an inefficient process in which the vast majority of cancer cells that enter the blood fail to survive.

"We discovered that metastasizing melanoma cells experience very high levels of oxidative stress, which leads to the death of most metastasizing cells," said Dr. Sean Morrison, CRI Director and Mary McDermott Cook Chair in Pediatric Genetics at UT Southwestern Medical Center. "Administration of antioxidants to the mice allowed more of the metastasizing melanoma cells to survive, increasing metastatic disease burden.""

Uh-oh, take a number of antioxidants as prophylactic against cancer and other things. I hope this turns out to be another pro-pharmaceutical company mouthpieces trying to discourage preventative health measures, and not legit science.

 

[Compost]

If I understand what the article says, taking anti oxidants if you don't have cancer is not a problem and may be beneficial. What they found is that cancer cells may be better fought with pro oxidants.

Personally, I'll wait for more studies on this before I throw away my flax seeds or declare that it's the evil pharm machine at work.

 

[Penelope]

If I understand what the article says, taking anti oxidants if you don't have cancer is not a problem and may be beneficial. What they found is that cancer cells may be better fought with pro oxidants.

Personally, I'll wait for more studies on this before I throw away my flax seeds or declare that it's the evil pharm machine at work.

We all have abnormal cells in us, aka cancer cells.

 

[Compost]

If I understand what the article says, taking anti oxidants if you don't have cancer is not a problem and may be beneficial. What they found is that cancer cells may be better fought with pro oxidants.

Personally, I'll wait for more studies on this before I throw away my flax seeds or declare that it's the evil pharm machine at work.

We all have abnormal cells in us, aka cancer cells.

There's a difference between having abnormal cells and a diagnosis of cancer. This is an interesting study but that is all it is, at this point.

 

[Penelope]

If I understand what the article says, taking anti oxidants if you don't have cancer is not a problem and may be beneficial. What they found is that cancer cells may be better fought with pro oxidants.

Personally, I'll wait for more studies on this before I throw away my flax seeds or declare that it's the evil pharm machine at work.

We all have abnormal cells in us, aka cancer cells.

There's a difference between having abnormal cells and a diagnosis of cancer. This is an interesting study but that is all it is, at this point.

Cancer is just the growth and spread of abnormal cells, and we may have it and not even know. I agree , these studies change all the time, best to ingest everything in moderation.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If I understand what the article says, taking anti oxidants if you don't have cancer is not a problem and may be beneficial. What they found is that cancer cells may be better fought with pro oxidants.

Personally, I'll wait for more studies on this before I throw away my flax seeds or declare that it's the evil pharm machine at work.

Problem is there's cancerous cells in everyone already. When a person 'gets cancer' it's not something new entered the body, but what's already there started replicating.

What Causes Cancer At the Cellular Level? (the Cancer Tutor Website)

 

[Compost]

While nit picking how we describe our own cells is diverting, I'm more interested in whether there will be any follow up on the OP sited study. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[waltky]

Targeting cancer cells without harming healthy ones...

Immune mechanism protecting tumors can be turned against them
Oct. 19, 2015 - By eliminating limits on a specific immune response, researchers think they can help the body target cancer cells without harming healthy ones.

In the immune system's response to infection or inflammation, some immune cells undergo changes that allow them to fight specific diseased cells. This response is controlled by a balance of cells that do not change -- which researchers think helps prevent the immune system from attacking tumor cells. Researchers think blocking the mechanism in targeted areas around cancer cells may increase the immune response to them, providing a new method of immunotherapy against the disease. "Our findings results suggest a new strategy for immune system-based therapies for cancer," said Dr. Harvey Cantor, a researcher at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School. "By targeting a genetic pathway in cells that ordinarily restrain the immune response to cancer, we may be able to convert them into cancer fighters. The challenge now is to develop antibodies and small-molecule drugs that can trigger that change."

Limits on the immune response to infection and inflammation allows the growth of tumors, researchers said. They think that by blocking the mechanism causing these limits could allow the immune system to fight cancer cells more effectively.​

The researchers found effector T cells, or Teffs, undergo rapid changes in response to inflammation, turning into cells that target diseased cells. This reaction is kept in check by regulatory T cells, called Tregs, in order to prevent damage to normal, healthy tissue. Tregs are kept stable, preventing their transformation into disease-fighting Teffs, by a high level of proteins called helios -- those with high levels help to contain immune response, while those with lower levels are not steady enough to control the response. In mice genetically incapable of producing helios, researchers found T-cells and antibodies attacking normal tissue in the rodents' bodies, and that Treg cells had been changing into Teffs and joining the immune response against healthy tissue.

When mice were injected with metastatic melanoma cells the rodents that could not produce helios developed less cancer and lived longer than mice that can produce the protein -- leading researchers to think that if helios can be reduced using targeted therapy, the immune system could be turned against tumors. "The aim of current approaches is to eliminate Tregs, and thereby increase anti-tumor immunity," Cantor said. "Our findings raise the possibility of achieving a double-barreled effect - by targeting Helios, we may not only reduce the number of Tregs but also convert surviving Tregs into Teffs." The researchers are currently testing antibodies and small-molecule drugs to target Helios or the genes that lead to their expression in immune cells. The study is published in the journal Science.

Immune mechanism protecting tumors can be turned against them

See also:

Number of moles on right arm could indicate melanoma risk
Oct. 19, 2015 - Having 11 or more moles on the right arm was found to show an increased risk for cancer in a new study

Mole counts are one of the basic ways that doctors assess risk for melanoma. Researchers at the University College London devised a method of estimating the number of moles on a person's body, using it to estimate their risk for skin cancer. Most moles do not turn into cancer, however the researchers found in a new study that women with more than 11 moles on their right arm were more likely to develop a melanoma.

While only about half of all melanomas start from moles already on the body, a higher number of moles can mean a larger risk of developing the cancer.​

The method of determining risk is based on the total number of moles on a person's body, but counting moles on the entire body can be time consuming in a regular patient visit. Researchers said assessing patients with an estimate at first could save time and indicate earlier if patients are at risk. "The findings could have a significant impact for primary care, allowing general practitioners to more accurately estimate the total number of moles in a patient extremely quickly via an easily accessible body part," Simone Ribero, a researcher in the department of twin research and genetic epidemiology at University College London, said in a press release. "This would mean that more patients at risk of melanoma can be identified and monitored." The researchers worked with 3,694 female twins between January 1995 and December 2003. Each of the twins had a skin examination with moles counted on 17 sites on their bodies by trained nurses. The same counting method was used in an additional group of about 400 men and women.

They found arms and legs were the most representative of the total number of moles on the body, settling on the right arm as the most accurate. Women with more than seven moles on their right arm were nine times at risk of having more than 50 on their entire body. Women with 11 on their arm were more likely to have over 100 moles on their bodies, which the researchers determined as a cut-off for indicating a higher risk of cancer. Ribero said the results of the study could help primary care physicians better evaluate risk for and diagnose melanoma. The study is published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Number of moles on right arm could indicate melanoma risk

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - lookit dat Jimmy Carter grinin' like a possum eatin' peanuts...

Trial: Immunotherapy more effective than chemo for lung cancer
Dec. 22, 2015 - A new UCLA study shows Keytruda is more effective than chemotherapy for lung cancer.

The drug pembrolizumab, sold in the United States as Keytruda, was shown to be more effective against lung cancer than chemotherapy, according to a new study conducted at the University of California Los Angeles. The drug was approved in October by the Food and Drug Administration for use with a specific group of advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with a genetic mutation. Former President Jimmy Carter's cancer also was successfully treated with Keytruda.

Keytruda targets a protein expressed by immune cells that is exploited by cancer cells. By targeting the protein, the immune system can more strongly attack tumor cells. "By continuing to refine and expand our selection of patients who stand to benefit from this type of therapy, we are profoundly changing the way that patients with this common cancer are treated," said Dr. Edward Garon, a researcher at UCLA, in a press release. "For most patients, this now offers data showing that immunotherapy leads to superior clinical outcomes with a side effect profile that is generally favorable to our traditional therapies."

Former United States President Jimmy Carter cancer is in complete remission after being treated with Keytruda, which a new study showed is more effective against lung cancer than chemotherapy. Carter is seen above at Barnes & Noble Fifth Avenue in New York City

In the study, researchers enrolled 1,034 patients between 2013 and 2015, randomly giving them one of two dosage sizes of pembrolizumab or the chemotherapy drug docetaxel. The researchers found no significant difference in overall survival between the docetaxel and a low dose of pembrolizumab, however a higher dose of the immunotherapy drug was significantly more effective than the chemotherapy. "This treatment provides real hope of long-lasting responses while avoiding the toxicities of typical chemotherapy in a broad population of lung cancer patients," Garon said. "We are excited that these results have identified a larger group of patients for whom in general, immunotherapy is a superior treatment option than traditional approaches." The study is published in The Lancet.

Trial: Immunotherapy more effective than chemo for lung cancer​

See also:

Drugs approved for other conditions may have antibiotic effects
Dec. 22, 2015 - Researchers at the University of Illinois found they may be able to target bacteria by combining already-approved drugs, effectively creating new antibiotics to treat infections which have become resistant to traditional antibiotics.

The scientists said using other drugs to target multiple points on bacteria cells could be effective because bacteria may not be able adapt as quickly to new treatments. "What we found is that a lot of FDA-approved molecules that are in use actually do kill bacteria and also act as uncouplers. We were kind of surprised to find that," said Eric Oldfield, a chemistry professor at the University of Illinois, in a press release. "What's even better is that some of those molecules also inhibit enzymes specific to bacteria, or disrupt the membrane or the cell wall."

In the study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers showed currently-approved drugs such as the lebrosy drug Lamprene, the infertility drug clomiphene, and the 3-year-old bedaquiline, which is used for tuberculosis, can be used against infectious bacteria.

Researchers think by combining drugs, which will attack different targets on bacterial cells, new antibiotic drugs can be synthesized that will take longer for bugs to develop resistance to.​

The researchers said they plan to develop compounds similar to the drugs that more effectively kill bacterial cells and may also help prevent resistance. "The whole idea is that it's possible that some of these compounds that are FDA-approved will work. You can screen a million chemicals to find a new compound but in general you have no idea about its toxicology, or you can start with something that's known," Oldfield said. "Once you start making derivatives, you'll have to prove they're safe, but there's a greater chance to get something that's safe and effective by starting with an approved drug than if you just go into the chemistry lab and screen unknown compounds."

Drugs approved for other conditions may have antibiotic effects