Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006
Common drugs used to treat cancer may be more harmful to healthy brain cells than the cancer cells
|
|
Thread rating:  |
TC - 03 Dec 2006 23:44 GMT http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/health/2006/11/30/common-cancer-drugs-could-be -harmful-to-brain-cells/
Rochester (eCanadaNow) - Common drugs used to treat cancer may be more harmful to healthy brain cells than the cancer cells that they are intended to destroy. That is the conclusion of a study conducted by researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center and published today in the Journal of Biology. The results, which also indicate that chemotherapy may cause long-term brain damage, represent the closest that scientists have come to pinpointing the underlying physiological cause of "chemo brain," a common side effect of cancer treatment that scientists are only now beginning to comprehend.
Cancer patients who receive chemotherapy have long complained of adverse neurological side effects ranging from memory loss to, in extreme cases, seizures, vision loss and even dementia. Until very recently, these conditions were often dismissed as unrelated to the cancer treatment and rather the result of the patient's mental state. However, a growing body of evidence has documented the scope and cognitive impact of chemo brain. A study earlier this year conducted by the James P. Wilmot Cancer Center at the University of Rochester suggested that upwards of 82% of cancer patients reported that they suffer from some form of cognitive impairment.
While scientists have suspected that chemotherapy may have an impact on healthy cells in the central nervous system, the precise mechanisms of this condition were not fully understood. Now a University of Rochester team led by Mark Noble, Ph.D. believes that they have unraveled the mystery behind chemo brain. "This is the first study that puts chemo brain on a sound scientific footing, in terms of neurobiology and cellular biology."
As in other organs and systems in the body, the central nervous system is populated with several types of cells that produce or repair the cells needed for normal function. These cells fall into three general categories: dividing stem cells, dividing intermediate cells types called precursors and progenitors, and non-dividing mature cells.
Noble and his team exposed several different populations of healthy brain cells as well as multiple human cancer cell lines to clinically relevant levels of three commonly used chemotherapy drugs ? carmustine, cisplatin, and cytosine arabinoside. These drugs are used to treat a wide range of cancers, including certain types of breast cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, leukemia, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and, in the case of carmustine, brain tumors.
They discovered that these drugs were far more toxic to the healthy brain cells than to cancer cells; exposure levels typically used when treating patients killed 70-100% of neural cells but just 40-80% of the cancer cells. In animal models, several types of healthy cells continued to die for at least six weeks after treatment. Notably, these drugs were toxic to both non-dividing cells and dividing stem cells, precursors, and progenitors even at very low concentrations. Destruction of dividing cells was not altogether unexpected, as that is what these drugs are designed to target. However, the loss of dividing cells has onerous consequences as these populations are responsible for replenishing the other cell types in the central nervous system.
Noble speculates that there are two possible ways the destruction of these healthy cells result in cognitive problems. First, scientists believe that the cell division ? or neurogenesis ? that occurs in the hippocampus is essential to learning and memory. Hence, the cognitive side effects of chemotherapy could potentially be traced to the drugs' disruption of the process of neurogenesis in this particular region of the brain.
Noble also points to the destruction of a specific cell type that plays a critical supporting role in the central nervous system. These cells, called oligodendrocytes, are responsible for producing myelin, the fatty substance that, like insulation wrapped around a wire, covers nearly all the large nerve cells processes ? called axons ? in our bodies and helps signals in the nervous system move crisply and rapidly from one point to another.
"The oligodendrocyte is an amazing cell that from its cell body supports a volume of myelin membrane that can be thousands of times the volume of the cell body," says Noble. "Myelin membranes are very dynamic and are always being turned over and renewed. However, if you kill the oligodendrocyte cell, then myelin membrane eventually disintegrates."
Because everything in the nervous system is based upon precise timing of information transfer, this destruction of the insulation necessary in normal impulse transmission has significant neurological ramifications.
Noble and his team are quick to point out that no one should avoid cancer treatment because of these results and that chemotherapy will remain a cornerstone of cancer therapy for the foreseeable future. Instead, they believe that the opportunity for the scientific community is to use this knowledge to develop ways to protect the brain's cells from these drugs. Their research points to several potential strategies that the Rochester scientists are now pursuing, ranging from application of protective agents to understanding why some people are spared neurological side effects while others are not. Additionally, the approach used in the study could serve as a screening method to analyze the effectiveness of new cancer therapies to determine, in advance, which cell populations are at risk during treatment.
*****
Now they find this out!
TC
Doug Freese - 04 Dec 2006 01:45 GMT > http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/health/2006/11/30/common-cancer-drugs-could-be -harmful-to-brain-cells/ > > Now they find this out! So let's see, dead or a alive with few less brain cells. I wonder what most would chose?
-DF
TC - 04 Dec 2006 05:47 GMT > > http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/health/2006/11/30/common-cancer-drugs-could-be -harmful-to-brain-cells/ > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -DF Hey, sh.t for brains. I just witnessed my father-in-law live more than twice as long as the oncologist predicted with much better quality of life than he would've had with chemo and radiation treatments. So don't f.cking come in here suggesting that allopathuc doctors and their f.cking chemo are saving lives, you f.cking moron.
They don't know what the hell they are doing. They predicted 6 months without treatment and maybe 8 with chemo. He lives a year and a half at home with the people he loved rather than in a hospital with poison in his veins and tubes in his arms.
Idiot. Go sell your pharma agenda somewhere else.
TC
coonskin@amestwp.com - 04 Dec 2006 14:55 GMT "Hey, sh.t for brains. I just witnessed my father-in-law live more than twice as long as the oncologist predicted with much better quality of life than he would've had with chemo and radiation treatments. So don't f.cking come in here suggesting that allopathuc doctors and their f.cking chemo are saving lives, you f.cking moron.
They don't know what the hell they are doing. They predicted 6 months without treatment and maybe 8 with chemo. He lives a year and a half at home with the people he loved rather than in a hospital with poison in his veins and tubes in his arms.
Idiot. Go sell your pharma agenda somewhere else."
Such predictions are based on a bell curve, most die in the fat middle of the curve, a few sooner and a few longer. What treatment would you substitute for scientific medicine in case of cancer? Sorry for your loss, but it as a case of one supports little about the population of those with the same cancer in the same stage etc.as to outcomes. It should be easy to find the research that shows what survival for x years with the various treatments available. It is on that basis that one might consider the loss of some brain cells against the survival rate.
TC - 04 Dec 2006 17:47 GMT > "Hey, sh.t for brains. I just witnessed my father-in-law live more than > twice as long as the oncologist predicted with much better quality of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of the curve, a few sooner and a few longer. What treatment would you > substitute for scientific medicine in case of cancer? In this case it appears that the treatment selected ie. none, was the best decision. And I know what treatment(s) I would select. But that is my business.
But here is the rub as I see it. Here is this oncologist. A highly trained allopathic advanced degree state-of-the-science trained doctor. How much actual experience does he have that would impart him intimate knowledge about how long patients live *without* treatment? Once the patient declines treatment, the patients medical care goes to his GP and maybe a pain specialist. The oncologist has little or nothing to do with the patient anymore. But the oncologist is very familiar and very intimately familiar with how long patients last *with* treatment. That is what he does day in and day out. He takes sick people and fills them up with poisons to try to kill the cancer before he kills the patient. And with that he also hits them with large doses of radiation. He is very very familiar with how patients survive the treatments and their cancers.
My point is that I firmly believe that this oncologist was very likely failrly accurate when he predicted that the patient would go for 8 months with treatment. And he very likely did not have a friggin' clue what he was talking about when he predicted 6 months without treatment. Think about that and the ramifications for a while.
Oh yeah, and when my father-in-law told the oncologist that he was choosing to forgo the treatments, the oncologist went apeshit on him and did all he could to convince him to go thru with the treatments. The oncologist was pissed and he made it very clear that he was. Either he was a well meaning person, very intent on doing all he could to "save lives" or he saw a cash cow walking away and did not like it one bit. Guess which one I think it is?
TC
> Sorry for your > loss, but it as a case of one supports little about the population of > those with the same cancer in the same stage etc.as to outcomes. It > should be easy to find the research that shows what survival for x years > with the various treatments available. It is on that basis that one > might consider the loss of some brain cells against the survival rate. capmack@amestwp.com - 04 Dec 2006 19:36 GMT "In this case it appears that the treatment selected ie. none, was the best decision. And I know what treatment(s) I would select. But that is my business."
We don't know and there is no way to know. Life expectancy is based on each cancer in each stage as observation, experience, and looking at the stats for large groups. It would be a good guess that on average his ability to predict such things would in the end from many patients reflect the bell curve that describes the odds.
Ah, so you would be off to mexico one presumes?
Anti scientific medicene rant snipped.
TC - 04 Dec 2006 21:24 GMT > "In this case it appears that the treatment selected ie. none, was the > best decision. And I know what treatment(s) I would select. But that is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ah, so you would be off to mexico one presumes? Nope. There are other easily available and effective anti-cancer treatments and regimes that do not involve systemic poisons, massive doses of radiation and radical surgeries.
TC
> Anti scientific medicene rant snipped. coonskin@amestwp.com - 04 Dec 2006 21:45 GMT "Nope. There are other easily available and effective anti-cancer treatments and regimes that do not involve systemic poisons, massive doses of radiation and radical surgeries."
Good to hear of them, would be happy to review the information about same, including 5 year survival rates which is the standard measure of current approaches..
Jeff - 04 Dec 2006 22:04 GMT >> "In this case it appears that the treatment selected ie. none, was the >> best decision. And I know what treatment(s) I would select. But that is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > treatments and regimes that do not involve systemic poisons, massive > doses of radiation and radical surgeries. Would you be kind enough to provide scientific references that show that these "treatments" work?
Jeff
> TC > >> Anti scientific medicene rant snipped. Jeff - 04 Dec 2006 17:33 GMT >> > http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/health/2006/11/30/common-cancer-drugs-could-be -harmful-to-brain-cells/ >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > f.cking come in here suggesting that allopathuc doctors and their > f.cking chemo are saving lives, you f.cking moron. I am sorry to hear about your father-in-law.
Perhaps he would have lived a lot longer and had an even higher quality of life if he had radiation and chemotherapy. Like most people who are diagnosed with cancer, he might have even been cured. There is no way to know what would have happened with your father-in-law had he accepted standard treatment.
> They don't know what the hell they are doing. They predicted 6 months > without treatment and maybe 8 with chemo. He lives a year and a half at > home with the people he loved rather than in a hospital with poison in > his veins and tubes in his arms. That's why the majority of people who get cancer are cured and the around 75% of kids who get cancer are cured.
> Idiot. Go sell your pharma agenda somewhere else. Doug is correct. Which is better being alive with fewer brain cells (actually, the MRI changes that were seen in one of the studies were reversed after about 3 years) or dead? Most people with cancer pick the right way and are cured.
Jeff
> TC TC - 04 Dec 2006 22:12 GMT > >> > http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/health/2006/11/30/common-cancer-drugs-could-be -harmful-to-brain-cells/ > >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > know what would have happened with your father-in-law had he accepted > standard treatment. You didn't read what I wrote, did you?
The oncologist said he would die in 6 months without treatment. With chemo and radiation he could give him two months more.
His choices were:
1) Six months in the comfort of his home managing the pain as best as possible
or
2) Eight months in and out of hospital feeling like death warmed over.
What would your choice be?
And in the end the oncologist was dead wrong in his prediction.
TC
> > They don't know what the hell they are doing. They predicted 6 months > > without treatment and maybe 8 with chemo. He lives a year and a half at [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > TC Jeff - 04 Dec 2006 22:46 GMT >> >> > http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/health/2006/11/30/common-cancer-drugs-could-be -harmful-to-brain-cells/ >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > You didn't read what I wrote, did you? Yes I did. That doesn't mean I agree with your conclusions.
> The oncologist said he would die in 6 months without treatment. With > chemo and radiation he could give him two months more. These are predictions, not times set in stone.
> His choices were: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What would your choice be? Without knowing all the details, I don't know.
> And in the end the oncologist was dead wrong in his prediction. In the end, your fil might have lived 1 month or 20 years had he got the treatment the oncologist recommended. We don't and can't know.
Jeff
> TC <...>
TC - 05 Dec 2006 01:27 GMT > >> >> > http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/health/2006/11/30/common-cancer-drugs-could-be -harmful-to-brain-cells/ > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Jeff Do you even read what you respond to?
TC
|
|
|