Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Common drugs used to treat cancer may be more harmful to healthy brain cells than the cancer cells

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.