Conventional treatment actually enriches the tumor population?

Options
jojo68
jojo68 Member Posts: 881
edited June 2014 in Alternative Medicine

Study: Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More Malignant




Posted on:

Tuesday, June 26th 2012 at 10:30 am


Written By:

Sayer Ji, Founder



Study: Radiation Therapy May Make Cancers 30x More Malignant

Following on the heels of recent revelations thatx-ray mammographymay be contributing to an epidemic of future radiation-induced breast cancers, in a new article titled, "Radiation Treatment Generates Therapy Resistant Cancer Stem Cells From Aggressive Breast Cancer Cells," published in the journalCancerJuly 1st, 2012, researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center report thatradiation treatment actually drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy.

The researchers found that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to30 times more likely to form tumorsthan the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.

Last month, a related study published in the journalStem Cellstitled, "Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cells," found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed less malignant (more differentiated) breast cancer cells into iBCSCs, helping to explain why conventional treatment actually enriches the tumor population with higher levels oftreatment-resistant cells.[i]

A growing body of research now indicts conventional cancer treatment with chemotherapy and radiation as a major contributing cause of cancer patient mortality.  The primary reason for this is the fact that cancer stem cells, which are almost exclusively resistant to conventional treatment, are not being targeted, but to the contrary, are encouraged to thrive when exposed to chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

In order to understand how conventional treatment drives the cancer into greater malignancy, we must first understand what cancer is....

cancer lymphocyte

What Are Cancer Stem Cells, And Why Are They Resistant To Treatment?

Tumors are actually highly organized assemblages of cells, which are surprisingly well-coordinated for cells that are supposed to be the result of strictly random mutation. They are capable of building their own blood supply (angiogenesis), are able to defend themselves by silencing cancer-suppression genes, secreting corrosive enzymes to move freely throughout the body, alter their metabolism to live in low oxygen and acidic environments, and know how to remove their own surface-receptor proteins to escape detection by white blood cells. In a previous article titled "Is Cancer An Ancient Survival Program Unmasked?" we delved deeper into this emerging view of cancer as an evolutionary throw-back and not a byproduct of strictly random mutation.

Because tumors are not simply the result of one or more mutated cells "going rogue" and producing exact clones of itself (multi-mutational and clonal hypotheses), but are a diverse group of cells having radically different phenotypal characteristics, chemotherapy and radiation will affect each cell type differently.

Tumors are composed of a wide range of cells, many of which are entirely benign.

The most deadly cell type within a tumor or blood cancer, known ascancer stem cells (CSCs),has the ability to give rise to all the cell types found within that cancer.

They are capable of dividing by mitosis to form either two stem cells (increasing the size of the stem population), or one daughter cell that goes on to differentiate into a variety of cell types, and one daughter cell that retains stem-cell properties.

This means CSCs are tumorigenic (tumor-forming) andshould bethe primary target of cancer treatment because they are capable of both initiating and sustaining cancer.  They are also increasingly recognized to be the cause of relapse and metastasis following conventional treatment.

CSCs are exceptionally resistant to conventional treatment for the following reasons

The existence of CSCs explains why conventional cancer treatment has completely missed the boat when it comes to targeting the root cause of tumors. One reason for this is because existing cancer treatments have mostly been developed in animal models where the goal is to shrink a tumor. Because mice are most often used and their life spans do not exceed two years, tumor relapse is very difficult, if not impossible to study.

The first round of chemotherapy never kills the entire tumor, but only a percentage. This phenomenon is called the fractional kill. The goal is to use repeated treatment cycles (usually six) to regress the tumor population down to zero, without killing the patient.  

What normally occurs is that the treatment selectively kills the less harmful populations of cells (daughter cells), increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign and/or less malignant cells.  This is not unlike what happens when antibiotics are used to treat certain infections. The drug may wipe out 99.9% of the target bacteria, but .1% have or develop resistance to the agent, enabling the .1% to come back even stronger with time.

The antibiotic, also, kills the other beneficial bacteria that help the body fight infection naturally, in the same way that chemotherapy kills the patient's immune system (white blood cells and bone marrow), ultimately supporting the underlying conditions making disease recurrence more likely.

The reality is that the chemotherapy, even though it has reduced the tumor volume, by increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign daughter cells, has actually made the cancer more malignant.

Radiotherapyhas also been shown to increase cancer stem cells in the prostate, ultimately resulting in cancer recurrence and worsened prognosis.[iii] Cancer stem cells may also explain why castration therapy often fails in prostate cancer treatment.[iv]

Non-Toxic Natural Substances Which Target and Kill CSCs

Natural compounds have been shown to exhibit three properties which make them suitable alternatives to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy:

The primary reason why these substances are not used in conventional treatment is because they arenot patentable, nor profitable. Sadly, the criteria for drug selection are not safety, effectiveness, accessibility and affordability. If this were so, natural compounds would form an integral part of the standard of care in modern cancer treatment.

Research indicates that the following compounds (along with common dietary sources) have the ability to target CSCs:

Additional research found on the GreenMedInfo.com Multidrug Resistance page indicate over 50 compounds inhibitmultidrug resistance cancersin experimental models.


[i]Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cancer cells. Stem Cells. 2012 May ;30(5):833-44. PMID:22489015

[ii]Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med. 1997 Jul ;3(7):730-7. PMID:9212098

[iii]Long-term recovery of irradiated prostate cancer increases cancer stem cells. Prostate. 2012 Apr 18. Epub 2012 Apr 18. PMID:22513891

[iv]Stem-Like Cells with Luminal Progenitor Phenotype Survive Castration in Human Prostate Cancer. Stem Cells. 2012 Mar 21. Epub 2012 Mar 21. PMID:22438320


«13

Comments

  • SelenaWolf
    SelenaWolf Member Posts: 1,724
    edited November 2013

    "Dr. Pajonk says the study does not discredit radiation therapy. “Patients come to me scared by the idea that radiation generates these cells, but it truly is the safest and most effective therapy there is.”"

  • jojo68
    jojo68 Member Posts: 881
    edited November 2013

    That comment alone is not enough to take away the research presented in this study.  Everything has a disclaimer.

  • jojo68
    jojo68 Member Posts: 881
    edited November 2013

    Just trying to present the WHOLE picture for those 'on the fence'...not trying to start an argument.

  • jojo68
    jojo68 Member Posts: 881
    edited November 2013

    If we want to start highlighting quotes from the article...here is a good one as well.

    Natural compounds have been shown to exhibit three properties which make them suitable alternatives to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy:

    The primary reason why these substances are not used in conventional treatment is because they are not patentable, nor profitable. Sadly, the criteria for drug selection are not safety, effectiveness, accessibility and affordability. If this were so, natural compounds would form an integral part of the standard of care in modern cancer treatment.


     

  • SelenaWolf
    SelenaWolf Member Posts: 1,724
    edited November 2013

    To which I would - again - reiterate, "Dr. Pajonk says the study does not discredit radiation therapy. “Patients come to me scared by the idea that radiation generates these cells, but it truly is the safest and most effective therapy there is.”


     

  • jojo68
    jojo68 Member Posts: 881
    edited November 2013

    If I had done radiation and/or chemo, I would be scared as well...

  • SelenaWolf
    SelenaWolf Member Posts: 1,724
    edited November 2013

    There is no reason to be.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited November 2013


    THIS is a Complimentary Forum. I believe the original post belongs in the Alternative Forum.


    THIS Forum is for women who want to "compliment" their treatments with a more integrated approach


    Thank you SelenaWolf for tying to being some balance to the thread, but I don' think the original poster is looking for balance.

  • Beesie
    Beesie Member Posts: 12,240
    edited November 2013


    "Dr. Pajonk says the study does not discredit radiation therapy. “Patients come to me scared by the idea that radiation generates these cells, but it truly is the safest and most effective therapy there is.”


    "That comment alone is not enough to take away the research presented in this study. Everything has a disclaimer."


    That comment IS NOT A DISCLAIMER.


    That comment is the SUMMARY CONCLUSION made by the senior author of the study.


    Personally I have more confidence and trust in the conclusion drawn by the doctor/researcher who was the author of the study and who has focused his career on studying this issue vs. something said by someone with a BA in Philosophy, who has served as a consultant to the natural products industry.


    I agree that this thread should be in the Alternate Forum, not the Complementary Forum.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited November 2013


    Beesie -


    I always want to acknowledge your willingness to keep trying to keep the focus on balance. But if you read the "tag line" ( the antis) on the OP, this is meant to create, foment, an argument. Really think it's best to just ignore. The SUMMARY CONCULSION can be highlighted, but ignored by those who don't want to believe it. Sad. This used to stay in the Alternative Forum, sorry to see it in so many other Forums now.


    Giving thanks again to the Moderators for trying to keep this from happening.

  • Rdrunner
    Rdrunner Member Posts: 309
    edited November 2013


    omg.. Im sorry but evaluating a study like this (refering to stem cells) without a strong and sound understanding of stem cells in general and cancer and how it effects them very very early on in the process.. is just bloody negligent . Fine alternative, fine complimentary but dont bloody push something you have no understanding of. This from the person who needed a basic CBC explained to her omg..

  • NattyOnFrostyLake
    NattyOnFrostyLake Member Posts: 377
    edited November 2013


    Good work, Joellelee,


    It always cracks me up when the authors of a study contradict their own data findings with a wishy washy conclusion. She's covering her hiney by parroting standard of care. LOL.


    Beesie, I'm suprised at you. Don't you remember what you said about the study concluding radiation had no survival value? You said the conclusion was just tossed off and didn't mean anything. Now you're embracing this conclusion? Double standard?


    See you next week. Hugs!

  • Beesie
    Beesie Member Posts: 12,240
    edited November 2013


    Natty, I was commenting only on jojo68's use of the term "disclaimer" when referring to the author's conclusion.


    Every piece of research is different; some are well done and others are not. Some researchers are unbiased and others go into a study with a particular goal in mind. My comments on any one research study are specific to that study.


    EDITED to change joellelee's name to her new screen name, jojo68.

  • Mardibra
    Mardibra Member Posts: 1,111
    edited November 2013


    Natty - you may want to consider changing your name to NastyGroves….

  • MmeJ
    MmeJ Member Posts: 167
    edited November 2013


    Hey, Joellelee, why did you change your screen name to jojo68?


    Here's a link to a skeptical site regarding the works of Sayer Ji.


    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/10/18/quoth-sayer-ji-modern-medicine-is-cannibalism/

  • jojo68
    jojo68 Member Posts: 881
    edited November 2013

    I changed my screen name because I didn't realize that BCO was seen by all search engines...wanted some anonymity like most of you.  Why the big deal?  Can still tell it is me by my siggy Smile

  • jojo68
    jojo68 Member Posts: 881
    edited November 2013

    That is completely childish and totally uncalled for mardibra.  But, I don't expect anything different.

  • MmeJ
    MmeJ Member Posts: 167
    edited November 2013


    It's not a big deal - no need to be aggressive. I just asked.

  • jojo68
    jojo68 Member Posts: 881
    edited November 2013

    Sorry Mme...just on the defensive, I guess.  Singing

  • Beesie
    Beesie Member Posts: 12,240
    edited November 2013


    jojo, have you seen some of what Natty has said in her posts? Her now deleted post to exbrnxgrl, for example? Maybe you haven't, but I have. From what I've seen, Mardibra's comment was not childish, it was bang on.


    Personally I was wondering if you'd changed your screen name so that all the references to you in other posts couldn't be linked back to you. I guess not.

  • jojo68
    jojo68 Member Posts: 881
    edited November 2013

    Why would I change my name for reference linx back to me?  I proudly stand by all of my posts.  I could care less what people think of me.  I went to update my photo and realized BCO said all posts are public on all search engines and I do prefer to have some slight anonymity as I am sure you would understand.  I think we have much more important things to be concerned about than all of this 'high school' childish stuff...crazy.

  • jojo68
    jojo68 Member Posts: 881
    edited November 2013

    I belong to many Yahoo groups and use my personal name...but, their groups are private and not public for all of eternity to see.  I think BCO should consider making this group more private.

  • jojo68
    jojo68 Member Posts: 881
    edited November 2013

    And...Beesie, just you doing the above (crossing out nasty etc) is no better than what anyone else has done and very very much high schoolish.

  • Beesie
    Beesie Member Posts: 12,240
    edited November 2013


    jojo, you're right. My comment is no better than Natty's comment about me, it's no better than Mardibra's comment about Natty, and it's no better than your comment to Mardibra. We are all just poking fun at each other.


    Nerdy


    And that is completely different than some of the nastiness and viciousness that I've seen in other posts.


    The issue about posts and screen names showing up on search engines has been known for years and discussed and debated here for years. BCO now make it very clear to anyone joining that this happens and they offer advice on how to protect one's identify. It used to be that our profiles could be searched too and accessed by those who were not members but fortunately that is no longer is the case. But for the rest of it, this is a public board and it's going to stay that way.

  • SelenaWolf
    SelenaWolf Member Posts: 1,724
    edited November 2013

    It behooves us all to remember that - if it's on the internet - there is no way in hell that it's private.  Somebody, somewhere, will always manage to get ahold of it if they really want to.  If you don't want anyone to know something, don't put it out there.

  • Mardibra
    Mardibra Member Posts: 1,111
    edited November 2013


    Not childish at all. She can be nasty. What she posted about exbrnxgirl has to be one of her nastiest. Luckily, it has been deleted.

  • exbrnxgrl
    exbrnxgrl Member Posts: 12,424
    edited November 2013


    You know, we have different positions and opinions and are quite passionate about them. I understand the frustration with natty. Taking delight in someone's stage IV dx certainly crosses an ugly line. Additionally, I found out yesterday that my younger dd read the post before it was deleted . Life is hard enough when you're dealing with your mom's bc. How utterly cruel to read someone delighting in my advanced stage. This is what has upset me the most. Regardless of our differences I would never, ever wish anyone anything but the best. Someone who would post a comment like that should be banned permanently.

  • SelenaWolf
    SelenaWolf Member Posts: 1,724
    edited November 2013

    I agree wholeheartedly.

  • Momine
    Momine Member Posts: 7,859
    edited November 2013


    Brnxgirl, I am so sorry that happened, and I agree.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited November 2013


    Am I halucinatting or was a lot of this same conversation embedded within another thread I started regaring the 30% stat? Did it get moved?

Categories