Tumour suppressor…helps tumours thrive?

March 22, 2008 / / 2 Comments

In the past months, I have received more than one message from folks understandably concerned about curcumin’s reported inhibiting

effect on what is known as the tumour-suppressor gene, p53. The "Scientific American" article that brought this matter to my attention is listed here on my blog (see “Spice Healer,” here on the right). At first glance, that doesn’t sound good, does it? I mean, that curcumin inhibits a tumour suppressor? Yikes. I was concerned, too. (The image on the left, by the way, shows healthy p53 in its unbound state; the one on the right shows it repairing damaged DNA).

I have read conflicting studies on the curcumin-p53 issue, incidentally, which doesn’t help me reach a conclusion.

But a 2005 Science Daily article (http://tinyurl.com/2qg85m) that I read by pure chance recently told me something I did not know about p53. Under normal conditions, very true, p53 exterminates cancer cells. But under conditions of hypoxia (low oxygen), this gene apparently mutates: The less oxygen, the more mutations in the p53 gene, so cancer cells are not killed; instead, they proliferate. Cancer cells proliferate??? Ma scherziamo?

Prof. Kimball’s biology text (see link on my homepage, on the right) informs us that the p53 protein prevents a cell from completing the cell cycle if its DNA is damaged or the cell has suffered other types of damage. When a cell is injured or malfunctioning, in other words, p53 is summoned to assess the situation: if the damage is minor, this gene temporarily halts the cell cycle (cell division); if the damage is major, though, p53 initiates the process of apoptosis. But what happens in the case of a cancer cell?

More than half of human cancers contain p53 mutations and have no functioning p53 protein. And read this: Mice have been cured of cancer by treating them with a peptide that turns on production of the p53 protein in the tumor cells. However, there may be a tradeoff involved: excess production of the p53 protein leads to accelerated aging in mice. The converse appears also to be true: mice expressing high levels of the anti-aging protein Sirt1 have their production of p53 depressed and are more susceptible to cancer.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?

The following may help us better understand what is going on. This helpful website (http://tinyurl.com/292n29) provides an overview of p53—its history and structure, how it works and so on. Healthy cells, we are told, have low levels of p53, which can be increased as a result of cell stress or DNA damage. Okay. But while the p53 gene plays an important role in cell cycle control and apoptosis in healthy cells, mutant p53 could allow abnormal cells to proliferate, resulting in cancer. As many as 50% of all human tumors contain p53 mutants (this confirms what Prof. Kimball wrote).

How does the p53 gene gets damaged? Well, by smoking, I read, and also: by mutagens (chemicals, radiation or viruses), increasing the likelihood that the cell will begin uncontrolled division. […] Restoring its function would be a major step in curing many cancers. Okay, I have to read this page more carefully and do some more in depth research.

A May 2007 BBC article (http://tinyurl.com/2sthnc) merely confirms the conflicting nature of p53: a trial at the Georgia Institute of Technology has found chemotherapy patients with normally functioning p53 fare worse than those with mutated p53. This suggests p53 may help some cancers come back. […] If this is the case, a new strategy for fighting cancer might be to develop drugs to disable the functioning of p53 in the tumours of patients undergoing chemotherapy. The lead researcher suggested that p53 may help repair some of the cancer cells damaged by chemotherapy leading to tumour recurrence and explaining the higher mortality rate of patients whose tumours had a functioning p53.

In this scenario, patients are better off with a mutated p53! Extraordinary, when you think about it.

Until recently, I thought p53 was one of the “good guys.” But hey, have a look at this: this research team studied tumour samples from patients with ovarian cancer. Some of the cancer patients had been treated with chemotherapy prior to surgery, and some had not. Only 30% of the chemotherapy patients who had normally functioning p53 were alive five years later, compared to 70% of those with mutated, non-functioning p53. Heckaroni!

The full Georgia Institute of Technology study is available online: http://tinyurl.com/2nvajq (I confess, I read only the Discussion part since I need no further convincing). In the image on the right, by the way, the dark stains show the mutated p53 in ovarian cancer cells.

Bottom line: p53 appears to be a cousin of the transcription factor NF-kappaB: as long as cells are normal, both of these transcription factors keep us in good shape. But when cancer begins developing, weird things start happening, and both NF-kappaB and p53 go a bit bonkers. Hmmm, all of this makes me think that perhaps curcumin’s alleged inhibiting effect on p53, if proven to be true!, would not be such a bad thing after all…

I knew I shouldn’t have done that!

March 21, 2008 / / 4 Comments

Have you ever said to yourself: “oh, I really wish I hadn’t done/said that, I just KNEW I shouldn’t have!” Or, have you ever met someone you immediately (for no apparent reason) either loved or hated? Exactly. Well, today I will be looking at a new study on gut feelings, discussed in a recent Science Daily article: http://tinyurl.com/3x4ljx.

Oh, first, the sentence on house-hunting hit home (no pun intended) with me: when I was house-hunting many years ago, I fell in love with the house that Stefano and I ended up buying, oh but that’s a very long story. Well, okay, in short, if I hadn’t ignored the realtor’s warnings, we would not be living here today. As it was, I followed my instinct and gushed on and on to the then-owners, two elderly ladies, about how lovely their house was. At the signing of the contract, the ladies confided to me that they were so fed up with potential buyers walking through their home and making negative remarks that, the very day we saw the house, they had decided to take it off the market. Then we showed up. As a result of my gushing, the ladies were confident that I would love their house (I do!), so they decided to sell it to us. Point is, I followed my instinct, and we were able to buy our dream house (although a castle in Scotland or Northumberland UK is a close second! ). Okay, enough rambling!

First, what exactly is a gut feeling? I suppose it could be described as a sort of intuitive feeling that we cannot rationally understand but that frequently leads us to make decisions, decisions guided more by emotions than by rational thought.

I am all in favour of following my gut’s “suggestions,” in case that weren’t clear. I recently wrote, e.g., about my gut feelings against starting chemotherapy back in 2005. Those feelings were later confirmed by more than one myeloma specialist. Well, I have tons of examples from my past, but I have digressed enough for now.

Getting back to the article, a team of researchers at Leeds University urges us to take our intuitions seriously. According to a team led by Professor Gerard Hodgkinson of the Centre for Organisational Strategy, Learning and Change at Leeds University Business School, intuition is the result of the way our brains store, process and retrieve information on a subconscious level and so is a real psychological phenomenon which needs further study to help us harness its potential. There are many recorded incidences where intuition prevented catastrophes and cases of remarkable recoveries when doctors followed their gut feelings.

But, quelle surprise!, science has historically ridiculed the concept of intuition, putting it in the same box as parapsychology, phrenology and other ‘pseudoscientific’ practices.

Intuition turns out to be the result of the brain drawing on past experiences and external cues to make a decision – but one that happens so fast the reaction is at a non-conscious level. All we’re aware of is a general feeling that something is right or wrong.

Isn’t this fascinating? Well, there are scientific studies on the brain-gut connection, I read a few this morning, but for now at least I merely wanted to introduce the subject, which is of particular interest to me since most of my best past and current decisions were/are based on gut feelings. How about yours?

What, me worried??? Hah!!!

March 20, 2008 / / 5 Comments

I hope this post won’t scare you into eating grass, and nothing but grass!…but…who would’ve ever thought?!!!

Science Daily recently (http://tinyurl.com/32hx4t) reported on acrylamide. This is apparently a carcinogenic chemical that forms when we fry, bake or grill starch-rich foods at temperatures above 120 degrees Centigrade. Think about THAT the next time you bake some bread or some chocolate chip cookies! Or grill your spaghetti. Gee whiz. Another thing to worry about. Or…?

Okay, we all know that French fries are really really REALLY bad for us, and that is true for fried food as a category, but…bread and rice? And get this: apparently, the longer our food cooks, the more acrylamide is released. I think I might have been happier not knowing this.

But there is good news. We have ways of reducing the levels of this chemical. Perhaps you thought I was about to say by adding curcumin, huh? Nope, not this time.

Although I do confess that curcumin was my first thought, and I did check up on it (but found nada).

This time it’s rosemary. Just add a bit of rosemary to your bread or chocolate chip cookies (…ehhhh?! I know, I know…but we might learn to like the taste…hehe). Seriously, now: The addition of rosemary to dough prior to baking a portion of wheat buns at 225°C reduced the acrylamide content by up to 60 per cent. Even rosemary in small quantities – in one per cent of the dough – was enough to reduce the acrylamide content significantly.

Rosemary has plenty of healthful properties, and I love the taste to boot. So whenever I make bread now, I simply add (to the dough) some chopped up rosemary from my very own rosemary bushes in the back yard. Easy peasy! And the result is always delicious.

Another thing that will reduce the levels of this chemical is…drum roll…the green tea extract: EGCG. Hah!

I read another suggestion: if you simply MUST have French fries, don’t fry them until they are practically burned (the darker they are, the higher their acrylamide content will be). And, even more importantly, soak the potatoes in water for at least a half hour before frying (if you soak them for a couple of hours, you reduce the acrylamide content by almost 50%). Basically, the longer they soak, the less acrylamide will end up in your body. Funny thing is, I have been doing that anyway ever since my mother-in-law told me to soak potatoes in water with a bit of vinegar. She said that would make the potatoes crispier. But perhaps there was more to it than that. Hmmm.

Smoking also increases your levels of this chemical, so, smokers, BEWARE (I am referring to two beloved members of my family, in particular). I’d say this would be another good reason to quit.

Well, acrylamide has been found to cause cancer and neurological problems in lab rats and mice, but very few studies have been done to date on human exposure to this chemical. So I am not going to worry too much about it, but to be on the safe side I will be adding rosemary to my carb-ridden food.

Links to more info on this subject:

http://tinyurl.com/3yrrz3 Heat isn’t necessarily the only thing that should concern us. Acrylamide can be found in dried fruit, too. Ok, that is IT, I’m throwing my leftover raisins into the garden! (Just kidding!) Anyway, here you will find out why you should choose baking soda over baking powder. And other titbits.

http://tinyurl.com/2goqoj This takes you to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency info on acrylamide. So if you want to know about the harmful effects of this stuff, check out this link. No worries, you won’t grow an extra head…but, truth be told, I only glanced at this page, so if that is one of your concerns, better check it out.

Oh drat, I just read that it’s in coffee, too! Why did I read this blasted Science Daily article in the first place?

The National Cancer Institute has another acrylamide FAQ page: http://tinyurl.com/2rzwe8

Tips on how to cut the level of this chemical can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/2jzra3 Okay, no more roasted almonds for me!

http://tinyurl.com/3y2axv This link will take you to the Fanatic Cook’s blog. I read her blog from time to time. She is a cooking blogger/researcher with a good sense of humour, which I always appreciate. Anyway, here she looked up statistics (acrylamide content of a few popular foods), the FDA acceptable intake of acrylamide…you get the picture. A good read. I will add a link to her blog here.

http://tinyurl.com/2rqz42 go here for FDA data on the acrylamide content of a huge list of foods. Check out the acrylamide content of Pringles! Yikes!

The Netherlands Cohort Study on diet and cancer examined more than 60,000 postmenopausal women, finding “increased risks of postmenopausal endometrial and ovarian cancer with increasing dietary acrylamide intake, particularly among never-smokers,” but no increased breast cancer risks (published in November 2007): http://tinyurl.com/ypgqhq

Curcumin and radiation: uterine cancer testimonial

March 19, 2008 / / 2 Comments

Yesterday the Kalamazoo (Michigan) Gazette (see: http://tinyurl.com/3c2n25) published a report by a woman who underwent radiation treatments for uterine cancer in January of 2006. She wrote that after three days, “the skin on my lower abdomen began to turn red.” Fearing that she would have to stop the treatment because of the radiation burns left on her sensitive skin, she began searching Internet for ways to prevent them. She found her answer: turmeric!

After reading a series of studies, including a 2005 University of Rochester study, which reported the successful use of curcumin during radiation treatments for breast cancer patients, she began taking curcumin (she uses the word "turmeric," but it must be curcumin):

Using the rationale that radiation is radiation, I immediately began taking 1,500 milligrams of turmeric per day: a therapeutic dosage supported by numerous studies. Initially, my doctor was as skeptical as he was intrigued. But by day six of my radiation treatment, there was no denying that my previously scorched skin was completely healed. And by day 25, the radiated skin looked just like it did on day one: not a single blister or burn. It was East meeting West in a perfect blend of modern science and ancient herbal remedy.

An important fact mentioned in the article is that curcumin protects normal cells from the noxious effects of radiation while enhancing the anticancer effect of radiation. When you think about it, it’s really mind-boggling!

Well, I confess: this was not news to me. I have already posted about curcumin’s protective effect against the toxicity of radiation treatments (April 2 2007 post, also see my permanent page on Curcumin and radiation), so this article simply confirms my findings. It’s great, though, to read a personal story, a testimonial, no? At any rate, check out this article, it’s worth reading.

It didn’t work!

March 18, 2008 / / 9 Comments

Right after I had published my anniversary post yesterday, I went to check our snail-mail mailbox, and my test results had arrived. Gulp! These were the results of my two months on eight grams of Biocurcumax, allegedly a more bioavailable form of curcumin, ordered directly from the Arjuna company in India and put into capsule form by fabulous Dr. Balducci in Calenzano.

Terrible. A big flop. As I looked through my February 26 results, I began feeling like Piccolo in this photo (actually, he’s yawning, it just LOOKS scary, doesn’t it? Hehe). Let’s see…where shall I begin? Going down the list, comparing the February results to my so-so early January ones:

First, the good news (January results are listed first).

Hemoglobin went up a bit: from 12.7 to 13.6 g/dL.
So did my hematocrit, from 37.4 to 40.0.
My blood viscosity and general inflammation marker (VES, in Italian) went from 50 mm/h to 42, the lowest it has been in years (I checked as far back as 2004).
Ferritin: up slightly, from 7 to 13 ng/mL. Still under the normal range, though (sigh).
CRP is still under 9 mg/L.
Bence-Jones is negative, as it has always been. In this case, for non-myeloma folks, negative is good.
IgA and IgM are the same as they were (barely there, but holding on!).
B2M: stable. It went from 1.9 to 2.0, still within the normal range.
Albumin went up a bit, from 48.2 to 49.0 %. So did my beta globulin, from 6.9 to 7.4 %.
Liver markers are all fine. To be expected, because of my intake of curcumin.
DHEA-S (new test) is right smack in the middle of the normal range.

Now for the bad bits, again going down the list.

Total IgG went from 31.90 to 35.30 g/L. It’s never been that high. Please remember, though, that I started on antibiotics the day after the tests, so that could have something to do with this bothersome increase.
My serum iron took a bit of a plunge, from 81 to 57 micrograms/dL, which means that I am now a bit below the normal range. I guess I will be seeing heaps of iron-rich molasses in my near future.
Total protein: the highest it has ever been. It went from 8.7 to 9.3 g/dL.
The news gets "better": my m-spike went from 2.17 to 2.45. The highest it’s been since I discovered this test (less than a year, so not long).
My monoclonal component also took a wrong turn (I’m going to give it a map before I take my next set of tests!), going from 25.0 to 26.4 %.
For the first time EVER, my white cell count has dropped below the normal range. That doesn’t make much sense, since, as I mentioned, I must have been fighting an infection at the time. Puzzling.

Two of my "new" tests were a bit “off,” as follows.

Alkaline phosphatase, which is below the normal range. This could be a symptom of a bunch of things (still have to look into the matter), such as magnesium deficiency and hypothyroidism. But, from what I have read so far, better to have a low than high result. Phew.
Creatinine clearance, which I have never had done before, is right smack on the high end of the normal range: 140 mL/min. That could mean a million things, including hypothyroidism (hmmm, there it pops up again!), so I will have it checked out. But my serum creatinine is fine, no change from last tests (0.7). I will have to sort this out.

The story hasn’t ended. Sherlock also took a bit of a thwack from our two months on Biocurcumax. She authorized me to post a few numbers, as follows:

Good news.

Her blood viscosity dropped a few more points, from 44 to 40 (but in the past it’s been as high as 98!). She told me this is the lowest it’s been in years.
B2M went from 1.9 to 1.7. Good.
CRP is less than 1 mg/L. WOWIE. Excellent, Sherlock!
Her serum iron level went up, and is now well within the normal range. Go figure.

Bad stuff.

Her total protein went up, from 8.4 to 9.0. She has had higher results, though, in her pre-curcumin past.
Total IgG went from 28.5 to 30.0, not a huge jump.
Her IgM, which is higher than mine, dropped a bit, from 0.23 to 0.19.
M-spike went from 2.24 to 2.5. I see that in her pre-curcumin era it was higher, at times.
Monoclonal component jumped in her case, too: from 26.7 to 27.8.

Nothing else really sticks out to me. Sherlock, if you would like to add something I missed, please go right ahead.

My conclusions. Biocurcumax may well work for other ailments, but it would appear not to have worked for yours truly and Sherlock, respectively a U.S. citizen and an Italian (our DNA is VERY different, I mean).

So…hasta la vista, Biocurcumax! Too bad. Life can be like a rather wobbly path through the woods at times (I took this photo in Acadia, Maine, in 2006 ).

Well, at least I won’t have any more rosacea flare-ups. There is always (?) a bright side…

Happy blog anniversary!

March 17, 2008 / / 12 Comments

Well, today marks the one-year anniversary of my entry into the blogging world. Has one entire year really gone by since my first post? Amazing!

In my wildest dreams I never thought I would come to have such a consistent, wonderful and loyal readership (ever-growing, too!)…on the contrary, in the beginning, I feared that my blog would encounter a lot of opposition. Well, I am happy to say that my fears were ill-founded.

So let me take this opportunity to thank each and every one of my blog readers for your kind comments, helpful advice and for pointing me in the direction of some of the best research I have done. Without you, without this blog, I would never have discovered the vast majority of these anti-myeloma substances.

My first big "thank you!" goes to Beth for urging me to create a blog. Then: to Sherlock for joining me in my experiments (and for coming up with brilliant new experiment ideas; non per nulla ti chiamo Sherlock!) and for being such a good friend to me in real life; to Roberto, Don Sunshine Sweet Pea, Wally, Cathy, Paul, Sue, Linda, old Bill, LPC, Marcelo, all my Italian blog readers (Carla etc.), my two Lisas and Marys…oh, dear, the list goes on and on. Well, you know who you are!

Last but not least, thank you, Stefano, for being my best friend, for keeping my computer in working order, and, most importantly, for getting me through all the bad times (TAT! You know what that means). But this is going to be a long post, so let’s get going!

I thought it fitting that I celebrate my anniversary by reading a study that has been in my “read” file for quite a while, now. Published in December of 2006, it was co-authored by Prof. Bharat Aggarwal, who gave me a little push in the right direction by encouraging me to try curcumin (January 2006) and has been helpful and supportive ever since. I will be forever grateful to him. Even though there is no way I could ever pay him back, today’s discussion is my itsy bitsy tribute to this wonderful researcher, whom I hope to meet in person someday.

The study (abstract: http://tinyurl.com/yttmdh), published in the “Journal of the Society for Integrative Oncology,” is titled: “From ancient medicine to modern medicine: Ayurvedic concepts of health and their role in inflammation and cancer.”

Something I have read over and over again is mentioned in the abstract and discussed more in depth in the first part of the full study, which, by the way, Sherlock sent to me (eh, come sempre, grazie!): “In spite of the billions of dollars spent on cancer research and the availability of the best health care in the world, the reason for such a high incidence of cancer in the United States is unclear. Lifestyle has been named as one of the major contributors to the incidence of cancer. The higher incidence of cancer among immigrants from the Eastern world to the Western world further emphasizes the role of lifestyle.” I have read stories about populations where the incidence of cancer and other ailments is very low; but when members of these communities immigrate to the Western world, they begin developing cancer (etc.). This doesn’t sound like mere coincidence to me.

The study reminds us that the understanding of cancer at the molecular base is still very limited. That means that matters such as cancer prevention and treatment are “still lagging behind.” Good point!

Ayurveda, meaning “science of long life,” “is at least a 5,000-year-old system of Indian medicine (1500–1000 BC) designed to promote good health and longevity rather than to fight disease.” It treats the body AND the mind and spirit: “most diseases connected with the psychophysiologic and pathologic changes in the body are caused by imbalance in three different dosha (ie, vata, pitta, and kapha). The fundamental aim of ayurvedic therapy is to restore the balance between these three major body systems. Any imbalance can lead to inflammation.”

Interesting to note that the ancient concept of inflammation corresponds to the modern one: “redness, heat, loss of function, and swelling.”

Health is “the balanced coordination of body, mind and consciousness.” I have always been convinced that our mental state has a lot to do with how well we respond to treatments of any kind. My mother was told by a friend of hers, a nurse who worked in a U.S. oncology unit, that she could tell which cancer patients would do well just by looking at them. She was always right, apparently.

Ayurveda and cancer. “According to ayurveda, cancer results from lifestyle errors, such as unhealthy foods, poor hygiene, or poor behavior, or from physical trauma, all leading to imbalances of vata, pitta, and kapha, resulting in injury to the inner layer of the dermis (rohini, the sixth layer of the skin) and the formation of abnormal branches of blood vessels.” This part is very detailed and interesting, but too long to post about here. I would be glad, though, to forward the full study to anyone who requests it.

Treatment of cancer. There are three approaches in Ayurveda: health maintenance, restoration to normal, spiritual approach and disease cure. The techniques were (are!) very modern: “The principles of patient safety were foremost, including meticulous aseptic techniques used for surgery (eg, careful boiling of instruments, cleaning of hands). Treatment involves the surgical removal of tumor, herbal remedies, dietary modification, and spiritual treatment (eg, detoxification, rejuvenation, prayers, music therapy, aromatherapy, gem therapy, sound therapy, stress relief, meditation, yoga, and astrology).” Diet and exercise (yoga, e.g.) were also considered to be important, and meditation, which I practise in my own fashion (having never been taught how to do it properly), “leads to emotional and stress release and detoxification of the cellular and tissue memories.”

In the 7^th century, “surgery was considered one of the best methods of treatment for arbuda.” Arbuda is “definite malignancy.” Herbal treatments against cancer “were beneficial only in the beginning stage," but that also depended on the type of tumour involved. The surgical removal of tumours is described in detail…I must say, it’s really incredible to read about such careful sterile practises being used so many centuries ago. I was surprised and very impressed.

The review draws similarities between ancient Ayurvedic and modern Western cancer treatments. Although the different molecular targets “were not known 5,000 years ago, the components of herbs used at that time now appear to target these molecules.” Aha!

The review provides a Table that couples the modern targets of cancer treatment (such as NF-kappa B and COX-2) with ancient herbal remedies. Truly extraordinary. I must have a closer look at this list of herbs as soon as possible. Curcuma longa, of course, is everywhere. The researchers state that the “Development of new synergistic anticancer agents based on these herbs would be beneficial for modern treatment modalities.” Indeed. “The use of Vinca rosea in the treatment of cancer is very well described in ayurveda,” and the modern chemotherapy drug vincristine derives from the plant Vinca rosea, or periwinkle. Just one example.

Differences between modern science and Ayurveda: “Although modern science believes in using a single chemical entity for a particular cancer (eg, paclitaxel, vincristine, etoposide), ayurvedic treatment involves the use of whole plant extracts. It is possible that enhanced toxic effects associated with modern medicine are due to a lack of other components of the plant. Ayurveda usually recommends the use of several plant extracts in combination, which is somewhat similar to the combination of various chemical entities that are currently used for the treatment of cancer.” How about that?

Cancer treatment side effects. The review contains advice on how to “alleviate some of the common side effects associated with modern medical treatment of cancer;” even stress and depression, and how to diminish cancer cachexia: “the ayurvedic regimen rejuvenates the body tissues, tones up the body systems, and acts as a tonic to the body against cancer cachexia.” It also lists herbs that can protect us from the harmful effects of radiation. I already knew about curcumin, but not about ginger, e.g.

Relevance of anecdotes. “Treatment according to ayurveda is very individualized, thereby making it difficult to conduct a large population based clinical study. Thus, not many randomized, controlled, and double-blind clinical trials are available. Many anecdotal and case reports are available that show the efficacy of the herbs and the treatments used. The individualized therapies are sometimes poorly documented, unable to be accepted in the standardized Western field.”

Indeed, this is so true, and it illustrates the sort of opposition I have run into with my own cancer treatment, for instance at the recent conference in Calenzano, where I had a bit of a discussion with the cancer specialist sitting next to me. Will these close-minded attitudes ever change? I hope so. Blog reader Old Bill left me a good quote recently: “What’s wrong with an anecdote if it’s true?” (Beata Bishop). Exactly. And, even more to the point: what’s wrong with hundreds of anecdotes?

I would like to end with a long but significant quote taken from the Conclusion: “Ayurvedic treatments are still followed by 75 to 80% of the rural population of India. As much as 70% of the Indian population is vegetarian, and this may also contribute to the lower incidence of cancer. It also, however, raises several questions about current treatment. Although current treatment tends to be highly focused at the molecular level, it is highly unfocused at the whole organism level, making it reductionist. Ayurvedic treatment of cancer is a holistic approach and is currently preferred. The new wave of ‘‘system biology’’ and ‘‘genome revolution’’ is expected to provide a holistic approach to the treatment of cancer. In spite of it, this approach tends to ignore the relationship between mind, body, and spirit. It is our hope that ayurveda can help fill this gap.”

That is my hope, too.

Happy genes

March 15, 2008 / / 2 Comments

Well, after signing an online petition against the annual slaughter of Canadian baby harp seals (hundreds of thousands will be clubbed to death this year so that thoughtless silly people can wear their fur…) and writing, yesterday, about fear and cancer diagnoses, I thought it was time to open a…happier chapter. First though, I would like to urge you to go on the PETA website and sign that baby seal petition. It will take only a few seconds and might help STOP this appallingly cruel massacre: http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/seal_hunt07

Thank you.

Okay, now for the "happy" chapter. Why are some people happier than others? Well, it seems that at least 50% of our happiness has genetic roots. A recently published University of Edinburgh study looked at survey data pertaining to 973 pairs of adult twins. Identical twins had more similarities than the non-identical twins (gee, that’s a surprise!

), even in terms of how happy they were.

According to the March 6 Science Daily article (see: http://tinyurl.com/2dzg8u), “Psychologists at the University of Edinburgh working with researchers at Queensland Institute for Medical Research in Australia found that happiness is partly determined by personality traits and that both personality and happiness are largely hereditary.” Personality and happiness share some of the same genes. Interesting.

The study goes on: “Using a framework which psychologists use to rate personalities, called the Five-Factor Model, the researchers found that people who do not excessively worry, and who are sociable and conscientious tend to be happier. They suggested that this personality mix can act as a buffer when bad things happen […]"

Intriguing! But what if you are sociable BUT worry a lot? Hmmm. Well, anyway, another fascinating titbit is that people who are predisposed to happiness are apparently able to count on an extra "supply" of happiness when the going gets tough. So they deal with problems and whatnot better than those who lack the "happy" gene. Let’s keep in mind, of course, that there is still a 50% component that is subject to external factors such as health, relationships, jobs.

Since reading this article, I have been pondering about the things, even little things, that make me smile in life. There are many. If I were to participate in a happiness survey right now, I am quite sure my result would show that I am

quite if not very happy. I have a happy marriage and a good sense of humour, I live in a wonderful place, I really like my teaching job (mainly thanks to my funny students), I have a great supportive family, good friends, and let’s not forget my uproarious and loving cats. Last but not least, Stefano and I are going to go to the UK in late April to see puffins in their natural habitat and visit Northumberland for 10 days. My dream vacation! How could I not be happy?

Oh, ok, almost forgot: I have an incurable cancer. Aaah, just a minor glitch!

Fear

March 14, 2008 / / 4 Comments

As I have mentioned on previous occasions, I subscribe to the Cancer Compass newsletter where I frequently come across items of interest. I read one such item yesterday, titled “A patient’s perception of peril can cloud treatment decisions.” It discusses the feelings surrounding a cancer diagnosis, feelings such as fear that can sometimes lead us to make mistakes.

An excerpt (you can read the full text here: http://tinyurl.com/344rsl): often, a patient’s perception of peril – whether before a screening test or upon a definitive diagnosis – exceeds the genuine risk and can cloud treatment decisions. The fear is a reflection, in many respects, of what science has wrought in recent decades: More cancers than ever are being diagnosed, and they’re being found earlier and earlier. Tumors that would have gone unnoticed and untreated in an earlier era are now identified and addressed, even when the benefits aren’t fully clear.

"We’ve exaggerated the efficacy of our treatment and prevention at the same time we’ve spread fear of cancer," said Dr. Robert A. Aronowitz of the University of Pennsylvania, who has studied the history of cancer extensively. "And it’s led to a lot of individual and policy level mistakes.”

The benefits aren’t fully clear?…We’ve exaggerated the efficacy of our treatment and prevention? Whoa!!!

This reminded me of when my former haematologist was pushing me to begin Velcade in the fall of 2005, and had introduced the possibility of chemotherapy even earlier that year. He told me that we shouldn’t wait until I began having symptoms (bone lesions and whatnot). Well, today I ask myself: where would I be now if I had been overcome by fear and followed his advice? I don’t mean to sound judgmental of those who choose conventional treatments, oh no, quite the opposite!…what I mean is that sometimes, or even frequently, as Dr. Aronowitz admits, our doctors tend to scare us…perhaps (!) unnecessarily…into making hasty decisions. Remember the case of Michael Gearin-Tosh? (see the link here on the right, under "MM blogs/sites.")

Cancer is still seen by many as a death sentence, so it’s natural to be scared. I have been scared, too. And, heck, I still have some fear on an occasional basis, in spite of my incurable (

) optimism. I have already written a bit about my reaction to finding out that I had benign MGUS (I burst into tears in my car) and, many years later, myeloma (a few more tears, soon replaced by determination). But, luckily for me, I was, still am, in an early stage, and had time to think and do research. I sought other medical opinions (Dr. Robert Kyle was one of the myeloma specialists who confirmed I was right to wait, by the way). If you are diagnosed with MGUS, SMM or MM (at any stage, but an early stage in particular), I urge you to read Michael Gearin-Tosh’s book, "Living Proof." He writes, if you are diagnosed with cancer, you need time to think. So true. Thinking is not enough, though. There are other things you can do. As follows.

We (patients) can ease the fear of cancer, according to the Cancer Compass article, by being informed. Find out everything that you possibly can about your type of cancer. A recent study found that men’s concerns about prostate cancer eased – once they received information via a sophisticated Internet program. Bingo!

Information, say cancer specialists, “is not only power. It can also forge hope. That’s exactly what happened when parents whose children were gravely ill with cancer received a more detailed description of how the disease might progress. The families getting the most information reported the greatest degree of hope, even in the face of a grim prognosis. And, even though such matters are not mentioned in this article (quelle surprise!), don’t forget to research, and speak to your healthcare provider about, diet and supplements.

When I was first diagnosed with myeloma, some of Stefano’s relatives became concerned that I was doing so much research online. "It is better for her not to know," they whispered to him. Well, today I feel vindicated: it is better to KNOW.

The Cancer Compass article mentions something that I have experienced, too. That I still experience, in fact! Whenever I get an unfamiliar or odd ache or pain, the first thing that pops into my mind is “oh bother, is this the myeloma, is this a bone lesion?” (Okay, so I use much stronger words than "bother"!

). Apparently, that’s a normal reaction (phew). So what do I do about it? Well, I simply tell myself not to be silly, shrug my shoulders and forget about it. The pain goes away.

I’d like to end today’s post with the following excerpt from "Living Proof": Even if you find it difficult to go so far in your own thinking, active involvement in your therapy may lead to your consciousness and subconscious to trigger complex biological creativities, a presence in you of ‘decisions of endless creation’ that may help to fight a terrible disease.

Thank you, Michael.

Gossypol analogue

March 13, 2008 / / Leave a comment

Remember my post on gossypin? Okay, well, today’s post has nothing at all to do with gossypin. (Hehe, sorry, couldn’t resist.

) But really, the word "gossypin" sounds like the substance I am about to discuss: "gossypol," which I thought was a derivative of gossypin, at first. But no, gossypin is a flavone extracted from the tropical rose mallow plant, whereas today’s protagonist, gossypol, is a polyphenol derived from the cotton plant. So, different compounds.

Gossypol, I read online, has been used for centuries against malaria and as a male contraceptive in China. The cotton plant produces gossypol to protect itself from the damage caused by pesky insects. It’s a toxin that inhibits the reproduction of insects and also of humans (mammals in general). Anyway, what I found interesting is that gossypol is now being studied for its anticancer properties. An all-too-familiar story!

The new edition of “Blood” (March 15 2008) has a study on a gossypol semi-synthetic analogue called "apogossypol" that apparently is more effective than gossypol against Bcl-2, an anti-apoptotic gene that almost certainly has a lot to do with the chemoresistance of myeloma cells. Brief aside: you can do a search here for Bcl-2, just scroll to the bottom of my Blogroll until you reach a "search" box; see in particular my August 27 2007 post titled “Survivin MM with curcumin.”

Sherlock (grazie!) sent me the full study; you can view the abstract here: http://tinyurl.com/ytsvdh The study begins with a look at the above-mentioned Bcl-2, which is overexpressed in many cancers and leukaemias and protects tumours and leukemic cells from kicking the bucket when exposed to chemotherapy, hormonal treatment or radiation. Bcl-2 has thus become a target for cancer treatment, especially where B-cell malignancies are concerned (non-Hodgkin lymphoma and CLL, in particular).

The study tells us that another gossypol analogue, AT-101, is being tested right now in Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials on patients with solid tumours, lymphomas and leukaemia. I checked to see what kind of clinical trials were testing gossypol, and there are twelve trials for different kinds of cancer ranging from brain to prostate cancer. And, of course, B-malignancies. The main problem of AT-101, though, appears to be the GI toxicity caused by its bothersome aldehydes; we don’t need to know what these are exactly, just that their removal eliminates any GI problems. The "Blood" study researchers did just that: they removed the aldehydes, thus creating apogossypol, which shows “superior blood concentrations over time […] compared with gossypol, due to slower clearance of the compound.”

Toxicity: the researchers tested the toxicity of gossypol and its analogue on normal female Balb/c mice (okay, I confess that I still shudder with horror when I think of all the suffering lab animals around the world…and to tell the truth, if someone told me, “it’s either you or that mouse,” it would be a tough choice for me to make, as silly as that probably sounds. If the choice were between me or a cat, well, you can imagine what my answer would be…now why can’t experiments be done on those maddening tiger mosquitoes???

Back to the study. Well, apogossypol turned out to be less toxic than its parent compound. If you want to read more details, I will be happy to forward the study to you. Other results: unlike apogossypol, gossypol was toxic to the liver, caused GI problems and made the mice lose weight. Neither substance caused any kidney toxicity or heart trouble. Ok, I’ve read enough about the poor dear lab mice. Basta!

In vitro findings (phew, much better: I don’t have as much sympathy for cancer cells…

). The researchers used “cultured B-cell lymphoma and CLL leukemia cells.” In both cell cultures, apogossypol was more lethal than gossypol.

The gist of the study: “The preclinical data presented here show superior efficacy and markedly reduced toxicity of apogossypol compared with gossypol, and thus indicate that further development of apogossypol for B-cell malignancies is warranted.” Well, interesting study. Another piece of the puzzle, perhaps. Only time will tell…