You TubeTwitterFacebook  
Home Ayurvedic Medicine Integrated Medicine Education Contents Articles Links Products Search Feedback Contact Forum Site map
It is currently Tue May 21, 2013 1:29 am

All times are UTC + 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 11:30 am
Posts: 10003
Location: Chiang Mai


There are many interesting concepts in this document to review, as we are treating more and more patients with our supplements who also have cancer. This article suggests risks, which may be offset, in my opinion, with a total program that can mitigate the risks; however, often are not aware of them. This enforces the need for trained specialists to review the total dietary supplement program for cancer patients if we are to maximize benefits and minimize these published risks.

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
http://www.gordonresearch.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 9:09 am
Posts: 7713
Location: Chiang Mai
Dietary Supplements in Patients With Cancer: Risks and Key Concepts, Part 2

Laura Boehnke Michaud, Julie Phillips Karpinski, Kellie L. Jones and Janet Espirito
Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2007;64(5):467-480. ยฉ2007 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
Posted 04/02/2007

Abstract
Purpose: The risks and key concepts regarding the use of dietary supplements in patients with cancer are described.

Summary: There are six common characteristics of dietary supplements that must be addressed when used by patients with cancer. Clinicians must establish if the supplement is an antioxidant, is an anticoagulant or procoagulant, has immunosuppressive or immunomodulating properties, has hormonal properties, has known safety issues, and has known or theoretical drug interactions. These six characteristics of the dietary supplements commonly used by patients with cancer are reviewed to aid in the analysis of the scientific data and communication of the results with the patient or family members. A framework upon which clinicians can adequately help patients make informed decisions regarding the use of complimentary and alternative medicine and dietary supplements is also described. When evaluating the appropriateness of a supplement for use by a patient with cancer, clinicians must conduct a safety review (evaluate the six characteristics). If the supplement is considered safe, an efficacy review must be conducted, after which the clinicians can recommend the supplement™s use, accept the patient™s decision to use the supplement if no or inconclusive evidence exists, or discourage use if there is conclusive evidence supporting inefficacy. Available resources for locating information regarding dietary supplements are also discussed.

Conclusion: Counseling patients with cancer about dietary supplements requires a systematic thought process that considers the available theories and data, as well as the patients™ views about the agents.

Effects on the Immune System
The use of dietary supplements that affect the immune system is also a concern for patients with cancer. Patients with malignancies often use CAM with the intention of enhancing the immune system. In a survey of 453 cancer patients with various solid and hematologic malignancies, 83% of the patients had used at least one type of CAM.[1] The majority of CAM users expected the therapy to boost their immune system (71%) and improve their quality of life (76%). Other surveys have also identified boosting the immune system as a reason for using CAM.[83,84]
It is important to remember that the immune system is involved to varying degrees in both hematologic and solid tumor malignancies. By nature of their disease, these patients are immunocompromised, albeit to different degrees. Hematologic malignancies are more profoundly immunosuppressive secondary to the clonal expansion of nonfunctional, immune, cancer cells (T or B lymphocytes). For solid tumors, it is less clear what role the immune system plays in the carcinogenic pathway. In addition, many conventional treatments are immunosuppressive, further compromising the ability of the immune system to function. Also, the immune system is a complex system with many different components. Despite great advances over the past several decades, much about the immune system remains unknown or not well understood. Therefore, extrapolating information from laboratory or animal data or theorizing what effects may occur with dietary supplements and the immune system should be done with caution. There are three general areas for discussion regarding potential benefits and risks for the immune system associated with dietary supplement use: (1) stimulation of the immune system, (2) further immunosuppression induced by dietary supplements, and (3) dietary supplement“drug interactions.

Immune System Stimulation
Stimulation of the immune system may be viewed as a potential benefit for many patients; however, it may be problematic for patients with certain diseases, such as leukemia. Leukemia involves uncontrolled proliferation of specific cells within the immune system (myeloid or lymphoid).[85] Theoretically, immune stimulation by dietary supplements may result in or add to the proliferation of these leukemic cells. It is currently unknown what effect immune-stimulating dietary supplements may have on proliferation and differentiation of hematopoietic cells in these patients. Caution should also be used when patients are receiving therapy with colony-stimulating factors pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, because of the presence of the granulocyte colony-stimulating-factor receptor target of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim on tumor cell lines, including some myeloid, T-lymphoid, lung, head and neck, and bladder tumor cell lines.[86,87] The prescribing information for pegfilgrastim states, "the possibility that pegfilgrastim can act as a growth factor for any tumor type cannot be excluded."[86] The sargramostim prescribing information contains similar precautions regarding tumor cell growth and the need to exercise caution, particularly in cancers with myeloid characteristics.[88] While these effects may clearly be detrimental to an untreated patient, many investigators have attempted to exploit this effect by "priming" tumor cells with a growth factor (e.g., filgrastim) and then immediately administering cytotoxic chemotherapy. The theory is that this increases cell proliferation so cell-cycle-specific chemotherapy would be more likely to kill more tumor cells. Along with the increased effect on tumor cells is a corresponding effect on normal cells, leading to increased chemotherapy-related toxicity. Clinical trials examining this practice have been inconclusive, and many clinicians have abandoned this approach because there is no clear benefit and it increases risks associated with more adverse events.[89] The use of myeloid growth factors after chemotherapy to facilitate bone marrow recovery has become common-place in some aspects of cancer treatment. Extrapolating this information to dietary supplements is difficult. Coadministration of dietary immunostimulants with chemotherapy may increase the number of tumor cells killed but may also increase adverse events related to chemotherapy. There is limited laboratory and clinical information investigating these types of interactions, and concerns exist related to the unknown level of risk.
Neutropenia and subsequent serious infections are well-recognized adverse effects of some conventional therapies. Conventional medicine in oncology relies heavily on the use of colony-stimulating factors, such as filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and sargramostim, to help recover neutrophil counts, prevent infections, and continue to administer necessary cytotoxic therapy. As discussed previously, many patients use dietary supplements to stimulate the immune system, which may be beneficial in patients taking colony-stimulating factors. Another potential benefit that may come with immunostimulation is enhancement of the immune system to fight the cancer itself. This approach to anticancer therapy has been investigated for many years in the realm of conventional medicine with mixed success (e.g., interferon [IFN], interleukin [IL]). The tumor types that most often respond to these types of therapies include hematologic malignancies, melanomas, and renal cell carcinomas. Other solid tumors have generally not been successfully treated with conventional immunotherapies. In cancers that appear somewhat responsive to immunotherapy, concurrent administration of dietary immunostimulants may tip a very intricate balance in the immune system, leading to unpredictable outcomes. Therefore, unless a dietary supplement has sound evidence supporting its safety when coadministered with conventional immunotherapy, the combination should be avoided. However, data in humans supporting the use of dietary immunostimulants as either beneficial or detrimental are limited.
Some dietary supplements have demonstrated immunologic enhancement in vitro, in animals, and, to a limited extent, in humans ( Table 4 ). However, not all studies support this phenomenon. Data in cancer patients are more limited, though melatonin, echinacea, Panax ginseng, and coriolus mushroom (Coriolus versicolor) have been evaluated specifically in cancer patients.[90,91,93,94] Although some of these studies were positive, the following examples help illustrate the variable evidence. Panax ginseng, dong quai (Angelica sinensis), and milk thistle (Silybum marianum) have been shown to enhance lymphocyte proliferation in vitro.[92] A study in rats demonstrated that an extract of astragalus (Astragalus membranaceus) and glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidium) did not prevent cyclophosphamide-induced myelosuppression.[95] In addition, bitter melon (Momordica charantia) did not increase natural killer cells in cervical cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy compared with those who did not receive the supplement.[96] As evidenced by these studies, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions about the efficacy of dietary supplements to enhance the immune system. Also, the complex nature of the immune system makes extrapolation of these data to humans even more difficult.
As an example, we can look at the data for one of the most commonly used dietary supplements that have been studied in cancer patients. Echinacea may be the most well-known dietary supplement used as an immunostimulant. Several randomized, placebo-controlled trials have studied the immunostimulant activities of Echinacea species for the prevention or treatment of the common cold. A recent review concluded that studies of Echinacea species do not support their use for the prevention of the common cold, but some studies support their use for early treatment.[97] Conversely, studies of Echinacea species for treating cancer-related illnesses are limited. The effect of an extract of Echinacea angustifolia on cytokine production was studied using blood samples from 23 patients with solid tumor malignancies after curative surgery.[98] No significant differences in cytokine levels (IL-1, IL-2, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] α, IFN-γ) were seen after two or four weeks of echinacea therapy. In addition, no significant differences in absolute leukocyte, lymphocyte, monocyte, or granulocyte counts were observed.
A study of 15 patients with advanced, pretreated colorectal cancer evaluated the toxicity and immunostimulating potential of low-dose cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m[2] ) and thymostimulin plus Echinacea purpurea extract.[94] Significant increases in CD3+ and CD4+ T lymphocytes and natural killer cells were observed. Significant decreases in CD8+ T lymphocytes and the CD4:CD8 ratio also occurred, while no significant changes in the number of B lymphocytes or other leukocytes occurred. This study has several factors limiting its clinical significance, including its difficulty differentiating the effects of the individual agents in this regimen, the small number of patients, and the lack of an active or historical control. Nevertheless, concerns regarding the decreased CD8+ T lymphocytes and the CD4:CD8 ratio remain.Prolonged use of echinacea has been associated with leukopenia.[99] This illustrates the complex nature of the immune system and the effects dietary supplements may have on these intricate processes. Cancer patients should use echinacea with caution and should not ingest it for extended periods of time. Use of any immunostimulant should also be evaluated in the context of the individual clinical situation, concurrent medications, and other underlying conditions. For example, a patient receiving immunosuppressive therapy for rheumatoid arthritis should avoid dietary immunostimulants. However, the risks and benefits of each therapy should be evaluated independently in the context of that patient™s clinical situation and goals of therapy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 9:09 am
Posts: 7713
Location: Chiang Mai
Immunosuppression by Dietary Supplements
An important consideration is that immunosuppression is a potential adverse effect of some dietary supplements. As previously mentioned, long-term use of echinacea may cause immunosuppression.[99] Immunocompromised states and immunosuppressant therapies have been commonly listed as supplement“disease and drug“supplement interactions, respectively, with echinacea.[100-102] Other problematic dietary supplements include green tea and ginger (Zingiber officinale), which have demonstrated suppression of lymphocyte proliferation in vitro via inhibition of IL-2 production.[92] Clinical outcomes related to these laboratory findings are unknown, but these changes could be harmful for patients already significantly immunosuppressed by their disease or concurrent medications.

Dietary Supplement“Drug Interactions and the Immune System
Immunosuppressant medications are necessary to prevent graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), maintain engraftment after bone marrow transplantation, and prevent donor organ rejection in solid organ transplantation. Therefore, it is important to avoid pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interactions that may interfere with the role of immunosuppressants. Echinacea and other dietary supplements that stimulate the immune system may antagonize the actions of immunosuppressants and could lead to rejection of the transplant or exacerbation of GVHD. While this pharmacodynamic interaction remains theoretical, it has been recognized as a potential problem in renal transplantation.[103] Based on the potential for immunostimulation and life-threatening outcomes, it has been recommended that echinacea be avoided by patients receiving antirejection medications, such as azathioprine, tacrolimus, corticosteroids, and cyclosporine.[104,105]
Drug interactions have been documented with concomitant use of St. John™s wort and both cyclosporine and tacrolimus in solid organ transplant recipients.[106-112] The interaction is likely the result of induction of CYP3A4 isoenzymes by St. John™s wort, leading to decreased levels of the immunosuppressive agents that are metabolized by this isoenzyme. The interaction with cyclosporine occurred between three days and several weeks of initiating concomitant therapy. Cyclosporine dosage adjustments were attempted but were often not adequate to compensate for the decrease in serum drug concentrations. Tacrolimus dosage adjustments were able to compensate for decreased tacrolimus levels in 10 renal transplant recipients.[111] These factors make management of post-transplantation regimens difficult.
Garlic (Allium sativum) may also be used as an immunostimulant and poses at least two concerns for bone marrow transplant recipients. Similar to echinacea, the stimulating effects of garlic on the immune system may reverse or antagonize the actions of the immunosuppressant agents. The second concern is the induction of CYP3A4 isoenzymes by allicin, a therapeutically active component of garlic.[104] Similar to the interaction with St. John™s wort, this interaction may lower plasma concentrations of tacrolimus, cyclosporine, or other drugs, resulting in subtherapeutic levels of the immunosuppressant. This interaction has not been documented with any of these agents, but a 50% decrease in the area under the concentration“time curve was reported with saquinavir, another substrate of the CYP3A4 isoenzyme.[113]

Summary and Recommendations
Clinicians should review dietary supplements on an individual basis to assess their potential for immunosuppression or immunostimulation and the potential benefits and risks to patients. Dietary supplements such as echinacea may be beneficial for immune system support in some patients; however, these data are not strong, and the agent should not be recommended. Rather, clinicians may choose to accept their patient™s desire to utilize this product based on the patient™s individual situation. Long-term use of echinacea should be discouraged because immunosuppression may occur. Use of dietary immunostimulants should be discouraged in patients with hematologic malignancies until further safety data are available. Bone marrow transplant recipients should avoid immunostimulants, St. John™s wort, garlic supplements, and other CYP3A4 inducers. While dietary supplements for immune system support may sound promising to some cancer patients, there are several potentially serious safety issues to discuss. In addition, the data supporting their efficacy in this respect are limited.

Agents with Hormonal Properties
Another pharmacologic category of dietary supplements that may pose a risk to patients with cancer includes agents with hormonal properties ( Table 5 ). Much like the antioxidants, this diverse group of products has very complex mechanisms of action, many of which have yet to be fully elucidated. The potential risks associated with these agents may be obvious or subtle, and their level of risk depends on the type of cancer in question.
Certain types of cancer appear to rely heavily on hormonal influences. These include breast, prostate, endometrial, and ovarian cancers. Breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers are under the control of estrogen and, to a lesser degree, progesterone. However, the relationship between these two hormones in these diseases is not well understood. Prostate cancer relies on testosterone as a driving force in its growth and development. However, not all breast, endometrial, ovarian, and prostate cancers are under hormonal control. Hormone sensitivity is determined in all breast tumors at diagnosis. This entails the identification and quantification of the estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR). Up to two thirds of breast cancer patients will have ER- or PR-positive disease or both, and the incidence increases with age.[114] This represents a large population of patients who will receive some type of hormonal therapy at some point during cancer treatment. The lack of these receptors indicates a low likelihood of responding favorably to endocrine therapy for breast cancer.[115] This fact is often stated when debating the use of hormonal supplements in patients who have hormone-receptor negative breast cancer. However, there are some data to indicate that sampling errors for determination of ER and PR status may occur; however, breast cancers, regardless of hormone receptor status, are generally considered to be under hormonal control. This topic is controversial and encompasses postmenopausal hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) as well as hormonal dietary supplements.
While hormone receptors are not routinely measured in endometrial and ovarian cancer tissue, hormone therapy remains a therapeutic option for these women. The mainstay of therapy for endometrial cancer is surgery, but a multidisciplinary approach combining radiotherapy with chemotherapy or hormone therapy is often used. Treatment of ovarian cancer primarily involves surgery or chemotherapy or both; however, hormone therapy is given to patients with recurrent disease.
Many conventional cancer therapies used to treat hormonally responsive malignancies alter hormone levels (e.g., aromatase inhibitors, leutenizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonists) or have hormonal effects (e.g., SERMs). Table 6 and Table 7 list the mechanisms of conventional hormonal therapy for breast and prostate cancers, respectively. Many herbs and other natural products possess intrinsic hormonal properties, functioning similarly to mammalian hormones and conventional cancer therapies. Supplements may alter normal physiological levels of hormones (e.g., estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, leutenizing hormone [LH], follicle-stimulating hormone [FSH]), potentially altering the activities of these hormones or interfering with cancer therapies. Supplements may also affect hormone receptors or other biological targets, which may be detrimental to patients with cancer or counter-act cancer therapies. The complex nature of interactions between these conventional therapies and supplements with hormonal properties makes predicting clinical outcomes rather difficult when relying solely on available endocrine data. The mechanisms of pharmacologic activity of dietary supplements are often demonstrated through animal or cell-line experiments, making it difficult to extrapolate the results to humans. If clinical data are available, they are usually from healthy subjects, making extrapolation to cancer patients difficult. Anecdotal information may offer clinical clues about a product™s effects. For instance, anecdotal reports may indicate that a supplement affects menses or menopausal symptoms in women or increases sexual desire in men. If these claims are true, this agent may possess some hormonal properties. However, it is important to note that a placebo effect or other mechanisms may be responsible for these clinical outcomes, and more stringent scientific evidence is required to prove causality. Anecdotal reports are often the only information available about a dietary supplement™s potential hormonal effects, and patients should be told that such supplements are "potentially harmful" if they have a hormonally sensitive malignancy.
Many patients with breast, endometrial, or ovarian cancer turn to these types of supplements as options for "natural" hormone replacement therapy (HRT), but they may also use these therapies to help with menopausal symptoms associated with their cancer therapy. The potential for drug interactions between "natural" hormones to treat these symptoms and the hormone therapies to treat their cancer may pose serious risks to patients, potentially negating the effects of their cancer therapy. An extensive review of all dietary supplements with hormonal effects is beyond the scope of this article; however, the major issues related to phytoestrogens with breast, endometrial, ovarian, and prostate cancers are reviewed. The goal of this discussion is to introduce topics related to hormonal supplements to provide a template with which to evaluate other products of interest not mentioned here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:55 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 9:09 am
Posts: 7713
Location: Chiang Mai
Phytoestrogens in Breast, Endometrial, and Ovarian Cancers
For cancer patients and clinicians, the use of phytoestrogens is perhaps one of the most controversial and fiercely debated topics related to dietary supplements. Phytoestrogens are diphenol compounds that comprise one of the largest groups of "natural" hormonal supplements consumed today.[116] These agents are categorized according to their chemical structures, with isoflavones, lignans, coumestans, and resorcyclic acid lactones comprising the four major classes. Isoflavones are the most abundant compounds in commonly consumed foods, with 230 types identified. Three common isoflavone aglycones”genistein, daidzein, and glycitein”are present in most dietary sources. Coumestrol, another isoflavone, is present in soybeans but in much lower concentrations than genistein, daidzein, and glycitein. Isoflavones also exist as glucosides, acetyl glucosides, and malonyl glucosides. These differing forms of isoflavones determine absorption, with aglycone forms more readily absorbed than the corresponding glucoside conjugates. Glucoside derivatives of isoflavones undergo hydrolization in the large intestine to their corresponding aglycone, which is readily absorbed. These aglycones are then metabolized by the liver to glucorinic acid or sulfate conjugates and enterohepatically circulated through the gut, with potential for further metabolism and reabsorption. The glucuronide fraction of these isoflavone aglycones represents up to 90% of circulating isoflavones in both rats and humans and is considered biologically inactive. Free and sulfated forms, while in lower concentrations, are considered biologically active. Variances in the pharmacokinetics of isoflavones are apparent and based on age, sex, and ethnicity. Details surrounding these differences are beyond the scope of this article but are important indicators of the complex nature of phytoestrogens and represent how individual differences in liver and gut metabolism may play vital roles in determining the activity of these compounds and the potential risks or benefits.
The most significant dietary sources of phytoestrogens include soybeans, clover, alfalfa sprouts, and oilseeds (e.g., flaxseed).[117] Components of these plants vary with geographic location, soil type, year, and environmental conditions of growth.[116] Processing also influences the amount and form of isoflavones in soy products. Processing soybeans for soy-containing food products increases hydrolization to the aglycone forms. Fermenting soybeans to produce products such as tempeh and natto partially hydrolyzes isoflavone glucosides to the aglycone form.[116] The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Iowa State University developed an isoflavone database in 1999 to use as a reference for determining the isoflavone values for many foods. This database expresses all values as aglycones and provides an accurate and comparable estimate of isoflavone content for many different foods.[118] It is important to recognize that eliminating all phytoestrogens from the diet is impossible, but limiting soy-containing foods and supplements is feasible. The effects of supplementation with synthetic sources of phytoestrogens are just beginning to be studied. All of these factors may account for varying results in observational and clinical trials and should be considered when evaluating studies of phytoestrogenic supplements.
The estrogenic activity of phytoestrogens was first observed in Australian ewes. It was found that some animals suffered reproductive disorders, resulting in permanent infertility after eating red clover. Genistein and daidzein, constituents of red clover, were later identified as the agents most likely to have caused this effect in the animals.[117,119] Estrogenic activity has been demonstrated by many soy-containing foods, as well as the individual components discussed above. In vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated hormonal activity through ER-binding assays. The binding affinity of phytoestrogens to the estrogen receptor has been compared with 17รŸ-estradiol, illustrating their weaker estrogenic potential (potential in descending order: 17รŸ-estradiol, coumestrol, genistein, equol, daidzein, and biochanin A).[120] These experiments did not distinguish between agonistic and antagonistic activity after receptor binding or binding differences between the α and รŸ isoforms of ER. Therefore, corresponding clinical outcomes related to these biochemical activities are uncertain.
Many other mechanisms of biological activity have been demonstrated with various phytoestrogens. Genestein, for example, has demonstrated both proliferative and anti-proliferative effects, depending on the concentrations studied. At low concentrations, genestein stimulates the growth of breast cancer cells; at high concentrations, growth inhibition is seen.[121] Antiestrogenic effects have also been observed with increased concentrations of other phytoestrogens.[122] Mechanisms other than ER binding may also elicit hormonal effects. Daidzein has been shown to inhibit aromatase and 5-α-reductase, while other phytoestrogens have been proposed to decrease estrogen levels via stimulation of sex hormone binding globulin.[117,123] Other hypothesized mechanisms of biological activity include inactivation of tyrosine kinase, inhibition of epidermal growth factor, and inhibition of type II topoisomerase.[119] Corresponding biological outcomes related to these activities have yet to be determined. However, these effects would seem to be beneficial for breast, endometrial, ovarian and prostate cancers, potentially inhibiting cancer cell growth through similar mechanisms as prescription drugs administered as cancer therapy. Evidence supporting or refuting these biological effects in cancer patients has yet to be reported.
In humans, phytoestrogens have been shown to alter endocrine function in premenopausal, perimenopausal, and postmenopausal women. Studies investigating the effects of different forms of isoflavone supplementation have found conflicting results regarding changes in menstrual cycle, hormone levels, and other measures of endocrine function (e.g., changes in vaginal epithelium). Many studies investigating the endocrine effects of phytoestrogens in healthy women have been of short duration and are not designed to determine the presence (or absence) of clinical benefit based on their findings. This information could be extrapolated to individual patient scenarios, but caution should be used when making these assumptions, as these are complex interactions.
Breast cancer. The effects of phytoestrogens on breast tissue are not well understood. Early epidemiologic studies appeared to indicate an inverse association between soy consumption and breast cancer incidence;[124-129] however, other studies have failed to confirm these results.[130-133] This result may be due to study design, a true lack of effect, or variability in other factors related to phytoestrogen metabolism or processing. Studies investigating the timing of phytoestrogen exposure appear to indicate that consumption early in life, especially during breast development, may indeed be protective against breast cancer. This may be due to enhanced mammary gland development, leading to fewer terminal end buds, which are the most vulnerable to carcinogenesis. These inferences are based on animal studies and have yet to be substantiated in humans. However, a small retrospective study conducted in China to evaluate soy food intake during childhood and adolescence found an inverse association with adult breast cancer risk.[129] These results appeared to be significant, regardless of menopausal status. It is, therefore, postulated that early exposure to a diet high in phytoestrogens may be beneficial, but supplementation or increases in dietary phytoestrogens later in life may offer no established benefit on breast tissue.
Effects of phytoestrogens on breast tumors have been studied in cell lines and animal models. Conflicting reports exist, demonstrating both protective and procarcinogenic effects with phytoestrogens.[134-138] A study investigating the effects of dietary genistein in combination with tamoxifen in an athymic nude mouse model demonstrated a decrease in tumor growth inhibition with tamoxifen when given in combination with the phytoestrogen.[139] At least two human studies have demonstrated a stimulatory effect on breast tissue with soy supplementation.[140,141] All of these data raise concerns about phytoestrogen supplementation in women with a history of breast cancer, regardless of whether they are currently receiving active hormonal therapy.
Endometrial and ovarian cancers. The effects of phytoestrogens on the endometrium are even less well understood. Unopposed estrogen replacement therapy has long been known to increase the risk of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer. This effect is not evident when either continual or cyclic progesterone therapy is added to the replacement regimen. Epidemiologic evidence seems to support the notion that increased consumption of phytoestrogens decreases the risk of endometrial cancer.[142,143] However, in vitro data have shown that high concentrations of phytoestrogens induce stromal cell proliferation to nearly the same degree as estradiol. In the presence of estradiol, phytoestrogens antagonize the proliferative effects of estradiol by 10“20%. This demonstrates the SERM-like qualities of phytoestrogens on the endometrium.[144] A recent randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial investigating the use of a soy tablet (150 mg of isoflavone daily) in 376 postmenopausal women found 6 patients (4%) with endometrial hyperplasia, compared with none of the patients receiving placebo.[145] The phytoestrogen supplement was administered for five years, and the cases of hyperplasia were diagnosed at five years through a scheduled endometrial biopsy that was part of the study. Another study investigating the rates of endometrial hyperplasia with conventional HRT also reported rates as high as 3% in the placebo group of the trial.[146] Therefore, the overall risk of endometrial cancer with phytoestrogen supplementation seems rather low, but one case of endometrial cancer has been reported in a woman who was ingesting many herbs and vitamins with known phytoestrogenic components.[146] This information would lead to the conclusion that phytoestrogens should be avoided in patients with endometrial cancer. No data regarding the effects of phytoestrogens on ovaries or ovarian cancer could be found, making it difficult to ascertain the risks associated with phytoestrogen supplementation in ovarian cancer.
Other potential uses. In terms of efficacy, there is an abundance of information related to the efficacy of phytoestrogens for a number of physiological or pathophysiological states. Physiological changes in women related to phytoestrogen consumption have been reported relative to their use as "natural" HRT (in postmenopausal women) or as a cancer prevention strategy (for all women), primarily focusing on breast cancer prevention.
The effects on menopausal symptoms, primarily vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes), have been a major focus of research in this arena as well. It is prudent to recognize the importance of a placebo effect (nearly 20“30% reduction in vasomotor symptoms) in these studies. Soy supplementation through foods,[147] soy protein isolate,[148,149] or soy extracts[150-152] appears to add an additional 10“20% improvement above that seen with placebo. However, conflicting evidence from other studies demonstrate no benefit over placebo with a soy protein isolate,[153,154] a soy beverage supplement,[155] or a soy extract.[156] Also, two studies of red clover extracts have been published and failed to find a benefit over placebo for the management of hot flashes.[157,158] The soy products used in these studies had differing amounts of isoflavone content, which may have led to discrepancies in the outcomes. Again, these varying results could be due to individual differences in metabolism or the source of phytoestrogens used. As little as 30 mg daily of soy isoflavones (intact with soy protein or as a semipurified extract) may reduce the frequency of hot flashes. However, the placebo effect should be taken into account, and each individual woman must evaluate the relatively small additional benefit of soy phytoestrogen used to treat hot flashes.[159] Of greater concern, no safety information exists regarding this type of supplementation in women with a history of breast, endometrial, or ovarian cancer. One of the above-mentioned studies included breast cancer patients, but neither cancer status nor disease recurrence rates were mentioned.[156] Most of these studies addressing hot flashes were of short duration, and the overall effect of continued supplementation on cancer recurrence is unknown.
Other proposed benefits of HRT include positive effects on cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. While even large, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating prescription HRT have failed to substantiate epidemiologic and case“control data relating to these positive effects, investigations have commenced with "natural" HRT. In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the health claim "Diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that include 25 g of soy protein/day may reduce the risk of heart disease."[160] This approval was based on data from numerous studies indicating that an average of 47 g daily of soy protein lowers total and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and produces a trend toward increased high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol.[161] Since this approval, studies have questioned whether isoflavones are responsible for the lipid-lowering effects of soy. Isoflavones have been shown to participate in this effect but must be consumed with other components of soy protein to see a benefit.[152,162-171] Isoflavone extracts may have other effects on the cardiovascular system that may be beneficial (e.g., improved arterial compliance), but these are just beginning to be investigated.[171,172]
The effects of phytoestrogens on bone health are not as strongly supported by human evidence. Animal studies investigating effects on bone mineral density and bone turnover have been conducted, but little human evidence is available to substantiate these claims.[173-175] Reports from clinical trials appear mixed, demonstrating mild benefit or no effect.[144] Studies suggest a short-term benefit with soy protein supplementation, but clinical outcomes (e.g., fracture rates) related to these benefits have not been demonstrated. Further studies are required to establish whether these effects are sustained over a prolonged period and whether they translate into decreased fracture rates and an overall improvement in postmenopausal health. Also, the question of whether bone loss can be prevented with soy supplementation has not been answered. Again, women included in these studies did not have a history of breast, endometrial, or ovarian cancer; hence, the effects on cancer recurrence with soy protein supplementation are not known. Therefore, risk benefit analyses have not adequately been accomplished and safety concerns still exist.
Based on this information, recommendations for individual patients are very complex. For patients faced with a myriad of menopause- or cancer-treatment-related symptoms, the question of whether to use a "natural" hormonal preparation is fraught with anxiety and confusion. Communication surrounding this issue should be sensitive to these anxieties and attempt to fully explain the controversial nature of the evidence available to date. Discussion of the conflicting evidence presented previously and the fact that there are still many unanswered questions is paramount to ensure that patients make informed decisions. Generally, recommendations include an emphasis on moderation and stress the lack of information with synthetic or concentrated forms of phytoestrogens. As stated previously, lower concentrations of phytoestrogens appear to be estrogenic and stimulate cancer cell growth in vitro. However, it is important to reiterate that it is impossible to eliminate phytoestrogens from the diet. For food sources with high phytoestrogenic concentrations or high isoflavone content (e.g., soy milk, tofu), no more than one serving of these products per day is recommended. This recommendation is based on other published recommendations that will be discussed later.

Phytoestrogens in Prostate Cancer
The normal growth and differentiation of the prostate require the presence of androgens, specifically testosterone.[176] The most physiologically active form of testosterone is dihydrotestosterone (DHT). Conversion of testosterone to the more active moiety occurs through a reaction catalyzed by the enzyme 5-α-reductase. Testosterone production is regulated through the release of LHRH, which interacts with the pituitary gland to release FSH and LH, ultimately regulating the level of testosterone through a negative feedback mechanism. LHRH agonists have been developed to target this pathway, activating the negative feedback mechanism and decreasing serum testosterone levels. Similar outcomes can be achieved through surgery (orchiectomy) or with other types of drugs, such as ketoconazole ( Table 7 ). Directly targeting prostate cancer cells may also be accomplished with antiandrogens (e.g., flutamide, bicalutamide) that bind to the androgen receptor and prevent DHT from acting and stimulating growth. Another mechanism to target prostate cancer is to block the conversion to the active form of testosterone (DHT) through 5-α-reductase inhibition. This mechanism has not proven effective as prostate cancer treatment but may play a role in prostate cancer prevention.
Men in the general population commonly take supplements for symptoms of prostatitis, treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy, or symptoms of sexual dysfunction. Others use these products for the treatment and prevention of prostate cancer. Some dietary supplements may effectively treat these problems but may also pose a risk for prostate cancer patients, rendering their cancer treatment ineffective or stimulating cancer cell growth.
Phytoestrogen supplementation is also extremely controversial for the treatment of prostate cancer yet may prove to be more beneficial than for patients with breast, endometrial, or ovarian cancer. Epidemiologic and laboratory evidence seems to support the idea that phytoestrogens are protective against prostate cancer. Asian men have been shown to have a decreased incidence of prostate cancer, which is believed to be a result of a diet high in phytoestrogens.[120] The full mechanism of protection has not been clearly elucidated, but most studies suggest a relationship to the inhibition of 5-α-reductase in genital skin fibroblasts and prostate tissue.[177] ER-รŸ receptors have been identified in the prostate, but expression of this protein is lost in malignant prostate cells and prostate cancer tissues. Some phytoestrogens may alter expression of ER-receptor proteins over a man™s life span, but the clinical outcomes of these biological events are unknown.[178] A study using a mouse xenograft model for prostate cancer incorporated increasing concentrations of soy protein into the animals™ diet to determine the effects on prostate tumor growth.[179] Diets with the highest concentrations of phytoestrogens were associated with tumor growth inhibition, while diets containing lower levels of phytoestrogens were associated with reduced tumor growth compared with diets without supplementation. Tumor growth inhibition in this study was associated with apoptotic mechanisms and decreased angiogenesis. Whether the mechanisms are active and these concentrations of phytoestrogens achievable in humans has yet to be determined. Urban and colleagues[180] failed to find any effect on prostate specific antigen (PSA) in men with baseline elevations in PSA who were undergoing supplementation with a soy protein beverage. This was a small study and does not eliminate the potential for beneficial effects on the prostate by similar phytoestrogenic compounds. Until more evidence is available, phytoestrogenic supplements should be used with caution in men with a history of prostate cancer and their use should be accurately recorded for any patient, particularly patients who are participating in clinical trials. Dietary sources of phytoestrogens may also pose some risk, but eliminating all dietary sources of phytoestrogens is impossible. Therefore, moderation would still be a prudent course of action based on other published recommendations.

Summary and Recommendations
There are no easy answers regarding the use of dietary supplements with hormonal properties in people with a history of cancer. Hopefully, the concerns outlined above are adequate for clinicians to establish a template with which to evaluate these types of compounds. Due to the lack of conclusive evidence regarding both safety and efficacy, patients should be counseled on the theoretical risks and potential benefits and need to recognize that our understanding of this subject is lacking. Overall, it is important to review each patient’s disease and the goals of cancer therapy and supplement therapy while addressing these concerns. Moderation would appear to be a prudent course of action related to phytoestrogens, limiting the amount of soy and avoiding the use of synthetic or concentrated forms of phytoestrogens. Some countries have established maximum daily allowances for phytoestrogens based on the available scientific evidence. Much of the widespread concern surrounds thyroid alterations found in adolescents who received soy-based infant formulas[181] and decreases in the number of proliferating cells in the intestine of piglets fed soy-based formulas compared with cow’s-milk formulas.[182] The French have issued a public statement recommending a maximum daily intake of 1 mg/kg of phytoestrogens.[144] According to Sirtori and colleagues,[144] the Italian Health Authority released a public statement recommending a daily intake of phytoestrogens as dietary supplements below 80 mg, which represents approximately 1 mg of phytoestrogens per kilogram of body weight. Utilizing the isoflavone database mentioned previously,[118] foods and supplements can be categorized based on their isoflavone components, and patients can be counseled on the appropriate amounts of foods and supplements to intake to stay within these limits. Working closely with a dietitian who specializes in this type of education and counseling is very helpful. As a more generalized recommendation for cancer patients, clinicians may recommend no more than one serving of soy per day with a well-balanced diet that includes fruits, vegetables, and grains. After reviewing all of the important information, patients must decide whether to take such supplements.

Supplements with Known Safety Issues
Over the years, many supplements have been associated with severe adverse events, leading to deaths or serious life-threatening complications. These supplements are occasionally removed from the market by FDA but may be available in other countries. In retrospective analyses, it is nearly impossible to prove that an agent caused an adverse event. However, FDA is responsible for investigating and determining causality or risks in these situations. Many commonly used supplements are associated with serious adverse reactions (e.g., kava kava [Piper methysticum] and ma huang [Ephedra]).[183-185] As pharmacists, we are very aware that any drug can cause an untoward reaction and lead to serious complications. Supplements should be viewed similarly. While the window of safety may be quite wide for many dietary supplements, many of these compounds have true pharmacologic activities that may cause harm or provide valuable benefits. Only through diligent reporting efforts will these harmful and beneficial effects be realized.

Supplements with Known or Theoretical Drug Interactions
Many reviews have been published about drug“nutrient and drug supplement interactions.[186-189] It has become apparent that effects on absorption, metabolism, and excretion are not restricted to prescription drugs. Research has revealed substantial interactions between many prescription medications and the consumption of grape-fruit juice.[190] The effects of St. John’s wort on CYP isoenzymes have also been well-defined through diligent observations and detailed research.[191] These interactions are typically reported involving a prescription medication, but supplement supplement interactions are also possible and much more difficult to identify. Caution should be taken whenever more than one medication or supplement is added or dietary intake significantly altered. Information regarding these types of effects may be found in many databases and the primary literature.

CAM References
The ability to identify and locate reliable information regarding dietary supplements is vital. There are numerous resources that clinicians can consult when caring for patients who wish to use dietary supplements. There are a few systematic reviews and evaluations of dietary supplement references that are useful to consult when making a decision regarding the purchase and use of such resources.[192-195] However, these references are continuously updated, especially the electronic resources, and the conclusions may subsequently change.
For clinical practice, the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database (Therapeutic Research Faculty), Natural Standard (Natural Standard, Inc.) (not allowed class="postlink" href="http://www.naturalstandard.com">http://www.naturalstandard.com), and Review of Natural Products (component of Facts and Comparisons 4.0, not allowed class="postlink" href="http://online.factsandcomparisons.com/">http://online.factsandcomparisons.com/) are useful databases. The Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database is also available as a print reference, which is useful in some clinical settings. All databases require a subscription, and practicality will vary for different practice sites. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each database, so access to more than one database or another reference is essential. The scope of products included in the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database is extensive and a very valuable asset of the database. Another very helpful feature is the ability to search by proprietary name to identify product ingredients, often eliminating the need to track down the product through an Internet search engine. It provides very useful information for each supplement, including its scientific name, safety profile, adverse reactions, interactions with drugs and diseases (known and theoretical), mechanism of action, and dosage and ranks the efficacy for proposed indications. The Natural Standard offers similar sections within each monograph, but there are fewer products in the database. The strength of the Natural Standard database is the extensive evidence-based review for proposed indications. The Review of Natural Products database provides similar sections within each monograph; however, the clinical information may not always be as detailed. The AltMedDex System of Micromedex (Thomson Healthcare Inc.) is also useful.
These references are useful as first-line resources but are not the only good references available. It is important to understand that none of them offers "one-stop shopping," and the use of more than one reference is necessary to complete the analysis of dietary supplements for a patient. Searches of secondary databases, other tertiary references, and an Internet search engine are also necessary. The other caveat is that not all information will be explicitly stated in the reference (or even known), necessitating making professional judgment and extrapolation based on pharmacologic actions and available evidence.

Communication Tools
Most patients who take dietary supplements or CAM do so in conjunction with conventional cancer therapies. This complementary use poses some potential risks. Once a supplement is deemed safe for a patient, efficacy must be addressed. The oncology community is focused on evidence to support efficacy with traditional therapies and supplements. Burstein[196] stated that "the role of CAM extends far beyond the purported medicinal value of any CAM, and in fact, may have little to do with whether or not CAM works as a traditional medicine." In other words, many cancer patients have multiple legitimate needs that are not being met by conventional medical practices, including emotional and existential discomforts. The use of CAM may not be about treating their cancer but rather "feeling better and having greater control over one™s destiny." When looking at our algorithm (Figure 1) for reviewing supplements, this fact is reflected in the recommendation to "accept" practices or supplements that are safe despite the lack of or inconsistent evidence to support efficacy. This reasoning suggests that talking about CAM is of the utmost importance. Ask every patient at every point in his or her care about the use of CAM. Ask why they are using these therapies. When listening to their responses, sensitivity for social, cultural, and ethnic differences is required. While the rate of CAM use was similar among whites, African Americans, Latinos, and Chinese patients in one study, the types of therapies chosen differed substantially.[197] The need to consistently assess patients differently for physical discomfort or emotional distress should be addressed with development of better clinical tools. This is an opportunity to have an open and honest dialogue with patients and empower them to be involved in their conventional medical treatment decisions as well as their complementary ones.

Discussion
According to Burstein,[196] "the interest in CAM is an understandable expression of the hopes, concerns and symptoms experienced by our patients." In our approach to this conundrum, we have tried to take the emotional and overwhelming process of reviewing individual products and make it more manageable and objective without negating the beliefs and hopes of our patients. By focusing first on safety, we leave the question of efficacy to the patient. Only in light of convincing evidence of lack of efficacy would a suggestion to discourage use be made if a product were safe. The reasons for a patient™s use of a dietary supplement and the clinical setting should also be taken into account when addressing risks and benefits. Individual patient goals and prognosis should always be addressed in the context of the available evidence, as the perception of risk versus benefit may differ greatly from one patient to another and from one clinical setting to another (e.g., curative versus palliative setting). This approach allows for open discussion of the available evidence, utilizing objective information and theoretical conjecture when available. If the information is presented to the patient as it stands, with gaps and inconsistencies, patients remain empowered to make informed health care decisions and do not feel ignored or dismissed.
The difficulties surrounding this issue are apparent in both the complex nature of the information and the enormous emotional investment patients have in seeking to help themselves through the use of dietary supplements. Harpham,[198] physician and cancer survivor, wrote, "When faced with a life-threatening disease requiring highly toxic treatments with no guarantees, or when dying because there are no effective conventional treatments, it takes guts to reject something or someone claiming to be able to save you, just in case you might be wrong." As pharmacists, we need to remember this statement when counseling patients on dietary supplements and respect their views and beliefs. This open communication with patients makes them more likely to divulge all of the CAM therapies they are using. At the same time, Harpham wrote that "not all hope is equal. Realistic hope”hope based on fact”is stronger than that born of wishful thinking." It is our job to give each patient the facts as we know them, recognizing that this requires more time and effort on our part. However, this time is well spent and will encourage patients to continue to ask for information about CAM before using it, further reducing the chances for a serious interaction with a drug or disease. We believe that this approach allows patients to make informed, objective decisions while maintaining their realistic hope for the future.

Conclusion
Counseling patients with cancer about dietary supplements requires a systematic thought process that considers the available theories and data, as well as the patients™ views about the agents.

Table 4. Immunomodulatory Effects of Commonly Used Dietary Supplements[31,90-92]

Dietary SupplementReported Immunomodulatory Effect(s)a
Echinacea (Echinacea purpurea)Increases phagocytosis, lymphocyte activity, TNF-α, IL-1, and IFN-รŸ-2b
North American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius)Monocyte activation, TNF-αinductionb
Asian or Korean ginseng (Panax ginseng)Increases NK cell activity,b,c decreases TNF-α,c increases lymphocyte proliferationb and total leukocytesd
Milk thistle (Silybum marianum)Increases lymphocyte proliferation,b inhibits TNF-αb
Garlic (Allium sativum)Increases T-cell proliferation,b IL-2,c TNF-α,c and IFN-γc
Ginger (Zingiber officinale)Decreases lymphocyte proliferation and IL-2b
Melatonin (N-acetyl-5-methoxytryptamine)Increases IL-2 and IL-2-induced lymphocytosis, monocyte activationd
Dong quai (Angelica sinensis)Increases lymphocyte proliferationb
Coriolus mushroom Coriolus versicolorIncreases IgG, IgM, leukocytes, and neutr d
a TNF = tumor necrosis factor; IL = interleukin; IFN = interferon; NK = natural killer; Ig = immunoglobulin.

Table 5. Selected Supplements with Hormonal Properties[31]

SupplementHormonal Mechanism(s)
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)Estrogenic
Black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa)Estrogenic (controversial)
Chasteberry (Vitex agnus-castus)Estrogenic, progestogenic
Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA)Estrogenic, androgenic
Dong quai (Angelica sinensis)Estrogenic
Flaxseed (not flaxseed oil)Estrogenic, phytoestrogens, antiestrogenic
Ginseng (American, Siberian, Asian)Estrogenic
Ginseng (Asian)Phytoestrogens
Hops (Humulus lupulus)Estrogenic, estrogen constituents
Licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra)Estrogenic, estrogen constituents, antiestrogenic
Oregano (Oregano spp.)Progestogenic
Red clover (Trifolium pratense)Estrogenic, isoflavones
Saw palmetto (Seronoa replens)Antiestrogenic
SoyEstrogenic, isoflavones

Table 6. Traditional Hormonal Therapies for Breast Cancer[115]

Traditional Hormonal TherapyAntitumor Mechanism of Actiona
Antiestrogens
FulvestrantBlocks and downregulates ER
Megestrol acetateBlocks ER and PR
TamoxifenSERM
ToremifeneSERM
Estrogen synthesis inhibitors
AnastrozoleInhibits peripheral estrogen synthesis
ExemestaneInhibits peripheral estrogen synthesis
LetrozoleInhibits peripheral estrogen synthesis
Leuprolide acetateInhibits ovarian production of estrogen through negative feedback mechanism (HPA axis)
GoserelinInhibits ovarian production of estrogen through negative feedback mechanism (HPA axis)
TriptorelinInhibits ovarian production of estrogen through negative feedback mechanism (HPA axis)
AminoglutethimideInhibits adrenal production of estrogen
Megestrol acetateInhibits ovarian production of estrogen through negative feedback mechanism (HPA axis)
FluoxymesteronePrevents peripheral estrogen synthesis
a ER = estrogen receptor; SERM = selective estrogen-receptor modulator; PR = progesterone receptor; HPA = hypothalamic, pituitary, adrenal.

Table 7. Traditional Hormonal Therapies for Prostate Cancer[115]

Traditional Hormonal TherapyAntitumor Mechanism of Actiona
Antiandrogens
BicalutamideBlocks androgen receptor
FlutamideBlocks androgen receptor
Megestrol acetateBlocks androgen receptor
NilutamideBlocks androgen receptor
Androgen synthesis inhibitors
AminoglutethimideInhibits adrenal production of androgens
KetoconazoleInhibits adrenal production of androgens
EstrogensInhibits testicular production of androgens through negative feedback mechanism (HPA axis)
GoserelinInhibits testicular production of androgens through negative feedback mechanism (HPA axis)
LeuprolideInhibits testicular production of androgens through negative feedback mechanism (HPA axis)
Megestrol acetateInhibits testicular production of androgens through negative feedback mechanism (HPA axis)
TriptorelinInhibits testicular production of androgens through negative feedback mechanism (HPA axis)
a HPA = hypothalamic, pituitary, adrenal.

References
1.Boon H, Stewart M, Kennard MA et al. Use of complementary/alternative medicine by breast cancer survivors in Ontario: prevalence and perceptions. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18:2515“21. 2.Shen J, Andersen R, Albert PS et al. Use of complementary/alternative therapies by women with advanced-stage breast cancer. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2002; 2(1):8. 3.Day SD, Henry DW. Acute leukemias. In: Dipiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC et al., eds. Pharmacotherapy: a pathophysiologic approach. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002:2373“95. 4.Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) package insert. Thousand Oaks, CA: Amgen; 2005 Sep. 5.Neupogen (filgrastim) package insert. Thousand Oaks, CA: Amgen; 2004 Dec. 6.Leukine (sargramostim) package insert. Seattle, WA: Berlex; 2004 May. 7.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Myeloid growth factors. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/myeloid_growth.pdf (accessed 2006 May 31). 8.Suh SO, Kroh M, Kim NR et al. Effects of red ginseng upon postoperative immunity and survival in patients with stage III gastric cancer. Am J Chin Med. 2002; 30:483“94. 9.Tsang KW, Lam CL, Yan C et al. Coriolus versicolor polysaccharide peptide slows progression of advanced non-small cell cancer. Respir Med. 2003; 97:618“24. 10.Wilasrusmee C, Siddiqui J, Bruch D et al. In vitro immunomodulatory effects of herbal products. Am Surg. 2002; 68:860“4. 11.Lissoni P, Barni S, Mandala M et al. Decreased toxicity and increased efficacy of cancer chemotherapy using the pineal hormone melatonin in metastatic solid tumour patients with poor clinical status. Eur J Cancer. 1999; 35:1688“92. 12.Lersch C, Zeuner M, Bauer A et al. Nonspecific immunostimulation with low doses of cyclophosphamide (LDCY), thymostimulin, and Echinacea purpurea extracts (echinacin) in patients with far advanced colorectal cancers: preliminary results. Cancer Invest. 1992; 10:343“8. 13.Khoo KS, Ang PT. Extract of Astragalus membranaceus and Ligustrum lucidium does not prevent cyclophosphamide-induced myelosuppression. Singapore Med J. 1995; 36:387“90. 14.Pongnikorn S, Fongmoon D, Kasinrerk W et al. Effect of bitter melon (Momordica charantia Linn) on level and function of natural killer cells in cervical cancer patients with radiotherapy. J Med Assoc Thai. 2003; 86:61“8. 15.Linde K, Barrett B, Wolkart K et al. Echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; 1:CD000530. 16.Elsasser-Beile U, Willenbacher W, Bartsch HH et al. Cytokine production in leukocyte cultures during therapy with echinacea extract. J Clin Lab Anal. 1996; 10:441“5.3.0.CO;2-W&link_type=DOI" > 17.Kemp DE, Franco KN. Possible leukopenia associated with long-term use of echinacea. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2002; 15:417“9. 18.Facts and Comparisons 4.0. Echinacea. Review of natural products. St. Louis: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2006. 19.Echinacea. AltMedDex. Greenwood Village, CO: Thomson Micromedex; 2006. 20.Natural Medicine Quality Standards. Echinacea. http://www.naturalstandard.com. (accessed 2006 Jun 1). 21.Hamamura D, Baker DE. Potential herbal drug interactions with immunosuppressant drugs used in renal transplantations. Adv Pharm. 2003; 1:349“65. 22.Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. Echinacea and garlic. http://www.naturaldatabase.com (accessed 2006 Jun 1). 23.DRUGREAX. Greenwood Village, CO: Thomson Micromedex; 2006. 24.Bauer S, Stormer E, Johne A et al. Alterations in cyclosporin A pharmacokinetics and metabolism during treatment with St. John™s wort in renal transplant patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003; 55:203“11. 25.Alscher DM, Klotz U. Drug interaction of herbal tea containing St. John™s wort with cyclosporine. Transpl Int. 2003; 16:543“4. 26.Moschella C, Jaber BL. Interaction between cyclosporine and Hypericum perforatum (St. John™s wort) after organ transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001; 38:1105“7. 27.Ruschitzka F, Meier PJ, Turina M et al. Acute heart transplant rejection due to Saint John™s wort. Lancet. 2000; 355:548“9. 28.Ahmed SM, Banner NR, Dubrey SW. Low cyclosporin-A level due to Saint-John™s-wort in heart transplant patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2001; 20:795. 29.Mai I, Stormer E, Bauer S et al. Impact of St. John™s wort treatment on the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid in renal transplant patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003; 18:819“22. 30.Bolley R, Zulke C, Kammerl M et al. Tacrolimus-induced nephrotoxicity unmasked by induction of the CYP3A4 system with St. John™s wort. Transplantation. 2002; 73:1009. 31.Piscitelli SC, Burstein AH, Welden N et al. The effect of garlic supplements on the pharmacokinetics of saquinavir. Clin Infect Dis. 2002; 34:234“8. 32.Henderson I. Breast cancer. In: Murphy G, Lawrence W, Lenhard R, eds. American Cancer Society textbook of clinical oncology. 2nd ed. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 1995:198“219. 33.Ellis MJ, Swain S. Steroid hormone therapies for cancer. In: Chabner BA, Longo DL, eds. Cancer chemotherapy and biotherapy: principles and practice. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2001:85“138. 34.Munro IC, Harwood M, Hlywka JJ et al. Soy isoflavones: a safety review. Nutr Rev. 2003; 61:1“33. 35.Kurzer M, Xu X. Dietary phytoestrogens. Annu Rev Nutr. 1997; 17:353“81. 36.U.S. Department of Agriculture. Database on the isoflavone content of foods. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/food-comp/Data/isoflav.html (accessed 2004 Jan 1). 37.Davis S, Murkies A, Wilcox G. Phytoestrogens in clinical practice. Integr Me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 11:30 am
Posts: 10003
Location: Chiang Mai
Related Topics

• Prostate cancer screenings have huge rate of false positives http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=23115&hilit=PSA+controversial&sid=28188bbc35c98e6f28aa79e000f9f145
• New Prostate Cancer Guidelines Aim to Empower the Patient http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=22801&hilit=PSA+controversial&sid=28188bbc35c98e6f28aa79e000f9f145
• PSA 'Nanotest' May Spot Prostate Cancer's Return After Surge http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=21296&hilit=PSA+controversial&sid=28188bbc35c98e6f28aa79e000f9f145
• Inventor of PSA Cancer Test Says It's Overused http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=3596&hilit=PSA+controversial&sid=28188bbc35c98e6f28aa79e000f9f145
• PSA Test Still Important to Detect Prostate Cancer, Studies http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=3981&hilit=PSA+controversial&sid=28188bbc35c98e6f28aa79e000f9f145

_________________
ACTIVE? Try Dr. Weil's Vitamin Advisor & http://bit.ly/xfOQJc
recommend books http://bit.ly/x4AptG
Live Blood http://bit.ly/9zFIG3 http://www.dreddyclinic.com/products/ghchealth.php
Dr. Fuhrmanhttp://www.facebook.com/groups/livebloodcourse/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:28 pm
Posts: 968
more about anxiety and stress among cancer patients and their families:
http://www.dreddyclinic.com/findinformation/gg/generalized_anxiety_disorder/generalized_anxiety_disorder_1.php

The Anti-Drug for Anxiety
http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=306

Chemotherapy Helps Cure Cancer? & The Earth Is Flat
http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=3651

Anxiety
http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=301

Anxiety Attacks
http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=109&t=3171

_________________

"Green Living" Cleanse Starter Kit

$208.89
[ learn more ]

Add to Cart

Kit Includes: 1 Multi-Tech XJ-3000E Home or Office Air Purification System, 1 Home Water Test Kit, 1 Safe Space Cell Phone Radiation Protector, 1 Safe Space II Computer or Home Radiation Protector

Cleanses: The Starter "Green Living" Cleanse.

Dr. Group's Opinion: Great introductory kit for improving your air and water quality in your indoor environments.



436x180_start_button_weil

DrEddyClinicShop: http://myghcstore.com/dreddyclinic/ http://www.dreddyclinic.com/products/ghchealth.php


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group