Case Report Stage IV Sarcoma: Good News from JG

Dear Friends, 

This post is related to a man from Europe, JG, with whom I am in contact since May 2018, and his successful treatment of an aggressive form of Stage IV sarcoma.

A week ago, JG contacted me to share some very good news, as he is now at a point where there is no more evidence of disease. He specifically asked me to share his story but also keep his identity confidential, which is what I am going to do here. He would like to share his story in order “to give hope and help to other people suffering from this disease”.

Here is JG’s short report received during December 2018:

“I am JG, I am 26 years old and I had a sarcoma, grade III, stage IV in mediastinum (several tumors). I followed a surgery and several complementary treatments such us:

  • 2 DG metronomic 
  • Low carb diet 
  • Meditation 
  • Oncothermia & radiation
  • Suplements: melatonin, Vit D3, probiotics, prebiotics, honokiol, HCA 
  • Drugs: cimetidine, celecoxib, ciclofosfamide, mebendazol, lovastatin. These have been changed over the time, but I write the most important here. I don’t know if it a good idea because I assumed several interactions in order to try to kill microscopic disease, other people should be aware of this interactions. 

The results from the last MRI showed no evidence of disease although the surgical resection was not complete.

It may be relevant to mention here that JG has a medical doctor training, which helped him to easier navigate through various treatment options. While I cannot share more details here, the only point I can make is that the past and present of JG is very impressive. That can be summarized in a few words: A challenging life turned into success for himself and others. And JG is only 26 years old. I am sure those results will continue, and it’s great to meet such people.

I do realize that the report above may be a little too short. Therefore, in order for the reader to have a more clear understanding of the context for the results mentioned above, I will also share with you small parts of our (extensive) e-mail conversation. However, at the same time I will keep confidential any personal data from JG.
.

May 2018,
JG contacted me via e-mail, writing the following:

“Hello, My name is JG and I have been following your website since I was diagnosed a very rare and aggressive type of sarcoma. It was controlled but recently it has losed all control and it has metastasized to the chest wall. I know you cannot give precise advice etc, but your opinion is too important for me. I have been managing my own treatment and I will continue doing the same. I will expose briefly what I think could be a good strategy to start as quick as possible, and i would be really grated if you can give me your opinion. 

– Ketogenic Diet – 2DG and vit C infusions 
– Ozone / Hiperbaric oxigen 
– ECCT   
– Oncothermia or Nanothermia applied to the lessions 
– Cocktail: Cimetidine, Heparin, Mebendazole, Ciclophosfamide, Metformin, DCA, Lovastatin, Doxyciclin, Hydroxycloroquine, Tranilast

….”

June 2018,
after several e-mails exchanged between the two of us, JG writes:

“… After talking with the Surgeon I have decided to operate the main tumors ( 3 ), located in the chest wall. It seems they could be removed completely, and with that surgery they would remain  2 little nodules of 1 cm approx in the thorax ( which are not going to be removed ). So now it is really important for me designing a strong anti recurrence protocol in order to avoid recurrence after the surgery. The measures and drugs i have planned using are:

pre operation: Heparin, cimetidine, MCP, Celecoxib, Diclofenac, Propranolol, Hydroxichloroquine, Viscum album, PSK, Silimarine, Curcumine, Garlic, Cruciferous extract, Lactoferrin, EGCG, AHCC, Fish oil, Filgrastim/neupogenmaybe ? (not sure about this). Of course I will cut off all the drugs that cannot be used pre surgery some days before the surgery, such us heparin.

peri operation: ketorolac (following the videoinstructions)

post operation: Same drugs and supplements used pre operation ; Vit C IV( 3 times / week); 2 DG protocol; Metronomic chemotherapy: ciclophosphamide, etoposide ; Local Hiperthermia in the places where the tumors were growing and in the two nodules that are not going to be removed surgically.

…”

July 2018,
following a question from JG on approaches to reduce the chance for recurrence after surgery (besides addressing inflammation in general) here is a part of my response which I share as it may inspire other people, and/or trigger discussions: 

“… Regarding ways to support radiotherapy/chemotherapy while reducing chance for recurrence, I think there are several major lines that should be addressed:

1. Increase immune system effectiveness and reduce pro-growth tumor environment. 
It is known that radiotherapy/chemo may trigger necrosis of tumor cells that in turn may trigger immune reactions. Sometimes the immune reactions following radiotheraphy/chemo can be so large that would lead to an abscopal effect, where tumors in other parts of the body can also be wiped out after radiotheraphy to a single spot. In order to increase the chance for such reactions and reduce chance for reccurence, we need to maximize the effectiveness of the immune system to the best of our knowledge.

For this, I would consider some of the following:

a. Reducing T-regs, M2, and MDSC

– low dose Cyclophosmamide to reduce T- regulatory cells https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22761338

– Cimetidine may also reduce T-regs https://ecancer.org/journal/8/full/485-repurposing-drugs-in-oncology-redo-cimetidine-as-an-anti-cancer-agent.php

– M1 macrophages, protect against infection and can work to destroy tumours, and M2 macrophages promote wound-healing and have been linked to tumour growth and spread. So we want to target and block the accumulation of M2 cells in tumours after radiotheraphy. Doxycicline is an inhibitor of the M2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24505138  Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibition also Blocks M2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3646746/ this is why Aspirin may help here but also in general to reduce the chance of metastasis There is one more drug here very good, but difficult to get as it is very expensive (Plerixaforhttps://www.cancertreatmentsresearch.com/plerixafor-mozobil/

– MDSC also need to be inhibited. Retinoic acid and Vitamin D3 could help on this line https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4019895/ Cimetidine will also help here https://www.cancertreatmentsresearch.com/antihistamine/ Tadalafil can also reduce MDSC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329916/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931815/
Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition reduces postoperative metastatic disease by targeting surgery-induced myeloid derived suppressor cell-dependent inhibition of Natural Killer cell cytotoxicity https://www.societederecherchesurlecancer.ca/en/news/drug-repurposing-viagra-and-agriflu-help-to-fight-cancer

– Histamine inhibition by Cimetidine and Cetirizine https://www.cancertreatmentsresearch.com/antihistamine/

b. Increasing the activity of T-cells via supplements such as Coriolus

c. Increasing the chance of effectiveness of T-cells by re-balancing the PH around the tumors with alkalizing approaches such as Basentabs or proton pump inhibitors (should not be used with weak-acidic chemotherapy – only with those weak-basic)

d. Reduceing fibroblasts using  anti-fibrotic agents (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] or tranilast) that should also reduce the infiltration of tumors with immunosuppressive cells (regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cas.12584

2. Reduce HA with 4-MUhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369655/ in order to reduce inflammation and create a tumor micro-environment that is easily addressable by drugs such as chemo therapies. I would use this only in combination with major treatments such as chemo, etc. If no major treatments are used, could be better not to use 4-MU as HA may create a temporarily slower tumor growth https://www.cancertreatmentsresearch.com/the-hyaluronic-acid-cage-to-open-or-not-to-open/

3. Increase Tumor oxygenation via e.g. – local hyperthermia prior to and after radiotheraphy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357106/– using Niacin supplement prior to radiation and drinking some coffee prior to radiation. The above reference discuses in entire strategy focused on “Targeting Tumor Perfusion and Oxygenation to Improve the Outcome of Anticancer Therapy”

4. Decrease intracellular PH in cancer cells via proton pump inhibitors and hyperthermia
The above would be a strategy to support major therapies and/or to reduce chance for recurrence. “Major treatments” are a different discussion that we touched in some e-mail exchange we already had. By major treatments, I am thinking of treatments that directly and strongly attack cancer cells. Those include, chemo, radio, new treatments (such as 2DG, 3BP, Salinomycin, Diflunisal, etc). 

…”

Disclaimer:

This site is not designed to and does not provide medical advice, professional diagnosis, opinion, treatment or services to you or to any other individual. Through this site and linkages to other sites, I provide general information for educational purposes only. The information provided in this site, or through linkages to other sites, is not a substitute for medical or professional care, and you should not use the information in place of a visit, call consultation or the advice of your physician or other healthcare provider. I am not liable or responsible for any advice, course of treatment, diagnosis or any other information, services or product you obtain through this site. This is just my own personal opinion regarding what we have learned on this road.

Please read an extended version of the Disclaimer here: https://www.cancertreatmentsresearch.com/?page_id=1794

Related Articles


4 thoughts on “Case Report Stage IV Sarcoma: Good News from JG

  1. D, this is great!
    We seem to have finally hit a point of traction with these patient success stories.

    One thing that we might consider now is to include those interested into a prospective study. The problem with reporting patient that do well is that those who did not do well are often not reported. What perhaps you could now do is ask those who first contact you if they would be willing to have their anonymized patient reports posted to this forum after they had received treatment for some time. We would have a prospective information! Others following these reports would then have greater confidence that there was no cherry picking: They would have a much better idea of what they could reasonably expect from different treatments.

    I find it very frustrating that cancer clinics typically only report the patients that had a good outcome. This makes it so difficult to know how truly effective a treatment is!

    1. Hi J, your point is very important indeed!

      I very much agree with you, yet the reality in the field is so that it is so challenging to collect feedback as most of the patients and clinics do not keep track of everything they are doing. And that is normal as they have to move fast and when dealing with advanced cancers often therapies have to be changed. Even for myself who I like to write down everything we did in terms of treatments, it was very challenging to write everything. As a patient or caregiver you need to take care of so many things, like researching what you need, communicating with doctors and other patients, ordering products, thinking about what’s next, taking care of financials, food, all things around the house, job, etc …. On the other hand as a clinic, your have so many patients and so many other challenges …

      This is why, in reality we can only expect structured and consolidated data when the patient is treated in a hospital where the patient is under observation and there are people paid to write down the details about treatments and results … such as in the clinical trials. But off course, the clinical trials and data reported have own bias and weak points …

      The most annoying part for me is that it is difficult to demonstrate clearly when the patient benefited or not from specific choices, compared to either using conventional treatments alone or just not doing anything at all. In clinical trials they have the different arms to compare and perform statistics. Yet, I do not like that approach since by design some patients will have more chances than others. So you see, everything is debatable.

      But finally I realized we have to work with what we have, and try to improve that step by step. We can at least draw a clear conclusion when there are results showing complete or partial remission in cases where we would not expect that. Or when people survived much longer than they were expected to survive and in much better conditions. We can also identify patterns when looking at multiple patients while knowing most of the treatments they used, and how were used. That is also very valuable in order to identify relevant directions.

      Everything clear up when we understand that humanity is still in the exploratory phase in terms of finding a solution to cancer. This phase is a more creative, chaotic and divergent phase. In this phase the search for value is less structure and we need to understand and accept that (that is what I am telling to myself too). Only when we identify value, we need to stop, focus on that and create a framework to further uncover that value – this is a more advanced phase where we now like to see 2DG metronomic moving to.

      Coming back to the case report discussed here, in my view, the relevance of case reports such as the one presented here is
      – on one hand to see that it is possible – Even Stage IV aggressive cancers can be controlled and in some cases eliminated when improved treatment strategies are employed
      – on the other hand to expose valuable approaches – and the fact that they are unbiased reports is unique and extremely valuable – and this is possible as our goal here is to see the truth (typically, a lot of the info coming to us regardless if it comes from pharma industry, academia, private clinics, hospitals, it is biased due to various reasons).

      We here can share info and judge results here, as we often know personally the people involved (who also often become friends) and the science related to the drugs they are using. It’s not perfect but I think we are on the right track as we saw lately more and more positive results. Our understanding is evolving fast and I expect we will see more and more good results.

      Finally, it’s interesting to see that those stage IV patients who see positive results they are related to patients/clinics who
      – made the step into re-purposed drugs
      – combined conventional treatments with new treatments (including new intravenous treatments)
      – the patient or caregiver acted pro actively in understanding treatments and taking decisions related to this
      – and a medical trained person was involved to support, at least from time to time

      One of the major points I came to realize lately is that not only the cancer cells but also the micro environment must be addressed in order to increase the chance for positive outcome, and continuity of that. That is even more important in Stage IV. And the nice thing is that we have tools to address that + we have friends and contributors like you searching every day for new and effective “tools” and sharing their finding here. Thank you for that!

Leave a Reply