Efficacy of Metabolically Supported Chemotherapy Combined with Ketogenic Diet, Hyperthermia, and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Stage IV Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.  

  RSS

Daniel
(@daniel)
Trusted Member Admin
Joined:2 years  ago
Posts: 53
10/11/2017 8:17 pm  

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is more aggressive and metastatic than other breast cancer types. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is presently the predominant systemic therapy for TNBC patients. This case report highlights the influence of metabolically supported chemotherapy (MSCT), ketogenic diet (KD), hyperthermia (HT), and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in an overweight 29-year-old woman with stage IV (T4N3M1) triple-negative invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. The patient presented with an observable mass in her left breast detected during a physical examination in December 2015. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 5 tumor and multiple lymphadenomegaly in the left axilla. A Tru-Cut biopsy led to the diagnosis of a triple-negative nuclear grade 2 invasive ductal carcinoma. The patient was admitted to ChemoThermia Oncology Center, Istanbul, Turkey in October 2016, and a whole body (18F)-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scan revealed a 77 mm x 55 mm primary tumor in her left breast, multiple left pectoral and axillary lymph nodes, multiple widespread liver masses, and an upper left nodular abdominal lesion. The patient received a treatment protocol consisting of MSCT, KD, HT, and HBOT. A follow-up whole body 18F-FDG PET-CT scan in February 2017 showed a complete therapeutic response with no evidence of abnormal FDG uptake. The patient continued to receive this treatment protocol and in April 2017 underwent a mastectomy, which revealed a complete pathological response consistent with the response indicated by her PET-CT imaging. This single case study presents evidence of a complete clinical, radiological, and pathological response following a six-month treatment period using a combination of MSCT and a novel metabolic therapy in a patient with stage IV TNBC.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28924531


sirsna liked
ReplyQuote
Jcancom
(@jcancom)
Eminent Member
Joined:7 months  ago
Posts: 41
19/11/2017 5:19 pm  

It's always a good idea to know what opposing opinions there are on topics. From what I understand  Metabolically Supported Chemotherapy (MSCT) is confirming our long held belief in metabolic medicine. The clinic in Turkey is now accumulating a substantial patient database that supports MCST.

The triple negative metastatic breast cancer patient above, a stage 3 rectal patient, a retrospective collection of all patients (over 40) with advanced lung cancer treated at the clinic, and a collection of over 30 advanced pancreatic patients are providing some indication of efficacy. The clinic also has many more patients on record, I have seen on line that other clinics are now offering MSCT.  

Nonetheless, there are some who are not convinced.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2017/10/04/why-a-case-report-being-circulated-by-advocates-doesnt-show-that-the-ketogenic-diet-combats-cancer/#comment-384192


ReplyQuote
Daniel
(@daniel)
Trusted Member Admin
Joined:2 years  ago
Posts: 53
19/11/2017 8:46 pm  

Thanks J for the link. Very valuable. My opinion on short:

- the author at respectfulinsolence.com is right in that the article cited above is not very well written - I had the same feeling when reading and many questions were emerging - the way the article is written is annoying

- on the same line, when looking at the website of the clinic in Turkey, I saw many cases presented there but actually in many cases only some pictures were showing, which also rises a lot of questions. Actually, it is annoying as they present some successful cases while we do not know out of how many patients and in what conditions.

- based on this I would carefully consider the reports above 

- however, because the author at respectfulinsolence.com was annoyed by the way the clinics suggests they have the answer to everything, he/she starts building a story against the authors of the story and the clinic, using any weak sport of the report to build his/her point

That being said, I also know the following:

- when dealing with cancer patients, there is very little time to actually write very good papers, so it is natural that those who have great successes with patients will be focussed on patients and not on publications - that can explain why the successfull cases are poorly documented

- the author at respectfulinsolence.com argues that the typical protocol against TNBC is different vs. what the clinic used and that makes their work questionable - well, I can imagine that would be the case since the current protocols are not successful - that makes TNBC so challenging - therefore, I would expect that a successful treatment will be different vs. current treatments

- finally, we know and it is a fact, that metabolic treatments will enhance the effectiveness of conventional treatments if used wise - anyone arguing against this doesn't understand the mechanisms or is completely biased 


ReplyQuote
Jcancom
(@jcancom)
Eminent Member
Joined:7 months  ago
Posts: 41
19/11/2017 9:10 pm  

D, one thing that I was not sure about is the clinical scans on the Chemothermia website do not all seem that positive. It is difficult to know because they offer no commentary. The website actually has many of these patient reports for many different types of cancer.

I am somewhat unsure about the author from the sciencebasedmedicine site as he was very critical of 3-BP after the Bracht incident and did not appear to fairly represent the facts that were known. For example, the blog continued to argue the point that the 3-BP melanoma patient was a none responder. That was clearly untrue. The melanoma patient's LDH fell to 12 from over 4000! When the paracetamol and 3-BP were given in combo the LDH collapsed. The blog suggested that LDH is not a speific marker for cancer. Such argumentation is not honest. Lactate is a fundamental aspect of cancer.  


ReplyQuote
Daniel
(@daniel)
Trusted Member Admin
Joined:2 years  ago
Posts: 53
19/11/2017 10:09 pm  

J, there are some people who only need a few reference points to move forward and some who cannot cope with things if not everything is clear and perfect.

Off course, there is value in having people that are critical and who need all the answers before moving forward. Humanity needs them. For me those are the "highway builders". But in cancer we need to open up new paths before starting to build highways, since the current "highways" are not leading anywhere. This is why we need the explorers or the pathfinders. 

From the ways he/she reacts, the author from the link above is a "highway builder" and not a "path finder". Now, how can you expect you can have a constructive discussion with someone of that type regarding totally new approaches, when you are a pathfinder? Everyone will speak his own language and both will be right in his own framework of reference. 

Is like having in a company Engineering- or even worse the Manufacturing-phase, right after Research phase, without having the Development-phase. Just ask someone from research, transfer his idea to someone from manufacturing, and you will have a lot of fun 🙂

When we speak about 3BP, etc. we are those from research phase. Not everything is clear but we see signs of serious potential. Unfortunately, some of us do not have time to wait for the other phases as we need to apply fast to possibly get results. That where the problem of those such as the author from the link above is. And in a perfect world, his points are perfectly right. But in cancer we need an open mind and be flexible. Accept we do not know everything but we need to apply (with the help of scientists and open minded medical doctors) when we feel we have enough scientific evidence and we do not have other options then wait and ...

Edited: 3 weeks  ago

ReplyQuote
Jcancom
(@jcancom)
Eminent Member
Joined:7 months  ago
Posts: 41
19/11/2017 10:46 pm  

... it's fifty years later and we are still waiting!!!

The results from the original vitamin C research from the 1970s was definitive. There should have been nothing left to discuss.

Yet, here we are decades later and they are still discussing and they have still not appreciated why the first results were so great! Strangely, the treatment arms of the supposed replication studies that did not replicate merely acted as a placebo group. When you give people 10 grams bolus oral vitamin C, there probably should typically be no anti-cancer effect. So, the disappointing results that they posted simply show the expected life span of late stage cancer patients. Proving the effectiveness of the 1970s research which achieved much higher life expectancies.


ReplyQuote
[email protected]
(@jmillartmatt-solutions-org)
New Member
Joined:2 weeks  ago
Posts: 1
29/11/2017 10:23 pm  

Hi all -

The conclusion that my brother and I came to after spending about a week really thinking about the Chemothermia articles (mainly the 2015 pancreatic cancer article) was that the results support keto + fasting, even with the various flaws.  What worries me most regarding their 2015 paper is that what they describe is really only a ketogenic diet plus fasting, while on their current web page there are a lot of other modalities they use now that could impact the results if they were used at the time.  

However, I think it is really unlikely they fudged their survival statistics, and those are impressive - even if they were also using hyperthermia, various phyto-supplements and IV supports. We had a couple short phone conversations with them and they sounded really busy, and also they mentioned that they thought most if not all of the pancreatic patients in that 2015 study were still alive today.  This has to be taken with a grain of salt because clinicians are super busy and it is inappropriate to hold informal recall to a high standard. However, given the abysmal 5 year survival rates for pancreatic cancer I think this does lend credence to their results.

respectfulinsolence is not credible. Here is how he reacts to Carissa Gleeson pursuing nonstandard treatment: Sigh. Medicine is not a restaurant. The reason there are only three treatment modalities for Gleeson’s tumor on the menu is because those are the only three treatment modalities that are efficacious. That’s the cold, hard reality of the situation.

There is a lot that is not clear about cancer, but to state that the typical Standard of Care treatments are the only efficacious treatments requires willful ignorance or something worse.

If people are interested I am happy to post or email more a detailed statistical analysis of the various flaws and assumptions from the 2015 pancreatic paper.


ReplyQuote
Jcancom
(@jcancom)
Eminent Member
Joined:7 months  ago
Posts: 41
30/11/2017 2:23 am  

Hi [email protected], welcome to the forum!

I would be very interested in your comments about the pancreatic study.

Yeah Turkey! It looks like they have really nailed it. No else has been able to get it together. As we have been repeating year after year, we need this sort of innovation in Europe and America, though it just never happens.Doctors with any sense of wanting to be treatment leaders are almost forced to cross a border. Even with the Turkish, it appears that they only gave the chemo in order to comply government regulations.  

Yes, it is so confusing for patients to make any sense of all the claims and counterclaims in the literature. I fear that most just curl up into the fetal position after a while. So I am even more impressed that you were able to think this through and manage to formulate a well reasoned analysis of the Chemothermia results. I am also quite impressed. I had not realized it at first though both the pancreatic and lung cancer retrospective studies from the clinic included all treated patients for the indications over a span of time: therefore, no cherry picking. The numbers do appear quite promising.

We have all been waiting years to have some sort of a metabolic protocol that we could point to: this is the best that has emerged to date. All of these treatments are fairly standard, though they have been able to put it all together into a coherent package. {Note in one of the videos that they mention 3-Bromopyruvate as one of the possible metabolic inhibitors that they might use. From there descriptions it is not always obvious what treatments patients might be receiving. A ketone ester recently launched in the US that can rapidly increase ketone levels to 5 mM. Not clear how this might be added to the clinics treatment plan.) From here others could tweak it to find something even better! Prolonged vitamin C dosing? Doxycycline? With metabolics the combos are endless. 

Adhering strictly to a set protocol might not be in the best interests of patients. The notion that everyone needs to receive identical treatments for what is a highly heterogeneous illness, simply does not seem sensible. The approach of alternative medicine has the advantage of logic lacking in mainstream treatment. The protocol could simply rotate through different treatments when one approach loses effectiveness.        


ReplyQuote
  
Working

Please Login or Register