"In conclusion, high-dose intravenous ascorbate represents a promising and inexpensive anticancer therapeutic option that should be further explored in clinical trials. Given its low toxicity and low financial cost, ascorbate could become an important weapon in our arsenal against cancer, either acting as a single agent with predictive biomarkers or used in combination as an adjuvant therapy."
Targeting cancer vulnerabilities with high-dose vitamin C
Bryan Ngo, Justin M. Van Riper, Lewis C. Cantley & Jihye Yun
Nature Reviews Cancer volume 19, pages 271–282 (April 2019)
Read it: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41568-019-0135-7
Invitation: Start a clinical trial.
There are currently 15 clinical trials. See details of those trials here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41568-019-0135-7/tables/1
I have no experience but I think is very improbable and also might be dangerous for some people
All clinical experience in cancer patients have showed that high dosages of vitamin C given orally, or intravenously, have no effect on cancer. The oral study was 20 years ago or so by the Mayo Clinic. The most recent publication, three or four years ago, was published by Cancer Treatment Centers of America (Arizona). Very intense daily program i.v infusions for 4 or 6 weeks. No evidence of antitumor activity.
The issue with Ascorbic acid can be its metabolization into oxalate, in rare occasions a Vit C dose above 500 mg od would have an advantage por validity, above 1000 mg/ day, urolitiasis risk is prohibitive.
Brugarolas senior, his kid seems now in the US, worked with dehydroascorbic acid and deoxyglucose, you can look for him at Medline, also for Sanchez-Harguindey, he is in ResearchGate, who conducted research about Ascorbic acid in malignancies.
Salut +
Luis Rodrigo thanks for your input. For what type of cancer patients do you feel VIT C treatment would be dangerous and how would it be dangerous?
Frank Arguello thanks for sharing! Would love to read up on that article--didn't find the article. Would you please send me the publication?
Sarah Fischbuch
The only reference that I have handy is the one of 2013 from Cancer Treatment Centers of America (below). The one by the Mayo Clinic was probably published more than 30 years ago, and it should referenced in the article listed below.
Despite decades of studies with vitamin C to treat all types of diseases (to numerous to be listed in here), the only true clinical condition in which vitamin C has proven to be effective, is in the deficiency of vitamin C (Scurvy). It is also used for Urinary Acidification. Those are the only two situation in which vitamin is listed for medical prescription.
In you are really interested in an effective treatment for cancer, other than an early surgery,, particularly for metastatic cancers that have not been exposed to traditional anticancer drugs, please consider atavistic chemotherapy.
I am 100% sure that atavistic chemotherapy is going to change the way we understand cancer cells biology, and it will be the way cancer will become conquered, if it is not already.
Remember............................
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
Christian Theodosius Dobzhansk (1973)
Obviously, cancer would not be the exception!
Frank
Vit C reference below
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013 Jul;72(1):139-46. doi: 10.1007/s00280-013-2179-9. Epub 2013 May 14.
Phase I clinical trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of high-doseintravenous ascorbic acid in patients with advanced cancer.
Stephenson CM1, Levin RD, Spector T, Lis CG.
Author information
1Cancer Treatment Centers of America®, Zion, IL 60099, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE:
This phase I clinical trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of high-dose intravenous (i.v.) ascorbic acid as a monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy.
METHODS:
Five cohorts of three patients received i.v. ascorbic acid administered at 1 g/min for 4 consecutive days/week for 4 weeks, starting at 30 g/m² in the first cohort. For subsequent cohorts, dose was increased by 20 g/m² until a maximum tolerated dose was found.
RESULTS:
Ascorbic acid was eliminated by simple first-order kinetics. Half-life and clearance values were similar for all patients of all cohorts (2.0 ± 0.6 h, 21 ± 5 dL/h m², respectively). C(max) and AUC values increased proportionately with dose between 0 and 70 g/m², but appeared to reach maximal values at 70 g/m² (49 mM and 220 h mM, respectively). Doses of 70, 90, and 110 g/m² maintained levels at or above 10-20 mM for 5-6 h.
All doses were well tolerated. **** No patient demonstrated an objective antitumor response.
CONCLUSIONS:
Ascorbic acid administered i.v. at 1 g/min for 4 consecutive days/week for 4 weeks produced up to 49 mM ascorbic acid in patient's blood and was well tolerated. The recommended dose for future studies is 70-80 g/m².
Thank you Frank Arguello I will read this article. Luis Rodrigo please share any publications you are referring to.
IVC at high doses (HDIVC) is unproven but not disproven. There are no high quality clinical trials to date. Studies that track molecular biology of the tumor more precisely may help explain why there is a subset of people with carious cancers that appear to derive benefit (even in those phase I trials there were a few that had stability or regression). It would be great if we could do a "look back" study and see if their tumor biology has any similarities.
IVC does not work across the board for "cancer." It is certainly not cytotoxic per se. Perhaps it is cytostatic? My best guess is that if there is an underlying organism, such as a viral cause, the interstitial H2O2 production is therapeutic, but this is conjecture. All I can say is that patients who have lived 6+ years when given 6 months (glioblastoma and sarcoma come to mind), have all done HDIVC. I used it in about 10% or less of my patients overall, mostly due to it being resource intensive (time and money).
My last comment has to do with toxicity: As with any hyperosmolar IV and fluids in general, proper lab and clinical assessment needs to be done. Also, a glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase level must be checked for every patient before commencing. This last test is specific for IVC since without proper enzyme function hemolytic anemia may result. If done properly, the risks of HDIVC are quite minimal.
Tina Kaczor thanks for your thoughtful reply. How is HDIVC resource intensive (time and money)? Also, where do you currently work assisting cancer patients (what country)?
Please check with Sánchez-Harguindey and Brugarolas their experience on related subjects. Harguindey is here, in ResearchGate. Salut +
I am in Oregon and had a private practice, so I owned the clinic. IV's were administered by an RN under my direction. Generally speaking they take 1.5 hours just for the infusion itself, so time to do vitals, pre and post, etc, it is a 2 hour commitment easily. Insurance seldom covers it, so patients pay out of pocket. It seems the going rate these days for HDIVC is generally in the range of $150-$300. Doing that weekly is cost prohibitive to most middle class Americans ($600-$1200/month), particularly when the treatment is ongoing. Here's a link to a recent review: Nauman G, Gray JC, Parkinson R, Levine M, Paller CJ. Systematic Review of Intravenous Ascorbate in Cancer Clinical Trials. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland). 2018;7(7). doi:10.3390/antiox7070089 It deserves a lot more attention than it has been given clinically. For us clinicians who use it in cancer care to observe positive benefits, the number needed to treat must be pretty low, otherwise we would be unlikely to notice it.
Taking account the principle of primum nil nocere, without strong clinical evidence, we donot advise HDIVC in cancer patients
According to Tina Kaczor (her first note above), high doses of I.V. Vitamin C (HDIVC) as a treatment for cancer "is unproven but not disproven." Which is obviously incorrect. I gave above, before Ms. Koczor's comment, a reference to a study by Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Of all the patients treated. None showed clinical response. URL:
Article Phase I clinical trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability,...
That is one of many others with the same results, e.g, this one from McGill University: Article Phase I clinical trial of i.v. ascorbic acid in advanced malignancy
Treatments for cancer with Vitamin C, Bicarbonate, Marijuana, Ozone, etc., are tragic consequences of our equally ineffective and toxic traditional treatments for inoperable or metastatic cancers. Similar to the plethora of approved treatments and remedies for tuberculosis and syphilis that existed in the first half of the 20th century until antibiotics were discovered. Nowadays, there are no alternative treatments or remedies for tuberculosis or syphilis. They became extinct.
It will happen the same with our current approved and disproved treatments for cancer, once atavistic chemotherapy is implemented for the treatment of inoperable or metastatic cancers.
I insist with any daily dose of Ascorbic above 500, or 1000 mg, oxalate stone urologic disease is a problem. Salut +
Mr Arguello,
As I'm sure you are aware, phase I studies are not designed to prove or disprove any therapy, they are merely to explore toxicity/tolerance of varied doses. So I stand by my statement that there are no clinical trials that have disproven IVC. If you can find one, please include it here in the comments. Interestingly, the phase I studies you do mention actually corroborate my own experience with the non-toxicity of IVC.
The conclusion from the first study you linked to above: "Conclusions:
High-dose i.v. ascorbic acid was well tolerated but failed to demonstrate anticancer activity when administered to patients with previously treated advanced malignancies. The promise of this approach may lie in
combination with cytotoxic or other redox-active molecules."
The conclusion to the second study you linked to above: "Conclusions Ascorbic acid administered i.v. at 1 g/min for 4 consecutive days/week for 4 weeks produced up to 49 mM ascorbic acid in patient’s blood and was well tolerated. The recommended dose for future studies is 70–80 g/m2."
Please don't get me wrong, IVC is certainly not a stand alone treatment for cancer. That is clear to anyone who has any experience with it. It is also a serious medical procedure, and like all procedures must have knowledge and experienced oversight and staff. I simply contend that it deserves to be researched further AND that there is value to some patients, and we need to identify these patients better. That's all. The reason for the lack of studies is really that there is no industry dollars behind its use. No incentive.
Regarding your theory that IVC will go by the wayside when conventional medicine comes up with a better treatment than toxic chemo's... I would be happy if that happened. Ultimately, I don't care what works and have no horse in the race. If we can successfully cure cancers that people are dying from today, we should do that. Meanwhile, we all do our best within the limitations of the current system.
Thanks Joe Graymer , Frank Arguello , Luis Rodrigo , and Tina Kaczor for adding your insight to this discussion. I agree with Tina Kaczor and feel strongly that more research needs to be conducted to provide evidence of the benefit or harm of taking IVC as a treatment for cancer. Tina, thanks for clarifying about the cost. Keep up the great work in Oregon.
Tina Kaczor , fortunatley we have developed a pharmacological treatment that effectively can cure most inoperable and metastatic tumors with minimum side effects. This is true, as long as the patient has not been exposed to traditional chemotherapy. Traditional chemotherapy makes cancers more aggressive and resistant to other treatments: Link:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/07/05/chemotherapy-may-spread-cancer-trigger-aggressive-tumours-warn/
The new treatment is called atavistic chemotherapy. This treatment is going to change the way we understand and treat cancer in the world. So, if you really, but really, want to help patients with cancer, refer them to our clinical trial at www.atavisticchemotherapy.com.
Sarah Fischbuch Luis Rodrigo
If I would be a patient, I would resist to receive that treatment.
I consider this useless and eve dangerous, as has been mentioned before by others.
And .. to Frank: "... effectively can cure most ..." is complete nonsense.
W.
Wolfgang Doerr - CHALLENGE M!E!!
Bring me a patient with a recently diagnosed inoperable or metastatic cancer, your choice (naive - no treated previously). With a Karnofky status is 50 or higher.
The patient will have a complete clinical regression in 6 months. Take the challenge publicly here, so that we can work out the details!
By the way, since you are in Germany, I have proposed the clinical trial at the University of Munich Department of Dermatology to treat metastatic melanomas. These are the most sensitive tumors, followed by brain tumors.
TAKE THE CHALLENGE OR DO NOT MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. They would not make any sense. Simply, you do not have the facts.
SOME CLINICAL CASES ATTACHED
Dear Frank,
why should I. This is below my niveau as a serious scientist.
W
Dear Wolfgang,
The challenge will be waiting for you when you decide to come down from your cloud.
Frank
Frank Arguello, MD Director, Atavistic Chemotherapy Trial www.AtavisticChemotherapy.com Frm. Assistant Professor of Oncology, and Pediatrics, Hematology and Oncology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. Rochester, New York USA. Frm. Senior Scientist, Division of Cancer Treatment & Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Frederick, Maryland USA. Tel (301) 760-7777; Fax (301) 690-9000
Dear Frank,
show me any reliable data (clinical studies) , and I will get into a discussion with you. I sincerely doubt that you will be able to provide this.
Please contact me directly at [email protected].
W
Wolfgang Doerr
But here ATTACHED is an abstract from ASCO 2018.
At that time we had a complete clinical regression of 50% of metastatic cancers when patients were discharged from traditional treatments as refractory or hopeless cases.
At present, we limit the enrollment of patients who had never been exposed to radiation or traditional chemotherapy. In those cases, so far all have achieved complete clinical regressions. No exception.
Tina Kaczor Sarah Fischbuch Luis Rodrigo
Regression is fine, but .... This is not in any relation to cure!!!
Forget about your approach!
W
Wolfgang Doerr - For your information, cancer response to treatment is not measured as cures, but (1) Lack of response; (2) partial response (>50% reduction in measurable tumor size) and (3) complete response (disappearance of visual/radiological or laboratory evidence of disease).
I mentioned cure in my previous comment to Tina Kaczor to empathize the difference with Vitamin C.
Wolfgang, You criticize things about which you know nothing about them.
"We need to stop convoluting cancer cell biology; we are only creating problems and apparent solutions that aren't there. We need to remember that nothing in
biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Cancer cell biology is not
the exception!" Anonymous
Tina Kaczor
Frank Arguello and Wolfgang Doerr I understand you both have strong opposing views. Glad you are both a part of research. I like the objective approach where we are equally critical of research that supports our views as we are with research that opposes are views. I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinions, and hope together we can create an atmosphere of respect and openness to learning. It can be easy to be misled or misinformed, but it is the responsibility of each of us to seek to be informed and be as critical of our own research as we are of others'. I feel this is the very purpose and benefit of these discussions. We all have much to learn.
Wolfgang Doerr back to IVC here is an article. Please share your thoughts.
Article Systematic Review of Intravenous Ascorbate in Cancer Clinical Trials
"Only one randomized clinical trial has been reported, showing a trend toward overall survival, a significant 8.5 week increase in progression-free survival, and decreased adverse events in the IV ascorbate arm in ovarian cancer patients."
Sarah Fischbuch Wolfgang Doerr Tina Kaczor
We just need to avoid promoting this type of pseudo "treatments" for cancer, as that one of vitamin C.
The literature of vitamin C in cancer or Influenza goes back to almost half a century. NOTHING has been achieved in those 50 years!! We need to stop trying to revive the dead horse with "promising treatments," as that of the review. The best results determined in that review as "disease free survival." That is not a real measurement for response to treatment.
The reason why there are only Phase I clinical trial with Vitamin C, is because they do not warrant Phase II or III studies.
The only scientifically documented beneficial use of vitamin C is in Vitamin C deficiency.
Please stop promoting this type of remedies. Cancer patients may believe in them.
Frank Arguello I appreciate that you feel strongly against using Vitamin C, but it's clear that not enough research has been done with intravenous high dose therapy.
Needed trial come from cell model and animal model then to clinical trial from phase 1.2.and 3 trial
It is recommended to make more clínica studies on this subject in order to get more clear conclusiones about it
Yes , there ar some highlighted number of interesting hypotheses that suggest there is a good rationale to investigate the feasibility of using ascorbate as an adjunct treatment for cancer.
I became aware of these documents right now
PMID 28427227 PMID 31578317 PMID 10462537 PMID 8780966
PMID 7844114 PMID 1606963 PMID 2393860 PMID 3464594
MedLine search terms were: ascorbate acute myeloid leukemia, 20 references found. Salut +
- Badges
- Science topic