Write To Karl Loren About This Page
Adjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer should be banned -- E
Despite continuing efforts to eradicate breast cancer upon its detection, from 1930 to 1990, age-adjusted mortality from breast cancer had remained virtually constant (1-3).
Sixty years of continuous debate about the best treatment for breast cancer has failed to improve the life prospect of the average patient.
No other epidemiological phenomenon is so stable. All other statistics vary continually. This statistic highlights the failure of breast cancer treatment and its underlying theories, particularly that of W. S. Halsted (1852-1922).
According to this
theory, the tumor is initially localized, subsequently it
spreads to adjacent tissues, and only at later stages
seeds metastases. As tumor removal generally fails to
cure most patients, it obviously spreads before its
detection. The alternative approach attempts to destroy
tumor cells with chemotherapy, either before metastasis
detection, or afterwards. As these agents are poisons,
both approaches are risky for the patient. Should
chemotherapy be given before metastasis is detected as
suggested by the adherents of adjuvant chemotherapy, or
should one wait until they emerge? The conservative
approach is justified by the following statistics.
Long survival with
micrometastasis -
The cancer survival report No. 5 from the US National Institutes of Health describes survival of 3369 patients with regional breast cancer diagnosed during 1950-1954 (4,5). Treatment consisted of mastectomy with or without irradiation. Fig. 1 illustrates two facts.
While 76% patients succumbed to the disease, 24% survived 20 years. Most of the time they were in remission and healthy. Since they eventually died from their disease, we can conclude retrospectively that all carried undetected micrometastases.
Some carried metastasis for at least 19 years. For example, in a woman who lived with micrometastasis that long, during this prolonged remission her organism apparently "knew" how to live with, and adapt to micrometastasis.
Let us examine the fate of the 10% of women who died in the period between 10-20 years. 34% survived 10 years, 24% survived 20 years, and 10% died from breast cancer between year 10 and 20. Since they lived at least 10 years we may conclude that they carried hidden micro-metastases for 10 years. For most of these years they were healthy, otherwise they would have been treated.
Micro-metastasis itself may not be harmful.
In the U.S., 33.6% of white females with breast cancer have regional disease (6). The age-adjusted incidence for all stages was 113.6/100,000 (7). 38/100,000 females carried micrometastases for at least 10 years (= 0.336*113.6) which makes about 9,500 patients per year in the entire country. This estimate is extremely conservative. Actually, thousands of apparently healthy females carry micro-metastasis for at least 10 years. Should they be poisoned with adjuvant chemotherapy? The nature of this adaptation to micro-metastasis is still unknown. Supposing that medicine could harness it for another 20 years, cancer would turn into a benign disease.
We may thus conclude
that unless a metastasis impinges upon a vital organ, it
is relatively harmless.
Long survival after
adjuvant chemotherapy -
Twenty years ago the Instituto Nationale Tumori in Milan, Italy, started treating females with regional breast cancer with 12 cycles of CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil) (8). "386 women were randomly assigned to receive either no further treatment after radical mastectomy (179 women) or 12 monthly cycles of adjuvant combination chemotherapy (207 women)." The 20-year survival of untreated Italian and American females was the same 24.6% (=44/179) (Fig. 1). CMF-treated females managed somewhat better, 33.8% (=70/207) survived 20 years ( p=0.04).
These results are somewhat disappointing. A more significant difference, e.g., p=0.001, would be more convincing. Since 24.6% survived without treatment, only about 10% (=33.8%-24.6%), benefited from chemotherapy.
90% would be better off without treatment. The probability of relapse-free survival was 26.8% (=48/179) in untreated, and 35.7% (=74/207) (p=0.004).
As all "relapse free" patients carried undetected metastases, this statistic is clinically meaningless. The authors seek support for their approach in a meta-analysis study (9), with all its obvious flaws (10). In addition to these meager results, adjuvant chemotherapy for micro-metastasis is also unjustified for other reasons:
1. Tumor cells are dormant and do not cycle, while chemotherapy destroys only cycling cells.
2. Initially, the tumor looks like normal tissue and is called minimal deviation tumor. At this early stage, the therapeutic margin of the chemotherapy poisons is extremely narrow. Treatment destroys "bad" and "good" cells, and the risk to the patient is high.
3. With time, tumors become resistant to chemotherapy. The earlier the treatment, the greater the risk of resistance. Prudent treatment requires therefore postponing chemotherapy to later stages when other means fail.
4. The 90% of CMF treated patients may not have responded to treatment since their tumor was already resistant.
5. Apparently, chemotherapy slows metastatic growth indirectly, by chemical castration. Particularly since "CMF failed to improve outcome significantly in post-menopausal women" (8). Imagine chemical castration in younger women.
Adjuvant chemotherapy is toxic and useless and should
therefore be forbidden!
1. McKay FW, Hanson MR,
Miller RW. Cancer mortality in the US: 1950-1977. NIH
Publication No. 82-2435, 1982.
2. Silverberg E, Lubera J. Cancer statistics. CA -A
Cancer Journal for Clinicians 40, 16-17, 1990.
3. Zajicek G. How to evaluate unproved methods in
oncology? The Cancer J. 5, 180, 1992.
4. Axtell LM, Ardyce J, Asire MS et al. Cancer patient
survival report No. 5 DHEW Publ No. (NIH) 77-992, 1976.
5. Zajicek G. Wisdom of the body in cancer.The Cancer J.
7, 96-97,1994.
6. Miller BA, Gloeckler Ries L, Hankey BF et al. SEER
Cancer Statistics Review 1973-1990. NIH Publication No.
93-2789, 1993.
7. Gloeckler Ries L, Miller BA, Hankey BF et al. SEER
Cancer Statistics Review 1973-1990. Tables and Graphs NIH
Publication No. 94-2789, 1994.
8. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterini A et al. Adjuvant
cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in
node-positive breast cancer.The results of 20 years of
follow-up. N Engl J Med. 332, 901-906, 1995.
9. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group.
Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal,
cytotoxic, or immune therapy. Lancet 1-15, 71-85, 1982.
10. Zajicek G. Meta-analysis and chaos. The Cancer J. 4,
152-153, 1991.
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Vibrant Life Magazine is a free electronic weekly newsletter written and published by Vibrant life. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The newsletter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. The letter has been changed to product and information news which is sent out regularly each week.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of Product and Information Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, PO Box 10666, Burbank, CA 91510-0666. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-7099, eMail to barb@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 60 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 23, 2012 4:51 PM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.
