"Angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels) is a normal and necessary process for childhood growth and development as well as wound healing. Unfortunately, cancers use this otherwise normal process in order to increase blood supply to the tumor. Because tumors cannot grow beyond the size of a pinhead (i.e., 1-2mm) without expanding their blood supply, the formation of new blood vessels supplying the tumor is a requirement for successful metastasis (Ribatti 2009; Rege 2005).
The primary tumor produces anti-angiogenic factors which serve to limit the growth of metastatic cancer elsewhere in the body (Baum 2005; Folkman 2003; Pinsolle 2000; Raymond 1998) by inhibiting the formation of new blood vessels to potential sites of metastasis. Unfortunately, the surgical removal of the primary cancer also results in the removal of these anti-angiogenic factors, and the growth of metastasis is no longer inhibited. With these restrictions lifted, it is now easier for small sites of metastatic cancer to attract new blood vessels that promote their growth (Goldfarb 2006-2007). Indeed, these concerns were voiced by researchers who declared that “removal of the primary tumor might eliminate a safeguard against angiogenesis and thus awaken dormant micrometastasis [small sites of metastatic cancer]” (Shakhar 2003).
As it turns out, the surgery causes another angiogenic effect. After surgery, levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) (factors that increase angiogenesis) are significantly elevated. This can result in an increased formation of new blood vessels supplying areas of metastatic cancer. A group of scientists asserted that “after surgery, the angiogenic balance of pro- and antiangiogenic factors is shifted in favor of angiogenesis to facilitate wound healing. Especially levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are persistently elevated. This may not only benefit tumor recurrence and the formation of metastatic disease, but also result in activation of dormant micrometastases” (van der Bij 2009).
Various nutrients have been shown to inhibit VEGF. These include soy isoflavones (genistein), silibinin (a component of milk thistle), epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) from green tea, and curcumin (Zhu 2007; Yoysungnoen 2006; Binion 2008; Guo 2007; Buchler 2004; Yang 2003).
"In one experiment, EGCG, the active constituent of green tea, was administered to mice with stomach cancer. EGCG reduced the tumor mass by 60% and the concentration of blood vessels feeding the tumor by 38%. In addition, EGCG decreased the expression of VEGF in cancer cells by 80%. The authors of the study concluded that “EGCG inhibits the growth of gastric cancer by reducing VEGF production and angiogenesis, and is a promising candidate for anti-angiogenic treatment of gastric cancer” (Zhu 2007).
In a survey of curcumin’s anti-angiogenic effects, researchers noted that “Curcumin is a direct inhibitor of angiogenesis and also downregulates various proangiogenic proteins like vascular endothelial growth factor.” Additionally, they remarked that “cell adhesion molecules are upregulated in active angiogenesis and curcumin can block this effect, adding further dimensions to curcumin’s antiangiogenic effect.” In conclusion, they commented that “Curcumin’s effect on the overall process of angiogenesis compounds its enormous potential as an antiangiogenic drug” (Bhandarkar 2007)."
http://www.lifeextension.com/Protocols/ ... ry/Page-04
Cancer Surgery, Angiogenesis, and Metastasis
Cancer Surgery, Angiogenesis, and Metastasis
Last edited by D.ap on Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Debbie
Re: Cancer Surgery Cancer Surgery, Angiogenesis, and Metastasis
The Choice of Surgical Anesthesia Can Influence Metastasis
The traditional protocol for anesthesia use is general anesthesia during surgery followed by intravenous morphine (for pain control) after surgery. However, this may not be the optimal approach for preventing surgery-induced metastasis. At a time when immune function is already suppressed, morphine further weakens the immune system by diminishing NK cell activity (Vallejo 2004). Surgical anesthesia has also been shown to weaken NK cell activity (Melamed 2003). One study found that morphine increased angiogenesis and stimulated the growth of breast cancer in mice. The researchers concluded that “these results indicate that clinical use of morphine could potentially be harmful in patients with angiogenesis-dependent cancers” (Gupta 2002).
Given the inherent problems associated with the use of morphine and anesthesia, researchers have explored other approaches to surgical anesthesia and pain control. One approach is the use of conventional general anesthesia combined with regional anesthesia (anesthesia that affects a specific part of the body). The benefits achieved with this approach are two-fold --1) the use of regional anesthesia reduces the amount of general anesthesia required during surgery, and 2) it decreasing the amount of morphine needed after surgery for pain control (Goldfarb 2006-2007).
In one experiment, mice with cancer received surgery with either general anesthesia alone or combined with regional anesthesia. The scientists reported that the addition of regional anesthesia “markedly attenuates the promotion of metastasis by surgery.” Regional anesthesia reduced 70% of the metastasis-promoting effects of general anesthesia alone (Bar-Yosef 2001).
In another study, doctors compared NK cell activity in patients receiving general or regional anesthesia for abdominal surgery. NK cell activity dropped substantially in the general anesthesia group, while it was preserved at pre-operative levels in the group receiving regional anesthesia (Koltun 1996). In a pioneering study, 50 women having breast cancer surgery with general and regional anesthesia were compared to 79 women having breast cancer surgery and receiving general anesthesia followed by morphine. The type of regional anesthesia used was called a paravertebral block, which involves the injection of a local anesthetic around the spinal nerves between the vertebral bones of the spine. After nearly three years, dramatic differences were noted between the two groups. Only 6% of patients who received regional anesthesia experienced a metastatic recurrence compared to 24% in the group that did not receive regional anesthesia. In other words, women who received regional and general anesthesia had a 75% decreased risk for metastatic cancer. These findings led researchers to proclaim that regional anesthesia for breast cancer surgery “markedly reduces the risk of recurrence of metastasis during the initial years following surgery” (Goldfarb 2006-2007).
In yet another study, surgeons concluded that regional anesthesia “can be used to perform major operations for breast cancer with minimal complications. Most importantly, by reducing nausea, vomiting, and surgical pain, paravertebral block [regional anesthesia] markedly improves the quality of operative recovery for patients who are treated for breast cancer“ (Coveney 1998).
A group of researchers announced that “as regional techniques [anesthesia] are easy to implement, inexpensive, and do not pose a threat greater than general anesthesia, it would be easy for anesthesiologists to implement them, thus reducing the risk of disease recurrence and metastasis” (Goldfarb 2006-2007).
Those requiring medication for pain control after surgery can consider asking their doctor for tramadol instead of morphine. Unlike morphine, tramadol does not suppress immune function (Liu 2006). On the contrary, tramadol has been shown to stimulate NK cell activity. In one experiment, tramadol prevented the suppression of NK cell activity and blocked the formation of lung metastasis induced by surgery in rats (Gaspani 2002).
The traditional protocol for anesthesia use is general anesthesia during surgery followed by intravenous morphine (for pain control) after surgery. However, this may not be the optimal approach for preventing surgery-induced metastasis. At a time when immune function is already suppressed, morphine further weakens the immune system by diminishing NK cell activity (Vallejo 2004). Surgical anesthesia has also been shown to weaken NK cell activity (Melamed 2003). One study found that morphine increased angiogenesis and stimulated the growth of breast cancer in mice. The researchers concluded that “these results indicate that clinical use of morphine could potentially be harmful in patients with angiogenesis-dependent cancers” (Gupta 2002).
Given the inherent problems associated with the use of morphine and anesthesia, researchers have explored other approaches to surgical anesthesia and pain control. One approach is the use of conventional general anesthesia combined with regional anesthesia (anesthesia that affects a specific part of the body). The benefits achieved with this approach are two-fold --1) the use of regional anesthesia reduces the amount of general anesthesia required during surgery, and 2) it decreasing the amount of morphine needed after surgery for pain control (Goldfarb 2006-2007).
In one experiment, mice with cancer received surgery with either general anesthesia alone or combined with regional anesthesia. The scientists reported that the addition of regional anesthesia “markedly attenuates the promotion of metastasis by surgery.” Regional anesthesia reduced 70% of the metastasis-promoting effects of general anesthesia alone (Bar-Yosef 2001).
In another study, doctors compared NK cell activity in patients receiving general or regional anesthesia for abdominal surgery. NK cell activity dropped substantially in the general anesthesia group, while it was preserved at pre-operative levels in the group receiving regional anesthesia (Koltun 1996). In a pioneering study, 50 women having breast cancer surgery with general and regional anesthesia were compared to 79 women having breast cancer surgery and receiving general anesthesia followed by morphine. The type of regional anesthesia used was called a paravertebral block, which involves the injection of a local anesthetic around the spinal nerves between the vertebral bones of the spine. After nearly three years, dramatic differences were noted between the two groups. Only 6% of patients who received regional anesthesia experienced a metastatic recurrence compared to 24% in the group that did not receive regional anesthesia. In other words, women who received regional and general anesthesia had a 75% decreased risk for metastatic cancer. These findings led researchers to proclaim that regional anesthesia for breast cancer surgery “markedly reduces the risk of recurrence of metastasis during the initial years following surgery” (Goldfarb 2006-2007).
In yet another study, surgeons concluded that regional anesthesia “can be used to perform major operations for breast cancer with minimal complications. Most importantly, by reducing nausea, vomiting, and surgical pain, paravertebral block [regional anesthesia] markedly improves the quality of operative recovery for patients who are treated for breast cancer“ (Coveney 1998).
A group of researchers announced that “as regional techniques [anesthesia] are easy to implement, inexpensive, and do not pose a threat greater than general anesthesia, it would be easy for anesthesiologists to implement them, thus reducing the risk of disease recurrence and metastasis” (Goldfarb 2006-2007).
Those requiring medication for pain control after surgery can consider asking their doctor for tramadol instead of morphine. Unlike morphine, tramadol does not suppress immune function (Liu 2006). On the contrary, tramadol has been shown to stimulate NK cell activity. In one experiment, tramadol prevented the suppression of NK cell activity and blocked the formation of lung metastasis induced by surgery in rats (Gaspani 2002).
Debbie
Re: Cancer Surgery Cancer Surgery, Angiogenesis, and Metastasis
Less Invasive Surgery Reduces Risk of Metastasis
Surgery places an enormous physical stress upon the body. There is considerable scientific evidence supporting the belief that less invasive surgeries, and therefore less traumatic, pose a decreased risk of metastasis. Laparoscopic surgery, performed by making a small incision in the abdomen, is one type of minimally invasive surgery.
In a study comparing laparoscopic to open surgery in colon cancer patients receiving a partial colectomy (removal of the colon), the laparoscopic group had a 61% decreased risk of cancer recurrence coupled with a 62% decreased risk of death from colon cancer. The surgeons concluded that laparoscopic colectomy is more effective than open colectomy for treatment of colon cancer (Lacy 2002). A long-term (median time ~8 years) follow-up of these patients reported a 56% decreased risk of death from colon cancer following laparoscopic surgery as compared to traditional open surgery (Lacy 2008).
Minimally invasive surgery has produced substantial improvements in survival rates for lung cancer patients. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) was compared to traditional open surgery for removing lung tumors (lobectomy). The five-year survival rate from lung cancer was 97% in the VATS group compared to 79% in the open surgery group (Kaseda 2000).
A group of surgeons commented that minimally invasive surgery for lung cancer “can be performed safely with proven advantages over conventional thoracotomy [chest surgery] for lobectomy: smaller incisions, decreased postoperative pain, decreased blood loss, better preservation of pulmonary function, and earlier return to normal activities. The evidence in the literature is mounting that VATS may offer reduced rates of complications and better survival” (Mahtabifard 2007).
Surgery places an enormous physical stress upon the body. There is considerable scientific evidence supporting the belief that less invasive surgeries, and therefore less traumatic, pose a decreased risk of metastasis. Laparoscopic surgery, performed by making a small incision in the abdomen, is one type of minimally invasive surgery.
In a study comparing laparoscopic to open surgery in colon cancer patients receiving a partial colectomy (removal of the colon), the laparoscopic group had a 61% decreased risk of cancer recurrence coupled with a 62% decreased risk of death from colon cancer. The surgeons concluded that laparoscopic colectomy is more effective than open colectomy for treatment of colon cancer (Lacy 2002). A long-term (median time ~8 years) follow-up of these patients reported a 56% decreased risk of death from colon cancer following laparoscopic surgery as compared to traditional open surgery (Lacy 2008).
Minimally invasive surgery has produced substantial improvements in survival rates for lung cancer patients. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) was compared to traditional open surgery for removing lung tumors (lobectomy). The five-year survival rate from lung cancer was 97% in the VATS group compared to 79% in the open surgery group (Kaseda 2000).
A group of surgeons commented that minimally invasive surgery for lung cancer “can be performed safely with proven advantages over conventional thoracotomy [chest surgery] for lobectomy: smaller incisions, decreased postoperative pain, decreased blood loss, better preservation of pulmonary function, and earlier return to normal activities. The evidence in the literature is mounting that VATS may offer reduced rates of complications and better survival” (Mahtabifard 2007).
Debbie
Re: Cancer Surgery Cancer Surgery, Angiogenesis, and Metastasis
Administering Chemo and Radiation Therapies Prior to Surgery
A group of doctors studied the use of combined radiation and chemotherapy prior to surgery for individuals with esophageal cancer. Twenty-six cancer patients received surgery alone, while 30 received radiation and chemotherapy followed up by surgery. The group receiving combined treatment had a five-year survival rate of 39% compared to 16% in the group treated with surgery alone (Tepper 2008).
In another study comparing treatment with surgery alone to treatment with chemotherapy (both directly before and after surgery) in patients with stomach or esophageal cancer, the five-year survival rate for the group receiving surgery and chemotherapy was 36% compared to 23% in the group receiving surgery alone (Cunningham 2006).
Research also supports the use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy during the critical perioperative period. In one study, 544 patients with stomach cancer received combined chemotherapy and radiation shortly after surgery. Survival comparisons were made with a similar group of 446 patients with stomach cancer treated with surgery alone. The group treated with surgery alone had a median survival of only 62.6 months compared to 95.3 months in the combination group (Kim 2005).
A group of doctors studied the use of combined radiation and chemotherapy prior to surgery for individuals with esophageal cancer. Twenty-six cancer patients received surgery alone, while 30 received radiation and chemotherapy followed up by surgery. The group receiving combined treatment had a five-year survival rate of 39% compared to 16% in the group treated with surgery alone (Tepper 2008).
In another study comparing treatment with surgery alone to treatment with chemotherapy (both directly before and after surgery) in patients with stomach or esophageal cancer, the five-year survival rate for the group receiving surgery and chemotherapy was 36% compared to 23% in the group receiving surgery alone (Cunningham 2006).
Research also supports the use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy during the critical perioperative period. In one study, 544 patients with stomach cancer received combined chemotherapy and radiation shortly after surgery. Survival comparisons were made with a similar group of 446 patients with stomach cancer treated with surgery alone. The group treated with surgery alone had a median survival of only 62.6 months compared to 95.3 months in the combination group (Kim 2005).
Debbie
Re: Cancer Surgery Cancer Surgery, Angiogenesis, and Metastasis
Disclaimer and Safety Information
This information (and any accompanying material) is not intended to replace the attention or advice of a physician or other qualified health care professional. Anyone who wishes to embark on any dietary, drug, exercise, or other lifestyle change intended to prevent or treat a specific disease or condition should first consult with and seek clearance from a physician or other qualified health care professional. Pregnant women in particular should seek the advice of a physician before using any protocol listed on this website. The protocols described on this website are for adults only, unless otherwise specified. Product labels may contain important safety information and the most recent product information provided by the product manufacturers should be carefully reviewed prior to use to verify the dose, administration, and contraindications. National, state, and local laws may vary regarding the use and application of many of the treatments discussed. The reader assumes the risk of any injuries. The authors and publishers, their affiliates and assigns are not liable for any injury and/or damage to persons arising from this protocol and expressly disclaim responsibility for any adverse effects resulting from the use of the information contained herein.
The protocols raise many issues that are subject to change as new data emerge. None of our suggested protocol regimens can guarantee health benefits. The publisher has not performed independent verification of the data contained herein, and expressly disclaim responsibility for any error in literature.
This information (and any accompanying material) is not intended to replace the attention or advice of a physician or other qualified health care professional. Anyone who wishes to embark on any dietary, drug, exercise, or other lifestyle change intended to prevent or treat a specific disease or condition should first consult with and seek clearance from a physician or other qualified health care professional. Pregnant women in particular should seek the advice of a physician before using any protocol listed on this website. The protocols described on this website are for adults only, unless otherwise specified. Product labels may contain important safety information and the most recent product information provided by the product manufacturers should be carefully reviewed prior to use to verify the dose, administration, and contraindications. National, state, and local laws may vary regarding the use and application of many of the treatments discussed. The reader assumes the risk of any injuries. The authors and publishers, their affiliates and assigns are not liable for any injury and/or damage to persons arising from this protocol and expressly disclaim responsibility for any adverse effects resulting from the use of the information contained herein.
The protocols raise many issues that are subject to change as new data emerge. None of our suggested protocol regimens can guarantee health benefits. The publisher has not performed independent verification of the data contained herein, and expressly disclaim responsibility for any error in literature.
Debbie
Re: Cancer Surgery, Angiogenesis, and Metastasis
Re. the problem that general anesthesia drugs like Opioids used during/after the surgery are found promoting distant metastasis spread. It is a subject that is under the discussion for awhile in a general oncology society but nothing really can be done not to use it. There is usually a very limited choice of drugs that can be used for the surgery and it is hard to avoid using them. The same situation is with the steroids that are used to reduce the brain swelling after the surgery or radiosurgery, and with the low white blood cells caused by chemotherapy boosters and with the surgery itself - they all can promote the tumor growth by different routes but there is no way to avoid them. It is important to understand that and to use the caution, but usually these drugs are life savers and are used in the critical care so the benefits overweight the risks.
Olga