Fish oil may NOT help prevent cancer

[RhondaH]

I KNOW we have opinions on this

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health...sh_Cancer.html

Rhonda

[AlaskaAngel]

For me that is the real cancer question. Fish are being exposed to more and more toxic substances too, but avoiding domestically produced varieties and other protein sources produced with hormones or pesticides especially is key to avoiding cancer. Maybe if they compared organic oil sources of protein to non-organic they might sift out more helpful information.

A.A.

[RhondaH]

AA. I know I buy ONLY wild salmon and tuna as well as organic dairy, fruits, vegetables and a little meat (maybe once every other week)

Rhonda

[CLTann]

We have been under the strong indication, even headlines such as one muffin a day keeps cancer away, that omega 3 is unquestionably what we need to have in our diet. Now the news today is that omega 3 is neutral to cancer prevention. It is a let-down for many of us, who have religiously using omega 3 oil in our daily diet.

The medical people have so many protocols in evaluating so many different items. The past advices on omega 3 were so convincing and authoritative. Will one of these days some "expert" will come out to say that no treatment or diet will matter, after all these studies?

We watched Oprah yesterday about pandenmic potential. The "expert" said that it is a matter of time for it to happen. When that happens, no nurse and no doctor will be available. How are we going to deal with that scenario?

Ann

[al from Canada]

OK guys, I read this while Linda was getting her tx today and I wondered how many ripples this tidbit was going to cause. Remember: all the studies that indicated that omega 3 (and 9) was one of the fatty acids that helped down-regulate HER2; the operant word here is HER2! We have to treat HER2 BC as a disease unlike no other, it is mediated by the HER2 gene; I chose to call it HER2 cancer. Research into HER2 cancer has resulted in the discovery of herceptin which, as a result of its successes, has prompted a whole new area of research called "targetted therapies". The last I heard, Omega 3 and 9 were both shown to downregulate HER2. As well, the key to fatty-acids is balance; Omega 3: omega 6 optimally should be 1:1. Fish oils are as much as 3:1.

Again, critical reading is the key.

In case anyone is interested, here is a link which discusses the Omega ratios in a variety of fish:
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/fish/omega3.pdf

Happy reading,
Al

[CLTann]

Thank you, Al, for posting a comment on the fish oil and its specificity toward HER2 breast cancer patients. Although I understand your view point as well as the logic behind your statement, yet the whole picture is rather cloudy after thoroughly digested the news on omega 3 today.

In the announced study, a large population was included in the study for a lengthy multi-year period. Other cancers were also included in the study. I assume that at the time the study began, there was no distinction among breast patients as to their HER2 status. Since we now know that about 25% of breast cancer patients are HER2 positive, we have to look at the study results that should have included these 25% HER2 positive patients. Therefore, if omega 3 is rather specific for HER2 cancers, the study results should have skewed toward a favorable average for the omega3 group. That skew should then push the overall favorable result noticeable. We are disappointed in not seeing such a favorable average improvement.

If my argument has merit, we should then question the acceptability of the study results of the omega 3. Of course, I would rather be convinced that omega 3 is indeed is useful (along with omega 6) in the fight against breast cancer.

Ann

[al from Canada]

Statistical analysis is a very complicated thing, I know because as part of my psych degree, I had to take 3 stats courses and I never really did get it.

That said, say 75% of the 25% of HER2 patients did find a therapuetic advantage to omega 3. Furthermore, say the theraputic advantage (lets say overall survival advantage of 1 year) was 30%; that is to say that HER2 BC patients taking herceptin and omega-3 lived 30%, or 1 year, longer than HER2 BC patients not taking omega-3. This may or may not translate into statistical significance depending on other variables, esp. sampling size.

To extrapolate into the general population of all BC patients: 75% of 25% of HER2 = 18.75%; and survival advantage= 18.75% * 30% = 5.62% longer survival for the general BC pop. If the survival advantage for the HER2 group was , say 12 months, that means that the survival advantage for the entire study group was 12 months x 5.62% = .6744 OR : 2 1/2 weeks

does 2.5 weeks = statistical significance? I don't know but my whole point of this exercise is to bring about awareness that the numbers quoted in the press are not always what they appear to be.

The same holds true for stage 4 BC survival stats.

Regards,
Al

[Becky]

Great point Al. I was thinking along the same lines myself. The first Herceptin study bombed too because not everyone was Her2.


Secondly - even if Omega 3s are a wash for cancer, they are great for cholestrol and heart concerns. Everyone knows that eatting fish and having a handful of nuts is very healthful for many reasons, not just cancer. So... keep on doing it since it would be pointless to work so hard to just go from a heart attack at a young age too.

Becky

[Marlys]

Right on Becky & Al,
I have always used olive oil for so much of my fats but only recently have I been paying attention to Omega 3 and my last cholesterol levels were dramatically lower!! I am more concerned that my cardiac health or lack of it could be the death of me than my cancer!