HonCode

Go Back   HER2 Support Group Forums > Articles of Interest
Register Gallery FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-16-2005, 01:20 PM   #1
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Omega 3 comparable in effect to RT on breast cancer Trial result

More on fats - (Please excuse me I have re-labelled this as I think it is a very significant trial - I know, poor mice)

There is significant evidence that the omega three fats reduces breast cancer, omega six fats increases it, and to maintain a body balance of one to one, and not worse than one to four omega three to six is highly significant for breast cancer and general health.

Olive oil is another good fat source but comes nowhere near the impact of adding omega three and cutting out excess omega six (corn soy oils etc)

I have seen more more consistent evidence to support this than any other aspect of diet.

Please see the other two fats links below.

http://www.cancerci.com/content/5/1/12



ABSTRACT QUOTE FROM TRIAL


"Dietary omega-3 fatty acids and ionizing irradiation on human breast cancer xenograft growth and angiogenesis


"There are reports that an n-3 fatty acid enriched diet can suppress mitosis and growth of breast and colon tumors [1,6,9]. Thus, it was not surprising to find that the n-3 diet also suppressed the metaphase index in viable areas of the breast cancer tumors in this study.
Together the data reveal that consumption of the n-3 containing diet resulted in a decrease in tumor growth rate, cell proliferation (Fig. 7) and blood vessel volume density (Fig. 5A). Hardman [24] has reviewed some of the possible molecular mechanisms involved in suppression of tumor growth by addition of n-3 fatty acids to the diet. The mechanisms involved in suppression of tumor growth by an omega-3 fatty acid enriched diet include: 1) decreased expression of cyclooxygenase-2, " reducing angiogenesis and decreasing cancer cell proliferation, 2) suppression of nuclear factor κB activation and bcl-2 expression, allowing apoptosis of cancer cells, 3) suppression of the oncogenes AP-1 and ras, 4) induced differentiation of the cancer cells, 5) reduction in aromatase activity that decreases estrogen levels, 6) inhibition of later steps in the tumor angiogenesis process.


Conclusion

In conclusion, an omega-3 fatty acid enriched diet was found to significantly reduce the growth rate and angiogenesis of a human breast cancer xenograft without evidence of harmful side effects."

RB
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2005, 08:39 PM   #2
Lani
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Careful when reviewing articles

Breast cancer and human breast cancer "cell lines" injected into mice come in "several different flavors" which behave differently!

MDA MB231 IS AN ESTROGEN NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER CELL LINE

I DO NOT believe IT IS HER2 NEU POSITIVE (just reviewed four pages of entries resulting from Google search)unless it is listed as MDA MB231H2 which stands for a MDA MB231 human breast cancer cell line which has been trasfected with genes specific to her2neu

When reviewing articles look for the cell type of human breast cancer inserted in the mice fat pad--there appear to be at least five subtypes of breast cancer distinguished by their molecular signature and comparing results in mice models of one does not imply similar results would occur with another type. Also remember mice nutrition and metabolism is different than humans'--otherwise we would eat and thrive on the same diet as they do!
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2005, 03:39 AM   #3
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Noted.

In general terms the same test comments must apply to drugs, which are trialed in the same manner, but have rather less well known wider impacts on both animals and humans than dietary items.

But if you follow research on omega three you will find a wealth of trials supporting the positive impact of omega three, and the importance of balancing the omega threes and sixes, particularly to HER 2. (see other posts)

I am not suggesting miracles, or abandoning traditional therapies, but as an accessible affordable dietary consideration it has to be worth serious consideration. As previously suggested go on to NCBI and type in breast cancer and omega three. Here is a natuaral dietary factor that appears to work along several pathways, has been trialed for millenia, has very few side effects, and does not cost a huge amount.

There is significant evidence based on various trials relating biopsy results to outcome of a high level of protection from omega threes.

Why is natures pharmacy so demeaned. It has taken us a very long time to evolve in response to our environment and food sources. Foods are a chemical arsenal to which we have adapted to survive. The bodies mechanisms are hugely complex, and chemical single magic bullets are on the balance of probabilities unlikely to be more than partially effective.

Why should it be beyond credibility that dietary factors are significantly responsible responsible for the growth in breast cancer in western societies.

Why is much so much research put into new avenues and so little into determining what changes are producing increase in complex diseases based on internal mechanisms rather than external stimuli.

Why is diet as part of a total strategy for disease prevention treated by such disdain by many in the profession.

RB.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2005, 06:31 AM   #4
Christine MH-UK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Deserves more work

The Nurse's Study looked into this matter and unfortunately found no link between the omega3 to omega6 consumption and breast cancer survival. Now, perhaps the problem is that they didn't divide up the women into different groups, since omega3 to omega6 seems to be more strongly linked to hormone non-responsive cancers, which are in the minority (in the west at least). I don't think anyone has looked at her2 incidence, survival and diet.

As usual, more work is needed on this to determine whether the best diet for different her2+++ patients is low-fat (which worked well in node-negative er-,pr- women in a recent trial), high omega3 to omega 6 or high omega 9+3 to omega 6.

Avoiding foods high in omega 6 is probably a good idea anyway because it is hard on the heart.

Last edited by Christine MH-UK; 11-17-2005 at 06:32 AM.. Reason: :o turned into embarassment symbols
Christine MH-UK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2005, 01:57 PM   #5
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re Nurses Study / Additional links

Do you know where I can find the nurses study?

Was it based on tissue analysis or reported dietary habits, adipoise or breast? Did it look at the reported main factor - omega six excess, and the balance to omega three or simply overall consumption. If it was based on reports of diet did it take into accout all the hidden sources of omega sixes processed food, etc? I have doubts as to the reliability of trials based on reported diet factors unless strictly controlled which is in real life an impractical burden over a significant time frame.

I attach another couple of interesting excerpts below which puts things much better than I can. One item was based on tissue biopsies in humans which is I suggest inherently a much more tenable basis than reported diet, as it factually reflects diet over time 3 months plus for breast and years for adipose fat.

At a purely amateur perspective I have spent several months, and often several hours a day on the net looking at all I can get hold of on the subject, and make a prediction that in ten years or less consumption of high omega six oils will attract the same intensity of debate in relation to general health as alcohol (and although much less comparable but probably likewise bound to matters of individual freedoms, and pressures from industry and commerce - smoking).


RB

"Omega-3 fatty acids and breast cancer
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK. Dr. William Cave, MD of the University of Rochester School of Medicine presents an overview of the current knowledge regarding the relationship between dietary intake of essential fatty acids and breast cancer. Dr. Cave reviews the experimental evidence (mostly based on animal tests) supporting the contention that omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids promote tumor formation while omega-3 acids retard tumor development. A particularly interesting observation is the finding that rats fed a diet containing 20% coconut oil, butter or tallow had half the number of breast tumors than did rats fed a diet containing equivalent amounts of cottonseed oil, sunflower seed oil or corn oil (all high in omega-6 content). However, when as little as 3% of the coconut oil was replaced by sunflower seed oil the number of tumors increased to equal that obtained with 20% sunflower seed oil alone. This indicates that there is a certain, fairly low, level of omega-6 fatty acids which will lead to increased tumor formation irrespective of the composition of the rest of the diet. Animal experiments have also shown that fish oils are highly effective in preventing the development and progression of breast tumors and can diminish the metastatic spread of breast cancer. Dr. Cave concludes that changes in dietary fat composition can significantly affect breast cancer development and suggests the differences in eisosanoid metabolism induced by the two essential fatty acid families (omega-3 and omega-6) may be an important factor.
Cave, William T., Jr. Dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fats and breast cancer. Nutrition (Supplement), Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996, pp. S39-S42

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=news&dbid=49
ABSTRACT
Researchers examined the fatty acid composition in breast tissue from 241 patients with invasive, nonmetastatic breast cancer and from 88 patients with benign breast disease, in a case-control study in Tours, central France. (In a case-control study, researchers try to match individuals in one group with individuals in another group who are comparable in all important respects except for the one being studied.)
Biopsies of breast fatty tissue were obtained at the time of surgery, and the types of fat found in the women’s breast tissue were used to identify their past dietary intake of fatty acids. After the researchers took into account factors such as age, height, menopausal status and body mass index, they found a significant inverse association between breast cancer-risk and the levels of omega-3 fatty acid in breast tissue. Women who had the highest levels of alpha-linolenic acid had a 61% lower risk of breast cancer compared to women with the lowest levels of this omega-3 fat. Similarly, women with the highest levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) had a 69% lower risk compared to women with the lowest levels of DHA.
Overall, women who had the lowest ratio of omega-6mega-3 fats (the most omega-3 fat in comparison to their levels of omega-6 fats) were found to have a 67% lower risk of breast cancer compared to women with the least omega-3s. The researchers believe this data suggests that omega-3 fats play a protective role against breast cancer and that the balance between omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids plays an important role: the lower the ratio, the lower a woman’s risk for breast cancer."
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2005, 02:43 PM   #6
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re Nurses Health Study

I have found what I beleive is the study referred to. It was questionaire based.

Here is a technical report on the difficulties and potential flaws in "traditional assessments" for dietary fats, which makes they point with more elegance and authority than I can muster.

This suggests what common sense MIGHT lead one to conclude:

Reported diet based trials (what I ate) / statistical evaluations of such information on fat intake - given the bodies sensitivity - and numerous sources of hidden fats / difficulty in assessing intake - human nature and conscience etc, are in all likelyhood of very limited value if not potentially positively misleading.


Arab, L. (2003). "Biomarkers of fat and fatty acid intake." J Nutr 133 Suppl 3: 925S-932S.
"Unlike other macronutrients such as protein, the amounts and types of fat in the human diet vary tremendously across cultures and over time have changed significantly within Westernized countries. Studies of the effect that fat sources, fat amounts and changes in fat intake have on human disease are extremely difficult to conduct with traditional dietary assessment methods for a number of reasons. These include the hidden nature of many fats, the variation in fatty acids contained in foods and feed and the sensitivity of individuals to questions about fat intake in their diets. For these reasons biomarkers of fat intake are particularly desirable. Fat and fat-soluble substances have the advantages over other nutrients of a long half-life and readily accessible storage depots (in the absence of starvation, undernutrition or eating disorders). Technological advances in quantitative measurements of individual fatty acids, with the help of gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GCMS)((3)) and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), made possible the study of specific isomers of minor fatty acids from small tissue samples. Technological advances also opened the gateways to the study of fats that represent less than 1% of the total fat profiles, such as decosahexanoic acid (DHA), eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Biological advances enhanced our appreciation of the differences between fats of differing chain lengths within a family, including the saturated fats. Challenges remain, such as assessing total fat intake, discriminating the contribution of endogenously produced fats, determining how to evaluate the importance of relative versus absolute contributions of fat and accounting for the factors that influence deposition and mobilization of individual fats within and between individuals. Factors that can influence deposition and mobilization include genetic variation, disease status, lifestyle differences (i.e., alcohol consumption and smoking), circulating apolipoprotein levels and the hormonal milieu of the individual and the source tissue."
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2005, 03:13 PM   #7
Christine MH-UK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
The Lesson of Lorenzo's Oil

The problem with rat/mouse studies is that humans are rather different. One example that is highly relevant is that the fellow who developed Lorenzo's oil had trouble getting it tested because of a component's effect on rodents, but fortunately found a scientist who knew it would not have the same affect in humans. Likewise, the inventor of the glaucoma drug xalatan had to test it on himself at first because of problems with the mouse model.

The whole omega 6 issue definitely deserves study. The trouble is that nothing is really known for sure until it is tested. For years people have known that obese breast cancer patients do less well and always put it down to fat producing oestrogen, but it turns out to be more of a problem for ER-.

The whole issue with her2 is not whether omega 6 is likely to be a problem (definitely), but whether omega 3 or omega 9 are more effective as a means of offsetting it specifically for her2+++ breast cancers.
Christine MH-UK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2005, 09:56 PM   #8
Gina
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 197
One of the connections of ER negative her-2+++ with

obesity is that in addition to over-expression of cox-2 and her-2, leptin, the molecule that makes one hungry all the time is also over-produced which could be one reason why lots of hormonal negatives her-2 positives struggle with the weight gain. Thanks for the info Christine from UK

Take care,
Gina
Gina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2005, 02:39 AM   #9
Christine MH-UK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Obesity and her2

Hi Gina,

Interesting point. I haven't had a problem with weight gain, which I guess is a good sign.

Dr Menendez's general work seems to be on how inhibiting something called the fatty acid synthase makes her2+++ breast cancer cells more likely to die. One thing I found interesting is that fatty acid synthase inhibitors have also been explored as obesity medicines. In fact, one of the substances that seemed to work when Menenez tested on it on her2+ breast cancer cells was the obesity drug orlistat. Outside of Menendez's work on oils, the only generally recognized as safe, natural fatty acid synthase inhibitor I could find was green tea.
Christine MH-UK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2005, 03:26 AM   #10
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re Cox 2 / animal trials

Re animal trial.

The in vivo human trial referred to above suggests omega 3 / 3:6 balance link to breast cancer. A whole host of trials all point in the same direction on omega three and six, unlike any other substance I have found. Please do look it up on an NCBI search.

As to trials more work I totally agree. But who will fund it, and "market" the results, it has limited commercial potential, and could reduce the market for drugs.

Re Cox 2.

Cox 2 is a product of the omega six eicosanoid pathway. See earlier posting on the subject which will help explain the linkof cox 2 with linoleic acid omega six.

RB

As to weight there are a number of pathways that appear to suggest that imega three contributes to fat storage and omega three to fat utilisation.


General anti cancer agents

See Life Extension who have lots of thought provoking information on their site.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2005, 03:32 AM   #11
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
ERROR above

Sorry I made an error in the above rushing and did not spot it till afterwards this line should have read as follows;

As to weight there are a number of pathways that appear to suggest that OMEGA SIX contributes to fat storage and omega three to fat utilisation.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright HER2 Support Group 2007 - 2021
free webpage hit counter