Haaienkraakbeen geeft geen positief effect in vergelijking met placebo bij kankerpatiënten aldus kleine maar wel gerandomiseerde studie bij totaal 83 patiënten met darmkanker en borstkanker.

13 juli 2012: Ooit raadde dr. Houtsmuller haaienkraakbeen aan, maar hij is daar al jaren geleden van teruggekomen, o.a. na deze studie.

1 juni 2005: Bron: Mayo Clinic

Haaienkraakbeen als supplement geeft geen voordeel voor kankerpatiënten met darmkanker en borstkanker, noch in remmen van tumorgroei noch in kwaliteit van leven aldus een dubbelblinde gerandomiseerde placebo gecontroleerde studie in meerdere ziekenhuizen uitgevoerd bij totaal 83 patiënten. De helft van deze 83 patiënten kregen haaienkraakbeen als aanvulling op hun chemo of andere reguliere behandelingen met als doel te kijken of dit effect zou hebben op de overall overleving en secondair op kwaliteit van leven. De ander helft kreeg een placebo dat zelfde rook en smaakte. In het abstract staat er niet bij hoe lang deze patiënten dit supplement kregen toegediend. Wel opvallend dat Nutraingredients opmerkt dat volgens de onderzoeksleider heel veel patiënten al snel stopten met het innemen van haaienkraakbeen omdat zij te ernstige bijwerkingen ervan zouden hebben ondervonden. Je kunt je dan wel afvragen of zo'n kleine studie met de overgebleven patiënten nog wel waarde heeft. Stel dat 1/3 afhaakt in eerste maanden wat is dan nog de waarde van zo'n kleine groep patienten. Bovendien niet om flauw te doen of het resultaat in twijfel te trekken, maar voor zo'n relatief kleine studie is de lijst van artsennamen en ziekenhuizen die eraan hebben meegewerkt opvallend groot. Bijna net zo veel als er patienten aan de studie meededen. Zo'n 1 op 1 begeleiding zou toch ook voordelen op minimaal kwaliteit van leven moeten hebben lijkt ons zo. Maar goed genoeg cynisme het abstract geeft voor haaienkraakbeen geen verschil in de onderzochte doelen en dat is teleurstellend lijkt ons gezien eerdere studies die wel een voordeel aangaven. Achtereenvolgens het abstract van de studie en een verklarend artikel uit Nutraingredients

Evaluation of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer

A North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial
Charles L. Loprinzi, M.D. 1 *§, Ralph Levitt, M.D. 2, Debra L. Barton, R.N., Ph.D. 1, Jeff A. Sloan, Ph.D. 1, Pam J. Atherton, M.S. 1, Denise J. Smith 1, Shaker R. Dakhil, M.D. 3, Dennis F. Moore Jr., M.D. 3, James E. Krook, M.D. 4, Kendrith M. Rowland Jr., M.D. 5, Miroslaw A. Mazurczak, M.D. 6, Alan R. Berg, M.D. 7, George P. Kim, M.D. 8
1Departments of Oncology and Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota 2Meritcare Hospital Community Clinical Oncology Program, Fargo, North Dakota 3Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, Kansas 4Duluth Community Clinical Oncology Program, Duluth, Minnesota 5Carle Cancer Center Community Clinical Oncology Program, Urbana, Illinois 6Sioux Community Cancer Consortium, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 7Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Omaha, Nebraska 8Division of Hematology/Oncology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida

email: Charles L. Loprinzi (cloprinzi@mayo.edu)

*Correspondence to Charles L. Loprinzi, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Shark cartilage has been a popular complementary or alternative medicine intervention. The basis for this popularity is the claim that sharks rarely get cancer because of the high proportion of cartilage in the shark's body. However, early studies were equivocal. Therefore, a clinical trial was conducted to look at the impact of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer. The primary goal of this trial was to determine whether a shark cartilage product improved overall survival for patients with advanced cancer who were getting standard care. Secondary research goals were to evaluate toxicities, tolerability, and quality of life associated with this shark cartilage product.

METHODS
The study was a two-arm, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial. Patients with incurable breast or colorectal carcinoma had to have good performance status and organ function. Patients could be receiving chemotherapy. Patients were all to receive standard care and then to be randomly selected to receive either a shark cartilage product or an identical-appearing and smelling placebo 3 to 4 times each day.

RESULTS
Data on a total of 83 evaluable patients were analyzed. There was no difference in overall survival between patients receiving standard care plus a shark cartilage product versus standard care plus placebo. Likewise, there was no suggestion of improvement in quality of life for patients receiving the shark cartilage, compared with those receiving placebo.

CONCLUSION
This trial was unable to demonstrate any suggestion of efficacy for this shark cartilage product in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: 28 October 2004; Revised: 11 February 2005; Accepted: 25 February 2005

Source: Nutraingredients
Shark cartilage can’t cure cancer, say scientists

24/05/2005 - When the mass media reported, more than a decade ago, on studies purporting to show that shark cartilage could send cancer into remission, medical professionals didn’t really buy it. Now it seems their skepticism was well placed, writes Jess Halliday, as a new study finds it improves neither the survival prospects nor the quality of life of advanced-stage cancer patients.

Mayo Clinic Oncologist Charles Loprinzi and colleagues in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group carried out a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial involving 83 patients with incurable breast or colorectal cancer, who had good performance status and organ function. The results are published in the July 1 issue of the American Cancer Society’s peer-reviewed journal CANCER, now online.

The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group took a shark cartilage product three to four times each day, and the other took a placebo with identical smell and appearance. Both groups also received standard medical treatment, such as chemotherapy.

The primary aim of the study was to find out whether shark cartilage boosted patients’ survival, and the secondary aim was to evaluate toxicities, tolerability, and any quality of life benefits it might deliver.

However Loprinzi’s team found shark cartilage to be a failure on all counts. There was no difference in survival rates between the two groups, nor any discernible benefit to quality of life. In fact, in some cases in the cartilage group, quality of life was seen to deteriorate.

The researchers also note that the first month of the trial was marked by a high dropout rate in the shark cartilage group due to toxicity.

According to the researchers, the reputed benefits of shark cartilage stem from the claim that sharks rarely get cancer because their bodies contain a lot of cartilage.

But all the studies conducted to date have produced ambiguous results – bar the 1993 study carried out in Cuba, which captured media attention worldwide with its claims that patients with advanced cancer had gone into remission after taking shark cartilage.

This trial was never published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, however, and the National Cancer Institute dismissed the results as "incomplete and unimpressive".

Since then, the medical professionals have sought to discourage the use of the use of this particular complementary or alternative approach. In 2002 the British Journal of Cancer published editorial warning that websites offering patients alternative therapies, including shark cartilage, could pose a greater risk to their health as they might cause them to neglect orthodox approaches.

Plaats een reactie ...

Reageer op "Haaienkraakbeen geeft geen positief effect in vergelijking met placebo bij kankerpatiënten aldus kleine maar wel gerandomiseerde studie bij totaal 83 patiënten met darmkanker en borstkanker."

Gerelateerde artikelen