60
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C Combined with Cytotoxic Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Phase I-II Clinical Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Biological and some clinical evidence suggest that high-dose intravenous vitamin C (IVC) could increase the effectiveness of cancer chemotherapy. IVC is widely used by integrative and complementary cancer therapists, but rigorous data are lacking as to its safety and which cancers and chemotherapy regimens would be the most promising to investigate in detail.

          Methods and Findings

          We carried out a phase I-II safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic and efficacy trial of IVC combined with chemotherapy in patients whose treating oncologist judged that standard-of-care or off-label chemotherapy offered less than a 33% likelihood of a meaningful response. We documented adverse events and toxicity associated with IVC infusions, determined pre- and post-chemotherapy vitamin C and oxalic acid pharmacokinetic profiles, and monitored objective clinical responses, mood and quality of life. Fourteen patients were enrolled. IVC was safe and generally well tolerated, although some patients experienced transient adverse events during or after IVC infusions. The pre- and post-chemotherapy pharmacokinetic profiles suggested that tissue uptake of vitamin C increases after chemotherapy, with no increase in urinary oxalic acid excretion. Three patients with different types of cancer experienced unexpected transient stable disease, increased energy and functional improvement.

          Conclusions

          Despite IVC’s biological and clinical plausibility, career cancer investigators currently ignore it while integrative cancer therapists use it widely but without reporting the kind of clinical data that is normally gathered in cancer drug development. The present study neither proves nor disproves IVC’s value in cancer therapy, but it provides practical information, and indicates a feasible way to evaluate this plausible but unproven therapy in an academic environment that is currently uninterested in it. If carried out in sufficient numbers, simple studies like this one could identify specific clusters of cancer type, chemotherapy regimen and IVC in which exceptional responses occur frequently enough to justify appropriately focused clinical trials.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01050621

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors.

            Enrolling participants onto clinical trials of cancer presents an important challenge. We aimed to identify the concerns of patients with cancer about, and the barriers to, participation in clinical trials. We did a systematic review to assess studies of barriers to participation in experimental trials and randomised trials for validity and content. We estimated the frequency with which patients identified particular issues by pooling across studies that presented data for barriers to participation in clinical trials as proportions. We analysed 12 qualitative studies (n=722) and 21 quantitative studies (n=5452). Two qualitative studies inquired of patients who were currently enrolled onto clinical trials, and ten inquired of patients who were eligible for enrolment onto various clinical trials. Barriers to participation in clinical trials were protocol-related, patient-related, or physician-related. The most common reasons cited as barriers included: concerns with the trial setting; a dislike of randomisation; general discomfort with the research process; complexity and stringency of the protocol; presence of a placebo or no-treatment group; potential side-effects; being unaware of trial opportunities; the idea that clinical trials are not appropriate for serious diseases; fear that trial involvement would have a negative effect on the relationship with their physician; and their physician's attitudes towards the trial. Meta-analysis confirmed the findings of our systematic review. The identification of such barriers to the participation in clinical trials should help trialists to develop strategies that will keep to a maximum participation and cooperation in cancer trials, while informing and protecting prospective participants adequately.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              High-dose parenteral ascorbate enhanced chemosensitivity of ovarian cancer and reduced toxicity of chemotherapy.

              Ascorbate (vitamin C) was an early, unorthodox therapy for cancer, with an outstanding safety profile and anecdotal clinical benefit. Because oral ascorbate was ineffective in two cancer clinical trials, ascorbate was abandoned by conventional oncology but continued to be used in complementary and alternative medicine. Recent studies provide rationale for reexamining ascorbate treatment. Because of marked pharmacokinetic differences, intravenous, but not oral, ascorbate produces millimolar concentrations both in blood and in tissues, killing cancer cells without harming normal tissues. In the interstitial fluid surrounding tumor cells, millimolar concentrations of ascorbate exert local pro-oxidant effects by mediating hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)) formation, which kills cancer cells. We investigated downstream mechanisms of ascorbate-induced cell death. Data show that millimolar ascorbate, acting as a pro-oxidant, induced DNA damage and depleted cellular adenosine triphosphate (ATP), activated the ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM)/adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway, and resulted in mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition and death in ovarian cancer cells. The combination of parenteral ascorbate with the conventional chemotherapeutic agents carboplatin and paclitaxel synergistically inhibited ovarian cancer in mouse models and reduced chemotherapy-associated toxicity in patients with ovarian cancer. On the basis of its potential benefit and minimal toxicity, examination of intravenous ascorbate in combination with standard chemotherapy is justified in larger clinical trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                7 April 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 4
                : e0120228
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medicine, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada
                [2 ]Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Montreal, Canada
                [3 ]Clinical Research Unit, Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Oncology, Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada
                [5 ]Departments of Oncology and Medicine, Segal Cancer Centre, Montreal, Canada
                [6 ]Departments of Medicine and Oncology, Peter Brojde Lung Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada
                Cardiff University, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: Ascorbic acid for injection was an unconditional gift from Alveda Pharma Canada, Ltd. Alveda Pharma Canada had no role in the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation or write-up of this study. This unconditional gift did not, and does not affect our adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. There are no relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, or any other matter.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: LJH JA VC WHM. Performed the experiments: LJH DM PK JA VC DS WHM. Analyzed the data: LJH LR RZ. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: LJH. Wrote the paper: LJH WHM.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-30034
                10.1371/journal.pone.0120228
                4388666
                25848948
                941c1ac3-05ac-44ba-9538-5a964c5f61a0
                Copyright @ 2015

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 16 July 2014
                : 27 January 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 19
                Funding
                This research was supported by the Lotte & John Hecht Memorial Foundation, Vancouver, BC, Canada. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article