In the ongoing quest for a cure for mesothelioma and other life-threatening illnesses, the debate over the validity and effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) continues to stir up strong emotions.

Complementary medicine is used along with standard medicine, while alternative medicine is used in place of standard treatments.

Complementary and alternative medicine may include dietary supplements, megadose vitamins, herbal preparations, special teas, acupuncture, massage therapy, magnet therapy, spiritual healing, and meditation.

Not long ago, I shared Charlene Kaforey’s good news, when she discovered her mesothelioma mass had diminished by half after completing a first round of cancer vaccines, considered an alternative treatment.

Recent news has included reports of research ranging from the effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicines in combination with chemotherapy, to the use of Chinese mushrooms in homeopathic treatment, to a study indicating traditional chemotherapy might enhance the effectiveness of cancer vaccines, which are currently in clinical trials.

The problem, according to complementary medicine (CM) professor Edzard Ernst, in an editorial published recently in BMJ Clinical Evidence, is that “one side of the debate argues that there is no scientific evidence that can support CM, while the other side believes scientific evidence cannot be applied to CM.”

The danger, he says, is that waiting for absolute evidence might prevent someone from trying a therapy that could be beneficial, but siding with the idea that CAM simply cannot be proven may lead a patient into treatment that could cause more harm than good.

The National Cancer Institute’s Office of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM), which coordinates the Institute’s research program in CAM, has established a goal of evaluating data from CAM practitioners with the same rigorous scientific methods employed in evaluating treatment responses with conventional medicine.

Major categories of CAM therapies, as determined by OCCAM, include alternative medical systems (built upon complete systems of theory and practice, like traditional Chinese medicine or homeopathy), energy and electromagnetic based therapies, exercise therapies (like yoga), manipulative and body-based methods, mind-body interventions (like hypnotherapy), nutritional therapeutics, pharmacological and biologic treatments (like vaccines), and spiritual therapies (healing, prayer).

OCCAM is developing the NCI Best Case Series (BCS) program based on its evaluations of CAM therapies, in which it provides an independent review of medical records and medical imaging from patients treated with unconventional cancer therapies.

But whether or not alternative and complementary medicine can be proven effective, people will still seek it out, says Professor Ernst. The “almost insatiable hunger of patients” for CM has driven its importance, he says, despite criticisms, praise or skepticism from the medical community, scientists or politicians, and in spite of the fact that more often than not health insurance does not cover the treatments.

Obviously, this topic – and its accompanying debate – needs much more examination. I will be exploring it more in the future. Do you have an experience with complementary or alternative medicine? Share it with us!

The results of a new study, published on 7th Space Interactive, show that the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), particularly in combination with cisplatin (CDDP), has been shown to exert an anti-tumoral effect on mesothelioma cells.

Most people are familiar with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug naproxen, which is found in their common pain relievers like Aleve.

Wikipedia defines a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug as “drugs with analgesic, antipyretic and, in higher doses, anti-inflammatory effects – they reduce pain, fever and inflammation. The term “non-steroidal” is used to distinguish these drugs from steroids, which (among a broad range of other effects) have a similar eicosanoid-depressing, anti-inflammatory action. As analgesics, NSAIDs are unusual in that they are non-narcotic. The most prominent members of this group of drugs are aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen partly because they are available over-the-counter in many areas.”

The NSAID used in this study is piroxicam.

The study used two mesothelioma cell lines, and explored the effects of piroxicam alone, as well as in conjunction with CDDP. The report says that “treatment with piroxicam or CDDP alone altered the cell cycle phase distribution as well as the expression of some cell cycle regulatory proteins in both cell lines” and that “these effects were increased, even if in a not completely overlapping manner, after treatment with the association of piroxicam and CDDP.”

The report notes that “the mechanisms through which NSAIDs regulate the cell cycle as well as the signal pathways involved in the growth inhibition, remain unclear” but says the findings from this recent study “hold promise in the treatment of mesothelioma.”

The study was orginally published in the Journal of Transitional Medicine.

This week BBC News / Health reported on a recent study published by The Lancet, which features independent and authoritative commentary on global medicine, including research and analysis from all regions of the world. The study suggests that chemotherapy is not effective in dealing with mesothelioma, which is an asbestos-induced cancer that effects the lungs and, more rarely, the abdomen.

The results are based on a study of 409 patients, mostly from the United Kingdom, which set out to assess the potential benefits of combining active symptom control, which usually involves steroid drugs and radiotherapy, with chemotherapy. Results showed no real benefit from adding the chemotherapy drugs compared with just treating the symptoms of the disease.

The BBC quotes one of the authors of the study, Dr Richard Stephens from the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, as saying, “While thousands are and will be affected by this deadly disease, our trial, which is one of the few large trials ever conducted in this disease, emphasizes how difficult mesothelioma is to treat. This is mainly because mesothelioma forms in the lining of the lung. This makes it hard to target.”

One chemotherapy drug, vinorelbine, was shown by the study to have some promise, but researchers do not think blanket chemotherapy treatment is a promising direction for treatment of mesothelioma, according to the Lancet report.

Researchers do not necessarily consider these findings to be bad news, as a study that defines what does not help can be beneficial to patient health because it helps reduce the chance that patients will undergo stressful treatments that are ineffective.

Results of a completely different chemotherapy study conducted by researchers at Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center were released May 18, revealing that chemotherapy given in conjunction with cancer vaccines may actually boost the immune system’s response to the vaccines, according to a report by ScienceDaily.

The Duke study focused on a drug used to treat lymphoma, but could have implications for clinical trials with vaccines being used to treat many cancers including lung cancer, brain tumors and colorectal cancer.

According to the FDA, it is the goal of cancer vaccine clinical trials not to prevent cancer, but to treat existing tumors. The idea is to train the person’s immune system to recognize the living cancer cells and attack them.

In July 2007, the American Association for Cancer Research examined the issue of cancer vaccines and, according to a report by Medical News Today, they found that “ongoing therapeutic cancer vaccine trials have yet to show evidence of vaccines spurring a patient’s immune system to shrink tumors – yet patients who receive these vaccines in trials tend to live longer and respond better to subsequent treatment.”

The full study, titled Cancer Vaccines: Moving Beyond Current Paradigms is available to read online at Clinical Cancer Research.

Full results of the Duke study will be presented May 31 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in Chicago, Ill.

This week the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (MARF) announced that a National Mesothelioma Virtual Bank (NMVB) is now operative. The Meso Foundation’s advocacy efforts, in cooperation with medical and academic institutions, helped make this tissue bank a reality.

According to a release on MARF’s web site, the Virtual Bank, which was four years in development, is the first mesothelioma research resource of its kind. The NMVB provides mesothelioma tissue samples from a variety of institutions, clinically annotated in a readily accessible database, to researchers in all mesothelioma investigations.

The Meso Foundation is the national organization dedicated to eradicating mesothelioma as a life-ending disease by funding the highest quality and most promising research projects from around the world through our rigorous peer-reviewed process; helping patients connect with national meso experts and obtain the most up-to-date information on treatment options; and advocating in Washington, D.C., for federal mesothelioma research funding to stop this national tragedy.

The Foundation has funded more than $5 million in mesothelioma research projects around the world, to date.

According to the MARF release, the NMVB is a collaborative effort of multiple organizations, including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which together provided the initial $1 million grant for starting the tissue bank.

The release goes on to describe the NMVB as a bioinformatics system that combines assorted data from mesothelioma-related specimens into a single, annotated engine. The goal of the tissue bank is to expedite the discovery of preventive measures, novel therapeutic interventions and ultimately cures for mesothelioma.

For more information on the National Mesothelioma Virtual Bank, visit www.mesotissue.org.

The Meso Foundation will host its annual symposium to educate patients and families on the latest advances in meso research and treatment this year in Washington, D.C., June 26-28.

The prevalence of asbestos, especially through the mid-1970s, has put millions of Americans at risk for mesothelioma, a painful, usually lethal cancer almost always related to asbestos exposure. Among the hardest hit are U.S. veterans who were exposed occupationally, especially in Navy ships and shipyards.

According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, there are currently 25 million living individuals who have served in the United States’ armed forces. It is believed that a great number of them were exposed to toxic asbestos-containing materials during military service.

Every ship and shipyard built by the Navy before the mid-70s was fitted with numerous asbestos-containing materials. These materials were extensively used in engine and boiler rooms and other areas below deck for fire safety purposes, as well as in other areas of the ship. In fact, virtually no portion of a naval ship was asbestos-free between the 1930s and mid-1970s.

Unfortunately, veterans have little recourse when diagnosed with mesothelioma they believe to be the result of asbestos exposure during their time of service. Because asbestos use was so widespread before the first bans in the 1970s, it is very difficult for veterans to prove that asbestos exposure occurred only in military service.

Veterans are not legally allowed to seek compensation for mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases from the U.S. government through the court system. Ailing veterans must file a claim against the asbestos manufacturer, and they also have the legal option to seek assistance through The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

The VA is a government-run benefit system that is responsible for administering benefit programs to veterans, their families, and survivors. It is an incredibly complex system that comprises the second-largest federal department, after the Department of Defense. A search of the organization’s web site turns up no information about asbestos or mesothelioma. However, there are some organizations, such as Veterans Assistance Network (www.va-claim-help.com), that can help veterans wade through the VA benefits system.

Lung cancer is usually an indolent cancer that takes years to develop, thus the burden of treatment is falling most heavily on the VA. Late stage lung cancer is twice as costly to treat as early stage.

In February the Lung Cancer Alliance (LCA) announced that for the second year in row a coalition of top veteran organizations is calling for a screening program for veterans at high risk of lung cancer, to be included in the Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09). This highly regarded comprehensive alternative budget addresses the most urgent needs of veterans, and urges Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs to initiate a $3 million pilot screening program for veterans at high risk.

The AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign wars are the four co-authors of this document. More than 50 organizations support the Independent Budget.

A research program carried out by the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program at 40 centers in 26 states and 6 foreign countries during the past 13 years indicates that CT screening can detect lung cancer at Stage 1 in 85 percent of cases, and those treated immediately had a 10-year survival rate of 92 percent. By partnering with these types of programs, the Veterans Administration could quickly implement a pilot screening program for veterans at high risk, with a broad geographic reach and significant cost savings.

Rear Admiral Philip J. Coady, USN, (Ret.), chairman of LCA’s Board of Directors said, “Lung cancer continues to kill more men and women every year than all the other major cancers – breast, prostate, and colon – combined, and our veterans are at even higher risk, especially those whose active duty service exposed them to Agent Orange, asbestos, spent nuclear fuels, propellant gases and other carcinogens.”

Admiral Coady, a 34-year Navy veteran who never smoked, was diagnosed with lung cancer three years ago.

“Because there are usually no specific symptoms, most people are diagnosed so late they die within a year,” he pointed out. “Yet advanced CT technology that can diagnose lung cancer at its earliest, most curable stage is available right now, and high-risk veterans not benefiting from this is wrong,” he said.

Sources: asbestos.com, VAWatchdog.org

Golf Digest magazine announced John Atkinson, a stage IV lung cancer survivor, has been selected to play as part of a celebrity foursome at Torrey Pines, the same course played by the pros at this year’s U.S. Open. Atkinson will play with NBC Today Show host Matt Lauer, Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo, and recording artist Justin Timberlake. The event will be broadcast on NBC Sports on Sunday, June 15, from 2-3 p.m. (ET), in the hour leading into NBC’s broadcast of the final round.

Atkinson was selected from more than 56,000 entries, voted on by the magazine’s readers. Never a smoker, he was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer a little more than a year ago at age 38. He hopes to use the golf event as an opportunity to raise awareness for lung cancer funding and research.

In a press release from the Lung Cancer Alliance, which urged its members and supporters to vote for Atkinson, he is quoted as saying, “The game of golf to me is living. I am going out there to enjoy the golf course, to play a great round and to give hope to those who are faced with life threatening illnesses. If I can beat America’s deadliest cancer, then I can definitely break 100 [at Torrey Pines]. It’s going to be a great day, an emotional day, and I can’t wait.”

Lung cancer is the nation’s leading cancer killer, taking more lives than breast, prostate and colon cancers combined.

To enter the contest, Atkinson submitted a 100-word essay describing why he could break 100 at Torrey Pines. Once being chosen as a finalist, he received more than 48,000 of the 117,000 votes cast in the first U.S. Open Contest, conducted by Golf Digest, the United States Golf Association, and NBC Sports. You can watch a video interview with Atkinson and read other features about the foursome at Golf Digest online.

A while ago, I posted a series of stories from an interview with Rear Adm. Phil Coady (ret.) the Chairman of the Board of the Lung Cancer Alliance. In the interview, he talked about pulmonary fibrosis. Since that time, I’ve had several people wondering if pulmonary fibrosis is connected to asbestos or mesothelioma.

The American Lung Association explains that pulmonary fibrosis is also called interstitial pulmonary fibrosis or interstitial lung disease (ILD). These three terms are often used to describe the same condition.

ILD is not lung cancer; it is a chronic lung disorder. ILD involves a thickening of the lung tissue, which becomes stiff and makes breathing more difficult and demanding. ILD can take many forms, and may progress slowly or rapidly, depending on the individual and the nature of the ILD.

The Lung Association reports that the common link in ILD is that it begins with inflammation, which may affect different parts of the lung. Inflammation may lead to permanent scarring of the lung tissue, which is often called pulmonary fibrosis. The interstitum is the tissue between the lung’s air sacs. Scarring begins in this area, which lends the condition its formal name.

Known causes of pulmonary fibrosis include occupational and environmental exposures, including exposure to asbestos, which can damage the lungs and cause scarring (fibrosis).

Other possible causes include a disease called Sarcoidosis, side effects of medication, radiation, connective tissue or collagen diseases, or genetic predisposition, which is not as common. The familial form of the disease is often called familial idiopathic (of unknown origin) pulmonary fibrosis.

When I spoke with Admiral Coady, he mentioned that he did have a family history of pulmonary fibrosis. He knew that his family history, combined with his exposure to asbestos while serving in the Navy, put him at greater risk for the disease, and was vigilant about early screening. He did eventually develop the condition. Sadly, he also later developed lung cancer, although not mesothelioma.

Some ILD improves with medication if treated when inflammation occurs, and some people also need oxygen therapy as part of their treatment.

I hope this answers the questions and clears up any confusion. While pulmonary fibrosis is not related to mesothelioma, it could be considered an asbestos-related disease.

Meso victims, unite! The Lung Cancer Alliance recently sent an Open Letter to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton following remarks she made pledging funding for breast cancer, asking her to also prioritize funding for lung cancer.

Following is the text of the open letter, along with information about how to contact Clinton’s office. The LCA is urging everyone affected by lung cancer, including mesothelioma, to join their voices in this effort to finally secure the funding that lung cancer has long deserved. It is time to make this a national priority!

An Open Letter to Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton

April 9, 2008

Yesterday you announced what you would do for breast cancer should you be elected president. When will you announce what you would do for lung cancer?

The $300 million plan you unveiled yesterday to find a cure for breast cancer should be at least doubled for lung cancer since it is killing nearly twice as many women each year as breast cancer. Most women do not even know this.

You do, Senator Clinton, and you specifically cited that fact as part of the justification for Senate Resolution 87, which you co-sponsored and supported and which was passed August 2, 2007. The resolution was a strongly worded policy statement by the Senate calling on the President to declare lung cancer a public health priority and to implement a comprehensive interagency program to reduce lung cancer mortality by 50% by 2015.

The Resolution contains a page and a half of the grim statistics justifying the demand for priority action and specifically notes the enormous under funding of lung cancer research, which receives only seven cents for every federal dollar spent on breast cancer.

Of course we would like to see a cure for breast cancer as we would for all cancers. Thanks to the billions in federal dollars alone that have been invested in breast cancer research and early detection, the 5-year survival rate for breast cancer is now 88%.

Having been massively under-funded, as the resolution notes, lung cancer’s 5-year survival rate is still only 15%. That will no longer be tolerated.

We are not asking for a cure at this point. Just a 50% reduction in the mortality rate for lung cancer, the most lethal cancer, which is now killing more men and women each year than breast, prostate, colon, kidney, melanoma and liver cancers combined.

One in five women being diagnosed with lung cancer now have never smoked at all and they seem to be getting diagnosed younger. Why aren’t women demanding more research? Because they do not know the facts.

You spell out the facts so eloquently in S. Res. 87 and you lay out in the resolution a comprehensive program for lung cancer that is actually quite similar to the one you proposed yesterday for breast cancer.

When will you announce your comprehensive plan for lung cancer? We thank you and look forward to hearing from you on behalf of all those with and at risk for lung cancer, their families, caregivers and friends.

Lung Cancer Alliance

To contact Clinton’s office:

Hillary Clinton General Campaign Headquarters

4420 North Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203

Ph: 703.469.2008

Fax: 703.962.8600

comments@hillaryclinton.com

press@hillaryclinton.com

SOMERSET, N.J., April 2, 2008 – PRNewswire – Alfacell Corporation today announced that it has confirmed that 316 evaluable events (patient deaths) have occured in the confirmatory Phase IIIb clinical trial of its lead compound, ONCONASE (ranpirnase), for the treatment of patients with unresectable malignant mesothelioma (UMM).

In accordance with the statistical plan for the trial, the company has begun the process necessary to conduct the formal statistical analyses required to complete the final sections of the ONCONASE rolling New Drug Application (NDA).

The trial was designed to show a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for UMM patients who were treated with a combination of ONCONASE and doxorubicin as compared to UMM patients who were treated with doxorubicin as a single agent. Enrollment in the ONCONASE Phase IIIb clinical trial closed on Sept. 30, 2007. A total of 428 patients were enrolled in the trial.

Alfacell has licensed the U.S. commercial rights for ONCONASE to Strativa, the branded product division of Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Strategic marketing and distribution agreements for ONCONASE have been secured with BL&H Co. Ltd. for Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, USP Pharma Spolka Z.O.O., an affiliate of US Pharmacia, for Eastern Europe, and GENESIS Pharma, S.A. for Southeastern Europe.

ONCONASE has been granted fast track status and orphan-drug designation for the treatment of malignant mesothelioma by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Additionally, ONCONASE has been granted orphan-drug designation in the European Union and Australia.

The Worthington Daily Globe in Worthington, Minn., reported yesterday that a Minnesota Senate committee is backing the proposed $4.7 million to be designated for mesothelioma research. The rare cancer has been reported in an unusually high number of cases in northeastern Minnesota, in association with a taconite mine.

The state Health Department in Minnesota has documented close to 60 deaths from mesothelioma in the Iron Range mining area.

According to the story published by The Globe, “The dean of the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health [Professor John Finnegan, Jr.] is calling it ‘the best shot we’ve had in 25 years’ to find answers about a lung cancer that might be connected to mining taconite.”

If approved by the Minnesota legislature, the money would fund a combined study led by the University of Minnesota and including state health, natural resources and pollution control officials. The study would take about five years to conclude.

The Globe reports that the Senate bill has at least one more committee stop, and a House plan is also progressing. It says the plan faces some opposition from the business lobby, which is taking issue with the reliance on a workers compensation fund to pay for the research.