Learn how you can manage and alleviate your current side effects while actively working to prevent a relapse or secondary cancer using evidence-based, non-toxic therapies.
Click the orange button to the right to learn more.
A diagnosis of cancer is difficult for anyone. A diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (PC) is beyond difficult. The reason? Conventional oncology has few if any therapies to offer the newly diagnosed PC patient. It is for this reason that PC patients must think outside the conventional oncology box.
Nutritional supplementation, either as adjuvant therapy or as integrative therapy discussed in the study linked and excerpted below offers just that type of out-of-the-box thinking.
I am not talking about silver bullet cures. I’m a cancer survivor and cancer coach. I have lived in complete remission from my “incurable cancer” by thinking beyond conventional oncology. I’ve learned that conventional oncology does not research and therefore does not discuss evidence-based but non-conventional therapies discussed in the studies below.
I am not criticizing conventional oncology. I am simply pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of conventional oncology when it comes to pancreatic cancer.
By combining Neem extract therapy with other evidence-based anti-pancreatic cancer supplements and therapies such as adjuvant radiation in addition to anti-cancer lifestyle, nutrition, and mind-body therapies, the pancreatic cancer patient can turn away from “no hope” to “there are legitimate therapies for me to pursue here!”
Neem extracts exhibit the key activity of evidence-based, non-toxic, integrative cancer therapies.
In addition, curcumin has been shown to
To learn more about managing your pancreatic cancer, scroll down the page, post a question and I will reply ASAP. Or click the cancer coaching button to the right.
“Curcumin is a natural compound extracted from turmeric (Curcuma longa), which has been reported to be a promising anti‑cancer drug in various human cancers. However, the effects of combination treatment of curcumin with gemcitabine or docetaxel on pancreatic cancer remains elusive.
In the present study, the combinatory effects of curcumin with either gemcitabine or docetaxel on the proliferation, apoptosis, migration as well as invasion of PC cells were investigated. Calcusyn software was used to determine whether curcumin has is synergistic with gemcitabine or docetaxel.
Combination index values from combinational use were all lower than 1, indicating the synergism of curcumin with gemcitabine or docetaxel on PC cells in vitro. EdU assay showed that curcumin could enhance the ability of gemcitabine or docetaxel to inhibit the proliferation of PC cells.
Furthermore, the results from transmission electron microscope, DAPI staining experiments and western blot analysis revealed that curcumin may trigger apoptosis of PC cells via PARP/caspase‑3 signaling pathway and reinforced pro‑apoptotic ability of either gemcitabine or docetaxel.
In addition, curcumin exhibited marked suppressive ability on metastasis of PC cells by wound healing and matrigel‑transwell assay. Mechanistically, upregulation of TIMP1/TIMP2 with concomitant downregulation of MMP2/MMP9/N‑cadherin proteins may be involved in this process.
In conclusion, curcumin showed synergistic anti‑cancer effects with either gemcitabine or docetaxel on PC cells.
“Accordingly, we investigated the efficacy of bioactive phytochemicals in inhibiting radiotherapy (RT)-induced NF-κB activity, signaling, and NF-κB-dependent regulation of cell death…
Conclusions: These data strongly imply that CUR, NLE, and RSE may serve as effective “deliverables” to potentiate RT in PC cure and further throw light that these phytochemicals-induced cell killing may involve selective regulation of RT-induced NF-κB…”
“In patients with pancreatic cancer, an interval of 8 weeks between receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgical resection may improve resection margins…
The delay in resection did not negatively impact outcomes, and there was a modest improvement in overall survival among patients who had an 8-10 week interval between treatments…”
Methods and materials: We searched MEDLINE and Embase, supplemented by handsearching, for clinical studies involving hyperthermia in pancreatic cancer patients. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence. Primary outcome was treatment efficacy; we calculated overall response rate and the weighted estimate of the population median overall survival (mp) and compared these between hyperthermia and control cohorts.
Results: Overall, 14 studies were included, with 395 patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic cancer of whom 248 received hyperthermia. Patients were treated with regional (n = 189), intraoperative (n = 39) or whole-body hyperthermia (n = 20), combined with chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both. Quality of the studies was low, with level of evidence 3 (five studies) and 4. The six studies including a control group showed a longer mp in the hyperthermia groups than in the control groups (11.7 vs. 5.6 months). Overall response rate, reported in three studies with a control group, was also better for the hyperthermia groups (43.9% vs. 35.3%).
Conclusions: Hyperthermia, when added to chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, may positively affect treatment outcome for patients with pancreatic cancer. However, the quality of the reviewed studies was limited and future randomised controlled trials are needed to establish efficacy.”