Thread: Antineoplastons

I know there are alternative treatments for cancer. One is the clinic of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski where he treats patients with antineoplastons that inhibit tumors. He patented all his treatments and claims they have almost twice the clinical efficacy opposed to what the FDA uses. When the FDA tested his treatments, they proved to be ineffective however, he tested patients blood during those trials and the concentration of his antineoplastons in their blood was on average 70% lower than what it is at his clinic. Does anyone know how his therapies compare with what the mainstream uses? Any cancer experts on here?

It's debatable, there are basically supreme court testimonies, claims from the Dr.Bursynski himself, a couple of independent reports from medical professionals, some reporting the usefulness of it, while others having no success. The FDA has the given the go ahead to move into phase III trials.

So... here is a testimony... She claims UCLA told her she was in remission. Whether that is a flawed diagnosis on their behalf or not, is unknown to me.



Here is his movie where he claims that he has had success with certain types of cancer, specifically childhood brain tumors.




Here are phase III clinical trails in progress with past trails. It seems they have potentially failed to gain momentum as many have been cancelled. The one that finished was for skin cancer and there were no positive results.

Search of: "Burzynski Research Institute" [Exact] - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov

Here are some published papers which I've come across. Some from Japan, some from Burzynski, and one from a USA independent, and one discussing the impact of Socialism on Medicine.



Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10... [Integr Cancer Ther. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

2006

RESULTS:

The overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39% and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%. Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39%, and progressive disease in 39% of patients. Antineoplastons were tolerated very well with 1 case of grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia).
CONCLUSION:

Antineoplastons contributed to more than a 5-year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8667595

Antineoplastons, which were firstly described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth. We conducted a toxicological study of the Antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in combination with other anticancer agents or radiation in 42 patients, 46 tumors with terminal stage cancer. ......SNIP..... The evaluation of the usefulness of the Antineoplastons in combination therapy based on the imaging findings during the course of treatment revealed disappearance or measurable shrinkage of the tumor lasting more than one months as visualized by magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography was seen in 15 tumors (32.6%). No increase in size of tumor for more than 3 months was observed in 8 (17.4%). The mean survival time of these patients was significantly longer than that in patients with tumors showing progressive increasing (17.52 + 3.31 months vs 4.80 + 0.65 months, p < 0.005). Antineoplaston A-10 and AS2-1 are less toxic than conventional chemotherapeutics and they were useful in maintenance therapy for cancer patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12768372

We report a case of survival for nearly 8 years after treatment of unresectable multiple liver metastases from colon cancer, using microwave ablation and the nontoxic antitumor agent, the antineoplastons. A 72-year-old man diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon and 14 bilateral liver metastases underwent a right hemicolectomy combined with microwave ablation of six metastatic liver tumors. We also decided to give antineoplastons to inhibit metastatic tumor growth and recurrence. Antineoplaston A10 was given intravenously, followed by oral antineoplaston AS2-1. Computed tomography scans done 1 and 4 years after the initial diagnosis showed recurrent tumors in S(4) and S(7), respectively. The patient underwent a second and a third microwave ablation of the recurrent tumors, and has survived for nearly 8 years without suffering any serious adverse effects. He is currently free from cancer. This case report demonstrates the potential effectiveness of the nontoxic antitumor agent, the antineoplastons, for controlling liver metastases from colon cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15312271

A complete response was documented after approximately 1 year of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 administration. More than 4 years later, off antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1, the patient is tumor free, able to carry on normal activities, and works full-time, and his Karnofsky Performance Status increased from 50 to 100.

Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma.

Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma.

J C Buckner, M G Malkin, E Reed, T L Cascino, J M Reid, M M Ames, W P Tong, S Lim, and W D Figg
Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and efficacy of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261). DESIGN: We initiated a phase II trial in order to determine whether evidence of antitumor activity of A10 and AS2-1 could be documented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with anaplastic astrocytoma or glioblastoma multiforme recurring after radiation therapy were eligible for enrollment in the trial. Patients received escalating doses of A10 and AS2-1 by multiple intermittent intravenous injections with use of a portable programmable pump to the target daily dose of 1.0 g/kg for A10 and of 0.4 g/kg for AS2-1. RESULTS: Nine patients were treated, in six of whom the treatment response was assessable in accordance with protocol stipulations. No patient demonstrated tumor regression.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

A remarkable controversy which developed in the 1980s surrounding Dr. S. Burzynski's "antineoplaston" cancer therapy serves to illuminate several issues in the sociology of medicine: the professional politics of cancer therapeutics, the role of the state in resolving medical-scientific disputes, and the role of the mass media in disseminating medical knowledge. A comparative analysis of the distinctive ways in which this controversy unfolded in the United States and Canada provides insights into the current crisis of biomedicine, the role of professional ideology in hampering medical innovation, and the limits of Canadian medicare as a form of "socialized medicine."

Here is the US governments recap of the scenario regarding antineoplastons.

Antineoplastons (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

Antineoplastons (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute



My personal opinion is that the internet has been a little cranky in the last couple years, if you've got a type of cancer Burzynski is claiming he can cure, and you've got the money, you should look into it further.

I just came across this blog posting which has some more information about Burzynski: The Burzynski Cancer Treatment. In the Pipeline:

^Yeah, they look like professional cranks or your typical sensationalist right wing blogger. Mini Rupert Murdocks...

From a chemists point of view, is there any valid claim to the material presented in the last half of the video regarding the phenylacetate?

Why all the patents (if they do exist), is it to keep the product from entering the market, or is it just to corner a market?


Just a quick search for anti-cancer and phenylacetate pulls up quite a bit... haven't read any of it, just posting the first three..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2363819/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12820434/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2375080/


I mean look at this guy, his conclusion...

"These facts indicate to me that Burzynski's claims that his "antineoplastons" are effective against cancer are not credible."

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...urzynski1.html


The whole video shows Supreme Court testimony, now I know that's not science, but this phenylacetate seems to have anti-cancer properties. Perhaps that on it's own or in combination with other therapies means that Burzynski might indeed have effective cancer treatments.

Whatever he wants to brand it, whether it be AntiNeoPlastons, or Klingons.

Originally Posted by MrKap

^Yeah, they look like professional cranks or your typical sensationalist right wing blogger. Mini Rupert Murdocks...

Well, the blog I linked to is by a chemist working in drug development. But this is way outside my area of expertise so I can't really comment. I just happened to see it the day before your post.

Why all the patents (if they do exist), is it to keep the product from entering the market, or is it just to corner a market?

Most new drugs are patented (where possible) to give the pharmaceutical company a temporary monopoly so they can recover the development costs, which can be pretty high. I guess in some cases, by the time the drug gets to market a substantial chunk of the patent lifetime is over.

So it's potentially a patent war for the next round of anti-cancer drugs?

It really seems to me that something about it, is innovative, now whether or not it is someone riding a wave of innovation and claiming it for their own profit, or whether it is indeed an original innovation to which the original innovator is potentially being discredited, just seems to be the only issue. To me anyways.


I am not a chemist so, I'm not entirely sure if the acronymn is a match but this paper claims PA is demonstrates anti-cancer properties...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11391852

Phenylbutyrate (PB) and its metabolite phenylacetate (PA) demonstrate anticancer activity in vitro through promotion of cell differentiation, induction of apoptosis through the p21 pathway, inhibition of histone deacetylase, and in the case of PB, direct cytotoxicity. We studied the pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) penetration of PA and PB after intravenous (i.v.) administration in the nonhuman primate.

While this what QuackWatch says...

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...urzynski1.html

"What Burzynski calls "A-10" is really PAPD treated with alkali to make it soluble. But doing this doesnot create a soluble form of A-10. It simply reinserts water into the molecule and regenerates the PAG (Burzynski's AS-2.5). Further treatment of this with alkali breaks it down into a mixture of PA and PAG. Thus Burzynski's "AS-2.1" is nothing but a mixture of the naturally occurring substances PA and PAG."

That's some of his reasoning behind Burzynski selling "snake oil", for a lack of a better term.

So the guy is potentially 10 or 20 years ahead of these papers coming out 10 or 20 years after what he patented perhaps?



So... at face value, maybe it's just the Mad Scientist vs the Bureaucrats. Perhaps that's what it all boils down to? More of an Ethics vs Innovation issue, and that might explain the hint of retaliation on behalf of Mr.Burzynki in the movie where he claims the inability to follow the regimen led to deaths, as at the level of his understanding, he must be accused of doing similar things.

Well... it just reminds me of Costa Rica and MS. Some people it works a little better than it does for others.

Prince has some experience with this clinic. Like all modern medicine, is hideously expensive.

Patients coming to be treated at that time had failed every other treatment method to arrest progression of disease, which, combined with adverse consequences of said treatment, left them in very poor shape physically. Large volumes of fluid were administered, electrolytes carefully monitored, much symptomatic relief was administered with SoluMedrol and Decadron. Burzynski himself has credentials in medicine and in biochemistry, though he permitted foreign educated, unlicensed doctors to practice under his own license.

In Texas, a licensed physician is allowed considerable latitude in treating patients. This, plus central location geographically, explains Dr. Burzynski's choice of location in Houston.

This blogger isn't the most elegant writer (nor concise, he seems to just write as he speaks with little to no editing) - but he does a detailed technical review of the 'treatments' described in the Burzynski film. The most important thing I picked up from the ensuing discussion is that Burzynski includes standard chemotherapy agents in his treatment protocol, but charges a whole heap more for them than you'd pay at a pharmacy. Burzynski The Movie: Is Stanislaw Burzynski a pioneering cancer researcher or a quack? : Respectful Insolence

my money is on quack.

Strictly speaking, a quack is a person untrained in the art of medicine or unlicensed practitioner. Dr. Burzynski is amply qualified and licensed to practice medicine in the state of Texas. Of course, both Bush the Lesser and Rick Perry have been found to be fit for the office of Governor of Texas, make of that what you will.

This is a really good, if technical, overview. Antineoplastons - Skeptical Health

One comment I liked from elsewhere raises a classic issue. If this therapy is so effective, how come the pharmaceutical companies haven't been falling over themselves to be first in line to give this bloke pots of lovely money for patent rights. If it really, truly worked, they'd pay anything to get their hands on a guaranteed flow of uncountable riches for 20+ years.

The good is the enemy of the best. Meaning, "Why rock the boat if people are willing to settle for mediocrity?" Advanced as a possibility rather than a definite declaration that such is the case in this instance.