Laetrile treatment for cancer

Traditional Use, Phytochemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Clinical Applications of Persicae Semen: A Review

Persicae Semen (Taoren), the seed of mature peaches consumed as both food and medicine, is native to the temperate regions of China, distributed in the provinces of North and East China, and currently cultivated worldwide. The primary components of Persicae Semen include volatile oil, protein, amino acids, amygdalin, and prunasin, all of which have pharmacological properties, such as anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and immune regulatory effects, and are clinically used in the treatment of gynecological, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, orthopedic, and digestive system diseases. This review provides a comprehensive perspective on the resource status, ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry, pharmacology, and toxicology, as well as the trend of Persicae Semen patent, global distribution, and clinical applications. This review will help facilitate the development and utilization of Persicae Semen in clinical settings.

Laetrile treatment for cancer

BACKGROUND

Laetrile is the name for a semi-synthetic compound which is chemically related to amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside from the kernels of apricots and various other species of the genus Prunus. Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the alleged anti-cancer effect and possible adverse effects of laetrile and amygdalin.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1951-2014); EMBASE (1980-2014); AMED; Scirus; CINAHL (all from 1982-2015); CAMbase (from 1998-2015); the MetaRegister; the National Research Register; and our own files. We examined reference lists of included studies and review articles and we contacted experts in the field for knowledge of additional studies. We did not impose any restrictions of timer or language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We searched eight databases and two registers for studies testing laetrile or amygdalin for the treatment of cancer. Two review authors screened and assessed articles for inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We located over 200 references, 63 were evaluated in the original review, 6 in the 2011 and none in this update. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.

Toxic phytochemicals and their potential risks for human cancer

Consuming plants for their presumed health benefits has occurred since early civilizations. Phytochemicals are found in various plants that are frequently included in the human diet and are generally thought to be safe for consumption because they are produced naturally. However, this is not always the case and in fact many natural compounds found in several commonly consumed plants are potential carcinogens or tumor promoters and should be avoided.

Laetrile treatment for cancer

BACKGROUND

Laetrile is the name for a semi-synthetic compound which is chemically related to amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside from the kernels of apricots and various other species of the genus Prunus. Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the alleged anti-cancer effect and possible adverse effects of laetrile and amygdalin.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (2011, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1951-2011); EMBASE (1980-2011); AMED; Scirus; CancerLit; CINAHL (all from 1982-2011); CAMbase (from 1998-2011); the MetaRegister; the National Research Register; and our own files. We examined reference lists of included studies and review articles and we contacted experts in the field for knowledge of additional studies. We did not impose any restrictions of timer or language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We searched eight databases and two registers for studies testing laetrile or amygdalin for the treatment of cancer. Two review authors screened and assessed articles for inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We located over 200 references, 63 were evaluated in the original review and an additional 6 in this update. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.

Problems and promises of innovation: why healthcare needs to rethink its love/hate relationship with the new

Innovation is often regarded as uniformly positive. This paper shows that the role of innovation in quality improvement is more complicated. The authors identify three known paradoxes of innovation in healthcare. First, some innovations diffuse rapidly, yet are of unproven value or limited value, or pose risks, while other innovations that could potentially deliver benefits to patients remain slow to achieve uptake. Second, participatory, cooperative approaches may be the best way of achieving sustainable, positive innovation, yet relying solely on such approaches may disrupt positive innovation. Third, improvement clearly depends upon change, but change always generates new challenges. Quality improvement systems may struggle to keep up with the pace of innovation, yet evaluation of innovation is often too narrowly focused for the system-wide effects of new practices or technologies to be understood. A new recognition of the problems of innovation is proposed and it is argued that new approaches to addressing them are needed.

Laetrile for cancer: a systematic review of the clinical evidence

BACKGROUND

Many cancer patients treated with conventional therapies also try 'alternative' cancer treatments. Laetrile is one such 'alternative' that is claimed to be effective by many alternative therapists. Laetrile is also sometimes referred to as amygdalin, although the two are not the same.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to summarize all types of clinical data related to the effectiveness or safety of laetrile interventions as a treatment of any type of cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All types of clinical studies containing original clinical data of laetrile interventions were included. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1951), EMBASE (from 1980), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), Scirus, CancerLit, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL; all from 1982), CAMbase (from 1998), the MetaRegister, the National Research Register, and our own files. For reports on the safety of laetrile, we also searched the Uppsala database. No language restrictions were imposed.

RESULTS

Thirty six reports met our inclusion criteria. No controlled clinical trials were found. Three articles were nonconsecutive case series, 2 were consecutive case series, 6 were best case series, and 25 were case reports. None of these publications proved the effectiveness of laetrile.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data.