Shorts

briefed by Jule Klotter

Beta-Glucan

and Cancer Treatment

Beta-glucan, specifically (1,3)-beta-D-glucan, is one of the most effective, natural immunomodulators being researched, according to Vaclav Vetvicka, PhD. He presents the evidence and critiques the hype about this polysaccharide in his lay-accessible book, Beta Glucan: Nature’s Secret, published in 2009. Although glucans exist in nearly all yeasts, fungi, and grains, beta-glucan derived from baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) has been the subject of most Western glucan studies over the past 40 years. Asian researchers have focused on medicinal mushrooms.

Glucans quicken phagocyte activity. Phagocytes, such as macrophages, are the body’s vanguards and clean-up crew. They destroy and eat foreign bacteria, viruses, fungi, and cellular debris. In the presence of beta-glucan, macrophages, whose primary function is to identify and engulf invaders, make pathogen-killing substances (e.g., hydrogen peroxide). Beta-glucan also prompts B lymphocytes to produce more antibodies. “Virtually all the animal models used [in research studies] have shown that there was not a particular type of experimental infection that would be resistant to glucan treatment,” says Vetvicka. Beta-glucan and common antibiotics work well together, according to studies.

Because of its effects on the immune system, beta-glucan is helpful as a cancer preventive and as an adjuvant cancer treatment. (However, glucans have not been tested against all types of cancers, says Vetvicka.) When patients use beta-glucan in conjunction with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, they have fewer and less severe side effects. Also, beta-glucan supports the bone marrow’s production of white blood cells. Treatment is more effective, and patients survive longer. Vetvicka writes, “…if you know that you are going to have radiotherapy or chemotherapy, you should start taking beta-glucans at least 15 days prior to your treatment and at least 30 minutes before eating. It is most important that people understand that I am talking about doses of 500 mg to 1000 mg per day and in the purest form of beta-glucan. Many products on the market have no therapeutic value at all because they only contain small amounts of beta-glucans per tablet or they are improperly processed.”

When looking for a beta-glucan supplement, online articles will claim that mushroom-derived is superior to yeast-derived (or vice versa) or that water-soluble is better than insoluble. Bioactivity has more to do with the product’s purity than with solubility or glucan source. Vetvicka in collaboration with Jana Vetvickova has conducted several experiments that compare different types of glucans and commercially available products. “It is extremely important to choose a manufacturer or retailer closely connected to the manufacturer, who invested not only into careful isolation and purification, but also into research,” he writes in his book. Consumers need to understand that glucan research studies are applicable to a product’s effectiveness only if the product is actually involved in the study. Quality and bioactivity of beta-glucan supplements vary greatly. Claims about a product’s manufacturing process, solubility, or extra-small size are unfounded unless backed with research. Similarly, products that combine glucan with other supplements or herbs usually have no scientific backing. The only exceptions are vitamin C and resveratrol, both of which have shown a synergistic effect with beta-glucan.

Vetvicka V. Beta Glucan: Nature’s Secret. Louisville, KY; 2009.

Vetvicka V, Vetvickova J. A comparison of injected and orally administered β-glucans. JANA. 2008;11(1). Available at: www.transferpoint.com/v/vspfiles/downloadables/JANA2008.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2011.

———. Effects of glucan on immunosuppressive actions of mercury. J Med Food. 2009:12(5):1098-1104. Available at: www.transferpoint.com/v/vspfiles/downloadables/effects.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2011.

———. Physiological effects of different types of β-glucan. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2007;151(2):1–7. Available at www.betaglucan.cz/data/citace-97.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2011.

Chaga

Mushroom Wisdom Inc. (MWI), formerly Maitake Products Inc., introduced a new mushroom product, Super Chaga, in October 2010. Chaga (Inonotus obliquus) is a medicinal fungus that grows beneath the bark of birch trees in northern regions such as Siberia. The mushroom, administered as a tea, is a traditional treatment for ulcers, tuberculosis, and early stages of cancer, particularly stomach and lung cancer. It became an accepted cancer treatment in Russia during the 1950s, and is also used in Eastern Europe and Japan. Recent laboratory studies, such as the 2009 Korean study by Y. K. Park and colleagues, demonstrate that chaga protects DNA from oxidative damage. Like other medicinal mushrooms, chaga also activates B cells and macrophages. Chaga has no documented side effects.

Super Chaga was developed by MWI’s Cun Zhuang, PhD. This concentrated extract is a proprietary hot-water extraction of wildcrafted chaga mushroom from Siberian birch trees. The company adds its D-fraction, a beta-glucan extract taken from maitake mushrooms, to increase the product’s cellular immunity and antitumor effects. A 2002 Japanese study, led by Hiroaki Nanba, indicates “that D-Fraction establishes Th-1 dominance which induces cellular immunity in the population that was Th-2 dominant due to carcinoma.”

As with all herbal products, manufacturer processing methods as well as botanical quality of the raw herb affect outcome. In addition to hot-water extracts, other types of chaga preparations are being studied. Please remember: study results are specific to the preparations being tested. Results cannot be generalized to be true of all chaga products. Whenever possible, use products whose manufacturers have conducted safety and effectiveness studies.

Babal K. Super mushroom from Siberia. Taste for Life. December 2010.

Inoue A; Kodama N; Nanba H. Effect of maitake (Grifola frondosa) D-Fraction on the control of the T lymph node Th-1/Th-2 proportion. Biol Pharma Bull. 2002;25(4): 536–540.

Lee SH, Hwang HS, Yun JW. Antitumor activity of water extract of a mushroom, Inonotus obliquus, against HT-29 Human Colon Cancer Cells. Phytother Res. 23:1784–1789.

Mushroom Wisdom Inc. “Super Chaga” and “Super Meshima” introduced at Expo East! [press release]. October 18, 2010.

Park YK, Lee HB, Jeon E-J, Jung HS, Kang M-H. Chaga mushroom extract inhibits oxidative DNA damage in human lymphocytes as assessed by comet assay. BioFactors. 2004. 21:109–112.

Fast-Track Drugs

Responding to consumer pressure in 1992, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed to accept preliminary evidence to approve drug treatments for serious diseases such as cancer. In return, drug manufacturers agreed to substantiate a drug’s safety and efficiency with postmarketing research. Between December 1992 and July 2010, 47 new uses for 35 drugs gained accelerated FDA approval; yet only 26 of the 47 have been backed by postmarketing evidence, according to a March 2011 report by John Johnson and colleagues at the FDA’s Division of Drug Oncology Products. Johnson and colleagues report that it took an average of 4.7 years for the 26 uses to meet the FDA’s standards for regular approval. Fast-track cancer drugs that have not yet completed follow-up studies include Lilly’s Erbitux (cetuximab) and Novartis’s Gleevec (imatinib mesylate tablets).

In a few cases, postmarketing studies have led to a reversal of the initial fast-track approval. For example, Pfizer’s leukemia drug Mylotarg, which was sold in the US for 10 years, did not extend survival. In fact, a postmarketing study showed that patients taking Mylotarg had a higher death rate (5.7%) compared with the control group (1.4 %), according to a 2010 Reuters article. Postmarketing research has also caused the FDA to reconsider its acceptance of Avastin as a metastatic breast cancer treatment. Avastin was initially approved as an advanced colon cancer treatment in 2004. Since then, the drug, which costs patients about $8000 per month, has become an accepted treatment for advanced lung, kidney, and brain (glioblastoma) cancers. In patients with metastatic breast cancer, follow-up studies show that Avastin causes fatigue, abnormal white blood cell levels, and hypertension; and it does not increase longevity, according to Dr. Wyndham Wilson of the National Cancer Institute. Bleeding and gastrointestinal perforations (holes) are other effects (www.avastin.com). In January 2011, Genentech requested a hearing concerning the FDA’s move to delete breast cancer from Avastin’s approved uses. As I write this in June 2011, the FDA has not made a final decision.

Early in 2011, an FDA advisory committee considered ways to improve the accelerated cancer drug approval process. To reduce the time between initial approval and the required postmarketing study, drug manufacturers could be required to have follow-up studies ready to start immediately. In addition, the advisory committee recommended that manufacturers submit at least one controlled study in order to gain accelerated approval for a cancer drug. Right now, one single-arm study (no control for comparison) is enough to put a cancer drug on the market. (Except for Stanislaw Burzynski’s antineoplastons, apparently.) For drugs other than cancer drugs, the FDA usually wants two randomized, controlled studies that prove safety and efficacy, according to medical writer Emily Walker.

Given the high cost of many oncology drugs, it would be helpful to patients and doctors to have comparison studies that show what can be gained in terms of longevity, quality of life, and adverse effects. Contrary to our cultural paradigm, “new” does not necessarily mean “better.”

Gardner A. FDA Advises against Avastin as treatment for breast cancer [online article]. Available at: Health.msn.com. December 16, 2010. Accessed June 14, 2011.

Medical News Today. FDA considers new rules to speed up confirmatory trials of cancer drugs granted accelerated approval [online article]. March 25, 2011. www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/220145.php. Accessed June 13, 2011.

Mundy A. FDA says drug firms didn’t finish follow-ups. Wall Street Journal. February 9, 2011. Available at: www.online.wsj.com. Accessed May 25, 2011.

Peterson M. Drugmakers slow to confirm cancer drugs work may face FDA fines [online article]. Bloomberg.com. March 25, 2011. Accessed May 25, 2011.

Richwine L. Pfizer pulls leukemia drug from U.S. market [online article]. Reuters. June 21, 2010. Available at Reuters.com. Accessed June 14, 2011.

US Food and Drug Administration. Avastin (bevacizumab) information. Update, 6/29/2011 [online document]. www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm193900.htm. Accessed July 6, 2011.

Walker EP. FDA panel urges stricter standards for cancer drugs [online article]. Medpage Today. February 8, 2011. www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/FDAGeneral/24775. Accessed February 9, 2011.

Intravenous Ascorbic Acid and End-Stage Cancer

In their 2011 review for Journal of Translational Medicine, Thomas E. Ichim and colleagues present a strong case for using intravenous ascorbic acid to improve life quality in people with end-stage cancer. Ascorbic acid inhibits systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and multiple organ failure, conditions that afflict those with terminal cancer. Possible symptoms of SIRS include a body temperature below 96.8 ºF (36 ºC) or above 100.4 ºF (38 ºC), heart rate greater than 90 beats per minute, breathing rate greater than 20 breaths per minute or arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide less than 4.3 kPa (32 mmHg), white blood cell count less than 4000 cells/mm³ or greater than 12,000 cells/mm³, and/or more than 10% immature neutrophils in the blood. “Cancer patients are known to exhibit a general state of chronic inflammation,” the review authors write. The low-grade chronic inflammation produces cachexia (physical wasting). Right now, medicine has little to offer terminal cancer patients except for drugs to dull pain. This review suggests that ascorbic acid could benefit these patients.

Although most ascorbic acid-cancer studies focus on tumor regression, this review is most concerned with the few studies that deal with life quality and ascorbic acid’s effect on inflammation. In a 2007 trial, Korean researchers gave 39 end-stage patients intravenous vitamin C twice (10 grams given at three-day intervals) and oral doses of 4 grams over the course of a week. The patients reported less fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain after receiving vitamin C. In addition, quality of life, appetite, cognitive function, and emotional status improved. Other studies showed a longer survival time in patients receiving intravenous doses of 10 grams/day. Studies involving oral administration have shown no benefit in survival compared with placebo. (Dr. Steven Hickey suggests using R-alpha-lipoic acid in divided doses [e.g., 500 mg, six times per day] along with oral divided doses of standard vitamin C to increase the benefits, according to Chris Gupta.) The review authors bemoan that none of the current trials involving intravenous ascorbic acids are assessing inflammatory markers – measurements that could provide valuable information about the compound’s biological actions. The emphasis on reducing tumors “has impeded research into other potential benefits of this therapy in cancer patients such as reduction of inflammation, improvement of quality of life, and reduction of SIRS initiation and progression to [multiple organ failure],” Ichim and colleagues state. “While ongoing clinical trials of I.V. [ascorbic acid] for cancer may or may not meet the bar to grant this modality a place amongst the recognized chemotherapeutic agents, it is critical that we collect as much biological data as possible, given the possibility of this agent to be a wonderful adjuvant therapy.”

Hickey S. Conquering cancer [online article]. October 9, 2006. Whale. www.whale.to/drugs/vitc.html. Accessed June 14, 2011.

Ichim TE, Minev B, Braciak T, Luna B, Hunninghake R, et al. Intravenous ascorbic acid to prevent and treat cancer-associated sepsis? J Transl Med. 2011;9:25. Available at www.translational-medicine.com/content/pdf/1479-5876-9-25.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2011.

Yeom CH, Jung GC, Song KJ. Changes of terminal cancer patients’ health-related quality of life after high dose vitamin C administration. J Korean Med Sci. February 2007;22(1):7–11. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297243. Accessed June 29, 2011.

Late Effects of Cancer Treatment

Late effects of conventional cancer therapy or radiation therapy often do not appear until months or years after cancer treatment concludes. These late effects can take a variety of forms: pulmonary damage, secondary cancers, bone problems, hypothyroidism, fertility issues, intestinal problems, vascular problems (stroke, heart attack), and neuromuscular and musculoskeletal issues. Not everyone who receives conventional treatment develops late effects. Until now, little has been done to track incidence, severity, and factors that influence a person’s risk of developing problems stemming from conventional therapies.

One of the few programs that gives information on late effects is the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study that began following about 14,000 five-year survivors of childhood and adolescent cancers in 1994. These children were originally diagnosed and treated between 1970 and 1986. Those treated with chest radiation have had an increased risk of cardiac disease and pulmonary disease, including lung fibrosis. Skin cancer (nonmelanoma) is the most common late-effect cancer, according to this study. In a 2010 British study involving about 18,000 childhood cancer survivors, “cause-specific standardized mortality ratios were 11 times higher than expected based on general population data and…most of the deaths were attributable to second primary cancers and to cardiac cerebrovascular, and other circulatory disorders.”

Both radiation and some chemotherapy drugs such as anthracyclines produce heart damage. Survivors of childhood cancer treatment can develop cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, or other late effects decades after cancer treatment ends. Consequently, survivors and their doctors need to be aware of their increased risk for these late effects. A late-effects assessment tool, which also gives tips for prevention and follow-up care, is available at the National Children’s Cancer Society website: www.lea.beyondthecure.org/Unregistered.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fDefault.aspx. The Children’s Oncology Group (www.childrensoncologygroup.org/disc/lel) also offers guidelines for follow-up care.

Oncology medicine is moving toward a more conservative use of radiation therapy. Oncologists are using radiation on known cancers instead of targeting microscopic disease and adjacent areas as well. Also, radiation doses have declined in recent years. The new computer-controlled machines allow a precision not available before.

Even with more conservative guidelines, cancer patients can be repeatedly exposed to excessive amounts of radiation because of operator error, miscalibrated machines, or manufacturer’s software errors. The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health released its “Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging” in February 2010, a first move toward correcting some of these problems. In September 2010, the National Institutes of Health announced a new program that urges hospitals and clinics to record a patient’s radiation dose exposure in an electronic medical record. Exposures may be from a diagnostic test as well as cancer therapy. Tracking radiation exposures will provide much needed information about the risk of late effects.

Bogdanich W. As technology surges, radiation safeguards lag. New York Times. January 27, 2010. Available at www.nytimes.com. Accessed January 27, 2010.

CDRH-FDA. Initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging [online document]. February 2010. www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm199994.htm. Accessed May 18, 2011.

Latour K. The cost of living. Cure. Winter 2010. Available at: www.curetoday.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/article.show/id/2/article_id/1588. Accessed June 15, 2011.

Osterweil N. Childhood cancer haunts survivors in unexpected way [online article]. CancerNetwork. October 19, 2010. www.cancernetwork.com/survivorship/content/article/10165/1698980. Accessed May 18, 2011.

Stetler C. NIH demands radiation dose tracking [online article]. Investigative Reporting Workshop. September 29, 2010. http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/blogs/shop-notes/posts/2010/sep/29/nih-demands-radiation-dose-tracking. Accessed May 18, 2011.

Post-Chemo Brain

Until recently, patient complaints about cognitive dysfunction while undergoing chemotherapy were attributed to anxiety, depression, menopause, or hormone therapy. Doctors denied that chemo drugs could affect brain function – particularly for years after the therapy had ended. Over the past decade, research has found that some chemo drugs damage central nervous system (CNS) cells. The commonly used cancer drug 13-cis-retinoic acid (also used to treat severe acne) prevents hippocampus cells from dividing, according to a 2004 study led by J. Crandall. Mice given the drug showed difficulties with memory and spatial learning. In 2008, R. Han and colleagues linked 5-fluorouracil, used to treat breast, colon, and other cancers, to progressive myelin damage.

“The incidence of acute chemotherapy-related cognitive dysfunction ranges from 15 to 70%,” according to a review article by Christina A. Meyers, depending on the drugs. Symptoms often include lack of concentration, short-term memory loss, difficulty with word recall, inability to organize daily tasks, transposition of letters (dyslexia), mental fog, and intolerance of commotion and interruptions. For some patients, these symptoms persist for years. Twenty-three percent of the 471 patients who reported cognitive dysfunction in a 2007 online survey sponsored by Hurricane Voices (a nonprofit breast cancer foundation), had completed chemotherapy more than five years before.

In their book Your Brain After Chemo, Dan Silverman, MD, PhD, and Idelle Davidson provide valuable advice for cancer patients. Because of the possibility of long-term cognitive function, the authors supply patients with questions to ask their oncologists about the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. The book also details the many symptoms of post-chemo brain, supplemented with patient comments. The section “Getting Your Brain Back on Track” offers advice on diet, sleep, behavior modification, and CAM options as well as prescription drugs that may be helpful for patients with chemo-induced cognitive dysfunction. Patients need to be educated about this little-discussed effect so that they can make an informed decision. For some patients, the possibility of long-term impaired cognitive function may be more distressing than a shortened lifespan.

Crandall J, Sakai Y, Zhang J, Koul O, et al. 13-cis-retinoic acid suppresses hippocampal cell division and hippocampal-dependent learning in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004; 101:5111–5116. Available at: www.pnas.org/content/101/14/5111.full. Accessed July 1, 2011.

Han R, Yang YM, Dietrich J, Luebke A, et al. Systemic 5-fluorouracil treatment causes a syndrome of delayed myelin destruction in the central nervous system. J Biol. 2008;7:12. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18430259. Accessed July 1, 2011.

Meyers CA. How chemotherapy damages the central nervous system. J Biol. April 22, 2008; 7:11. Available at: http://jbiol.com/content/7/4/11. Accessed July 1, 2011.

Silverman D, Davidson I. Your Brain After Chemo. Philadelphia: Da Capo Books; 2009.

True Cancer Prevention

In May 2010, the President’s Cancer Panel released its 2008–2009 report Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk. The two-member panel composed the 240-page document using testimony provided by 45 invited experts from academic, government, industry, environmental and cancer advocacy communities, and the public. The report raised opposition from the American Cancer Society and other supporters of the status quo. It advocates true prevention by reducing carcinogenic exposures rather than simply opting for early detection. The panel would like to see a precautionary approach to chemicals through federal legislation that “shift[s] the burden of proving safety to manufacturers prior to new chemical approval, in mandatory postmarket studies for new and existing agents, and in renewal applications for chemical approval.” The panel would like to see more support for “green chemistry”; not all chemicals used by industry have harmful effects. In addition to chemical carcinogens, the panel calls for increased monitoring of the effects of cell phones and wireless technology and of medical radiation. The panel also wants the EPA to lower the accepted level for radon, a radioactive gas emitted from rock in the ground beneath buildings.

While many of the panel’s recommendations are directed toward government entities and/or industry, the report also offers numerous ways for consumers to reduce cancer risks. Becoming educated about the toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals in plastics and pesticides is the first step. Everyone, particularly pregnant women and young children, needs to avoid harmful chemicals present in food, bottled water, household products, and toys as much as possible.

American Cancer Society (ACS) epidemiologist Dr. Michael Thun contests the panel’s assertion that “the burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.” American Cancer Society contends that only 6% of all cancers in the US are caused by environmental factors, according to a New York Times article. ( I do not know how the ACS got that figure.) The ACS receives funding from several large corporations, including Imperial Chemical Industries, a leading international manufacturer of petrochemicals, and its US subsidiary Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, according to Samuel S. Epstein, MD, a recognized authority on environmental carcinogens.

British research scientist Chris Busby writes in the introduction to his 2007 book Wolves of Water: “We are in the middle of a cancer epidemic. Victims are told it is because of an ageing population. They are told that it is because they lived the wrong sort of life, ate too few green vegetables, smoked too many cigarettes. They are told they have inherited it in their genes. This is untrue. The true cause is environmental pollution. …” Like Epstein, he sees the question of cancer prevention as “tension between industrial development, pollution and profit on the one hand, and the ill health of citizens on the other.”

Busby C. Wolves of Water. Green Audit Books; 2007. Introduction (“flyer”) available at: www.llrc.org. Accessed May 6, 2008.

Epstein SS. American Cancer Society: the world’s wealthiest “nonprofit” institution. Int J Health Serv. 1999; 29(3). Available at: www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm. Accessed May 25, 2011.

———. Breast cancer unawareness month: rethinking mammograms [online article]. Huffington Post. May 25, 2011. www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein/the-breast-cancer-unaware_b_754641.html. Accessed May 25, 2011.

Grady D. U.S. panel criticized as overstating cancer risks. New York Times. May 6, 2010. Available at: www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/research/07cancer.html. Accessed May 25, 2011.

Kristof ND. New alarm bells about chemicals and cancer. New York Times. May 6, 2010. Available at www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06kristof.html. Accessed June 7, 2011.

President’s Cancer Panel. Environmental Factors in Cancer. Annual report. 2008–2009. National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/index.htm. Accessed June 15, 2011.

Umbilical Cord Blood

Umbilical cord blood, a rich source of stem cells, is being used to treat neurological damage, cardiovascular disease, lymphoma, and leukemia. The stem cells in cord blood also provide a way of strengthening the immune system after cancer treatment. Stem cells are immature cells that can change into a variety of specific cells. While it doesn’t cure cancer, cord blood transfusion can help turn the tide. Last September, the New Zealand Herald reported about a little girl who was diagnosed with stage 4 neuroblastoma in 2007. She underwent eight hours of surgery to remove a 13 cm tumor, six rounds of chemotherapy, and a bone marrow transplant. Days after receiving a transfusion of the cord blood harvested at her birth, “the colour came back into her cheeks, and she started to smile again.”

Obtaining stem cells from cord blood is far easier than acquiring them from bone marrow. Cord blood is simply drained from the placenta via the umbilical cord after a baby’s delivery and stored for future use. These stem cells are, of course, compatible with the baby’s immune system; but nearly all mothers and half of the baby’s siblings can also use the stored stem cells if the need arises. “Research has shown that survival rates double when a person’s own cord blood or a family member’s cord blood is used, compared to using an unrelated donor sample from a public stem cell bank,” writes Dr. Robert Sears. “Research has shown that patients who receive cord blood stem cell transplants have a smaller chance of rejecting the cells, compared to bone marrow stem cell transplants.”

Although cord blood stem cells are less likely to be rejected than bone marrow stem cells, stem cells from cord blood take hold more slowly. Scientists from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Children’s Hospital Boston are experimenting with a signaling molecule called 16, 16-dimethyl PGE2 as a way to increase effectiveness. In April 2011, they published the results of a yearlong safety study involving primates who had received a transplant of cord blood treated with the signaling molecule. The animals “reconstituted all the normal types of blood cells, and none of the animals receiving treated cord blood units developed cancer.”

In his article “Banking Your Baby’s Cord Blood,” Sears explains that collecting umbilical cord blood is very simple. Choosing a reliable storage site is more challenging. He encourages parents to investigate and ask questions. Where is the blood actually stored? Is the blood bank certified? How many transplant samples does the bank store? Sears chose the Cord Blood Registry. He says, “Parents who choose not to bank their baby’s cord blood through a private bank should strongly consider donating it to a public bank. There are several around the country, and some hospitals have programs set up for parents to donate. This makes the stem cells available to anyone who matches. …” Go to www.cordblood.com for more information.

Lewis R. Why this smiling girl wouldn’t be alive without her cord blood. September 19, 2010. Available at www.nzherald.co.nz. Accessed September 19, 2010.

Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota. Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation Program [online press release]. February 24, 2011. www.cancer.umn.edu/research/programs/ucbwagner.html. Accessed May 25, 2011.

Schaller B. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-cord blood has a favorable safety profile in long-term animal studies [press release]. April 27, 2011. Available at: www.investorstemcell.com. Accessed May 25, 2011.

Sears R. Banking your baby’s cord blood – a serious option for pregnant parents to consider [online article]. 2006. www.askdrsears.com/html/1/t012700.asp. Accessed May 25, 2011.