I previously reported on a study that looked at the use of pulsed electric fields on breast cancer in mice. Electric fields have either an electric and magnetic aspect to them. Very short pulse length pulsed electric fields, which dont create heating to destroy tissue, were used. The frequency was 4 hertz. Two weeks after treatment, the growth of treated tumors was inhibited by 79%. MRI was used to assess the physical changes in the tumors. Various growth factors, including the development of new blood vessels, were strongly suppressed. As a control, strange skin was treated the similar way as the tumors and showed no permanent changes. So, breast cancer tumors react differently to PEMFs, with a desirable cancer suppressive reaction, than strange tissue does. These results propose that electromagnetic fields may be able to inhibit human breast cancer development and suppress tumor blood vessel growth, and may therefore serve as a new option to the treatment for breast cancer.
New Study
In a new study, the authors studied the abilities for ultra-low intensity and frequency PEMFs to kill breast cancer cells. They wanted to see if the PEMFs in question could show: 1) toxicity to breast cancer cells and; 2) and they were not harmful to healthy cells. Breast cancer cells and strange cells were exposed to PEMFs and cellphone death indices were measured to examine which PEMFs best kill breast cancer cells. The PEMF parameters tested were: 1) frequencies ranging from 20 to 50 Hz; 2) intensities ranging from 2 mT (20 Gauss) to 5 mT (50 Gauss) and; three) exposure times ranging from 30-ninety minutes per day for up to three days. These were to examine the optimum parameters for selective cancer cellphone killing. At the end of the study they found a discrete optimal window of vulnerability of breast cancer cells to PEMFs of 20 Hz frequency, three mT (30 Gauss) magnetic field intensity and exposure duration of 60 minutes per day. PEMFs applied at a repetition rate of 50 Hz did not produce any noticeable effects on cellphone viability. The quantity of cellphone damage seen in response to PEMFs increased with time and was even more significant after three days of consecutive daily exposures. By contrast, the optimal PEMF usage found to be the principle damaging to breast cancer cells was not damaging to strange cells, and were in fact slightly enhancing to strange cellphone function. However, based on the evidence from this study, other exposure times (that is, ninety minutes) and intensities 2 mT and 5 mT) were still very strongly effective for killing breast cancer cells, even though not optimal. That means that 20 Gauss and 50 Gauss PEMFs were also quite effective and either 60 minutes and ninety minute exposures were also effective.
A clear window of vulnerability of cancer cells to PEMFs exists; more is not necessarily better. That weaker fields, or less exposure to them, are less lethal, upon first impression, might seem somewhat intuitive. However, the fact that stronger, or longer, exposure to fields is less efficient at killing, implies some specificity of biological motion, rather than a straightforward dose-dependent accumulation of generalized damage over susceptible cells. The most straight away measurable effect of PEMFs on breast cancer cells in this study is that of induced cancer cellphone death (the medical term is apoptosis). Nonetheless, never mind cellphone death, even the capacity of PEMFs to slow the growth of a cancer cellphone also would be a fine clinical outcome and of relevance in advancing PEMF-based anti-cancer therapies.
Mechanisms in Play
The question becomes what is the mechanism of motion of PEMFs in the killing of cancer cells. A commonly reported result of PEMF exposure is elevation of intracellular calcium level. In the context of the current study, three mT PEMFs at a frequency of 20 Hz for 60 minutes per day would create the correct combination of calcium signals that would most effectively result in cellphone death. Indeed, it has been shown in other studies that augmenting intracellular calcium compromises cancer cellphone survival.
Non-malignant cells are unaffected, or maybe fortified, by the PEMFs used in this study. Therefore, based on this analysis, using PEMF-based technologies, the greatest damage is carried out in breast cancer cells, supporting the possibility that it may be ultimately feasible to selectively remove cancer cells from an organism without damaging strange tissues. The apparent lack of response of strange cells to PEMFs might propose that their internal calcium control mechanisms are capable of balancing, or maybe exploiting, small increases in intracellular calcium concentrations. Breast cancer cells appear to not be able to withstand even modest changes in intracellular calcium levels. This conclusion is supported by other lately published studies.
While this study was carried out outside a human body, it lends very strong assist to the possibility that breast cancer cells may be impacted in a healthy direction, whilst sparing surrounding strange cells. While this is not definite from this study whether these results would be best seen in the setting of actual cancer in humans or to prevent the development of cancer is still unknown. Since this analysis seems to indicate, as does much other analysis, that PEMFs do not seem to affect healthy cells in any negative way, PEMFs may be a completely useful tool in either treating and preventing breast cancer.
Conclusion
Because we dont have definitive analysis data to assist this concept, I would not normally recommend using PEMF therapies as a sole solution. However, for those individuals who are not candidates for conventional therapies or whose personal preferences prevent them from using conventional therapies, PEMFs may well be a fine alternative. I think this may certainly apply itself well to the case of ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] of the breast, which is not considered a cancer, but rather a pre-cancer. A large percentage of ladies with DCIS never actually convert their DCIS process into actual cancer. Since conventional remedy cannot predict who will convert and who wont, at this point, conventional medical practice treats these as cancers, which results in a vital risk of overtreatment for a large number of ladies. Again, PEMFs may well be a fine alternative in this situation and the progress of the breast changes in DCIS may be monitored over time and if progression is confirmed, then more aggressive therapeutic measures may be applied.
The most vital take away from these two studies is that PEMFs might prove useful as a non-invasive, additional treatment to be combined with other commonplace anti-cancer therapies. Based on this knowledge it appears that PEMF-based anticancer strategies may represent a new therapeutic option to treat breast cancer without affecting strange tissues and is carried out in a manner that is non-invasive.
REF:
Wu S, Wang Y, Guo J, Chen Q, Zhang J, Fang J. Nanosecond pulsed electric fields as a novel drug free therapy for breast cancer: An in vivo study. Cancer Lett. 2013 Oct 4. S0304-3835(thirteen)00701-5.
Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cellphone viability. Crocetti S(1), Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Frhlich J, Franco-Obregn A. PLoS One. 2013 Sep eleven;8(9).
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar