Day 1 :
Naturopathic Medical Doctors of Arizona, USA
Keynote: Defeating cancer requires more than one treatment method: An 8-year retrospective case series using multiple nutritional and herbal agents, 2014 update
Time : 09:30-10:00
Colleen Huber NMD is a Naturopathic Medical Doctor in Tempe, Arizona. She is President of the Naturopathic Cancer Society. She is Co-Founder and Secretary of the American Naturopathic Research Institute / Naturopathic Oncology Research Institute (ANRI / NORI), and Co-Chair of the International Naturopathic Clinical Research Institute (INCRI) at www.NaturopathicStandards.org. She is a Fellow of the Naturopathic Oncology Research Institute. She is the owner and Medical Director of NatureWorksBest Medical Clinic. The data supporting the clinic’s results in cancer treatment is on the website www.NatureWorksBest.com. Dr. Huber is a credentialed physician at Phoenix area sub-acute in-patient facilities, where she practices up to the full-scope of practice for naturopathic physicians licensed in Arizona. She graduated from Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine in Tempe. Many of her health articles have appeared on www.mercola.com. Her book, Choose Your Foods Like Your Life Depends On Them, as well as her cancer treatments and cancer prevention, which have been featured in the Defeat Cancer book. She authored the largest and longest study in medical history on sugar intake in cancer patients, which was reported in thousands of media outlets around the world in 2014. Her academic writing has appeared in The Lancet and Cancer Strategies Journal, and other medical journals.
Introduction: Research has shown that for cancer to occur in the body multiple normal functions must break down. Therefore multiple-component treatments may be the only successful way to treat cancer. We used well-tolerated natural substances to assess their usefulness in combination anti-neoplastic therapy. The following has been the goal of our clinic in treating cancer patients: It is not enough to repair genetic damage or to stop angiogenesis and neglect to reverse all other cancer-causing problems. It is also not enough to attack metastases and leave the primary tumor in a comfortable environment. In order to defeat cancer, it must be attacked at every level and with every method necessary to reverse cancer’s multiple-layered assault on the body, even if that means that some of the various treatments have redundant effects. And this all must be accomplished while maintaining the maximum possible wellbeing of the patient and without sickening or weakening the patient. rnrnMethods: We treated a total of 379 patients with cancer from October 2006, when we opened our practice, until July 1, 2014, when we stopped collecting data for this year’s update of this paper, originally written in 2009. Data from all 379 patients who came to us with a diagnosis of cancer are included in this paper, excluding only those cancer patients who decided against further treatment after less than two weeks in our care. Patients’ stage is recorded as the stage at first arrival to our clinic, which is not necessarily the stage when first diagnosed. We treated with natural methods alone, choosing among methods with research-established anti-neoplastic effect, oral and intravenous, dietary and supplemented, nutritional and herbal, having a preference for those with high patient tolerance and compatibility, and varying with individual needs and tolerance, according to the standard naturopathic principle of “Treat the whole person.” rnrnFindings: Many patients voluntarily left our practice, against our advice, primarily for financial reasons, while still having cancer. Of the remaining patients, 175 either went into confirmed, complete remission, which we define by no evidence of cancer remaining in the body on imaging, or have remained in good to excellent wellbeing, as determined retrospectively by prolonged stable health of at least 6 months after leaving our care and needing no other physician supervised cancer care, and as confirmed by annual telephone conversation with either the patient or a family member. Those patients in remission stayed in our care an average of 3.7 months; those who left, 2.7 months, (this data last measured in 2010). Eight additional patients went into remission after leaving our clinic, and while being treated at a different clinic, and it is unlikely that our treatments were the decisive factor in that remission. We were still treating 22 patients at July 1, 2014 plus giving ongoing maintenance treatments to some of those who are still in remission. 44 died while still our patients. Of those 44, 12 died after a significant dietary dispute with us. That is 32 patients died although they received our treatments and complied with our requested diet. 22 more were killed by hospital procedures and/or chemotherapy and/or radiation side effects while still our patients. 45 total patients chose to have chemotherapy while having our treatments. Yet, of the 175 who went into remission, only 12 had chosen to have chemotherapy while having our treatments. Stages 1, 2, 3 and early Stage 4 patients at start of treatment had much better outcomes than late Stage 4 patients in general. rnrnInterpretation: The 32 patients who complied with our dietary and treatment protocol and still did not survive their cancers must be seen as an 8% failure rate if considered of all 379 patients, or a 15% failure rate if taken of the 210 patients who stayed to complete our treatments. Therefore, these treatment strategies are still not adequate to eliminate all patients’ cancers and must be further developed. However, our success rate of 93% in steadfast patients following all protocols as recommended, from Stage I through early Stage IV is unprecedented and unequalled in both conventional and natural medicine in all clinics that report their results in detail as we do in this paper. There is also a 93% rate of sustained remission in individual patients who elect to follow our recommendation to have monthly follow-up treatments. 26 of those 28 patients are still in remission. 27 of those patients are alive and well (97%). Because of this consistent success in treating cancer since 2006, we believe that the experiences of over 300 cancer patients detailed below has demonstrated the need for simultaneous well-tolerated anti-neoplastic treatments, across all cancers and stages of cancer.rn
University of Washington School of Medicine, USA
Time : 10:00-10:30
Recent common interest on molecular imaging among both diagnostic radiologists and interventional oncologists has led to establishing a new concept, called “Interventional Molecular Imaging.” This concept, by combining interventional oncology with molecular imaging, is aiming to fully apply the advantages of both imaging and oncology fields. Interventional oncology can extend the capabilities of currently-available molecular imaging techniques, to (i) reach deep-seated tumors; (ii) get a close look at early and small tumors; (iii) precisely guide delivery of non-targeted imaging tracers/therapeutics into the tumors and (iv) super selectively enhance effectiveness of targeted imaging and treatment of tumors. On the other hand, molecular imaging can be used to (a) precisely guide interventional oncology procedures and (b) sensitively access the responses of tumors to the interventional oncological therapies. Interventional molecular imaging is becoming one of the frameworks to bring advanced molecular imaging and interventional oncology technologies from benches/small animal labs to large animal suites, and ultimately to clinical applications in humans.
Center for Translational Cancer Nanomedicine, USA
Keynote: Stimuli-sensitive combination nanopreparations of siRNA and chemotherapeutic drugs to treat multidrug resistant cancers
Time : 10:30-11:00
Vladimir Torchilin is University Distinguished Professor and Director, Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, Northeastern University, Boston. He has published more than 350 original papers, more than 150 reviews and book chapters, wrote and edited 10 books and holds more than 40 patents. He is Editor-in-Chief of Current Drug Discovery Technologies and of Drug Delivery. He is a Member of European Academy of Sciences, Fellow of AIMBE, AAPS and CRS, and received many important national and international awards including the 2013 Blaise Pascal Medal in Biomedicine from EAS. In 2005, he was a President of the CRS and in 2011 Times Higher Education ranked him number 2 among top world scientists in pharmacology for 2001-2010.
Tumor therapy, especially in the case of multidrug resistant cancers, could be significantly enhanced by using siRNA down-regulating the production of proteins, which are involved in cancer cell resistance, such as Pgp or survivin. Even better response could be achieved is such siRNA could be delivered to tumors together with chemotherapeutic agent. This task is complicated by low stability of siRNA in biological surrounding. Thus, the delivery system should simultaneously protect siRNA from degradation. We have developed several types of lipid-core polymeric micelles based on PEG-phospholipid or PEI-phospholipid conjugates, which are biologically inert, demonstrate prolonged circulation in the blood and can firmly bind non-modified or reversibly-modified siRNA. Additionally, these nanopreparations can be loaded into their lipidic core with poorly water soluble chemotherapeutic agents, such as paclitaxel or camptothecin. In experiments with cancer cell monolayers, cancer cell 3D spheroids, and in animals with implanted tumors, it was shown that such co-loaded preparations can significantly down-regulate target proteins in cancer cells, enhance drug activity, and reverse multidrug resistance. In order to specifically unload such nanopreparations inside tumors, those can be designed sensitive to local tumor-specific stimuli, such as lowered pH, hypoxia, or overexpressed certain enzymes, such as matrix metalloproteases. Using pH-, hypoxia-, or MMP2-sensitive bonds between different components of nanopreparations co-loaded with siRNA and drugs, one can be able to make the systems specifically delivering biologically active agents in tumors, inside tumor cells, or even to individual cell organelles, which resulted in significantly improved therapeutic response.