One such alternative approach to treat cancer is insulin potentiation therapy or IPT, a relatively new procedure in oncology. Dr. Stephen B. Ayre, the main proponent of IPT, first introduced the term when he stated that this procedure causes little to no adverse effects like headache, hair loss, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, which are all common problems experienced by cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The principle of IPT is based on how insulin lowers the blood sugar level, thereby depleting the energy source of cancer cells. A significantly low blood sugar level also stimulates the production of growth hormone, which strengthens the immune system to further combat cancer.
IPT allows for the administration of insulin to decrease the dosage of chemotherapeutic drugs. Essentially, IPT works by injecting insulin into the bloodstream, the dose of which is calculated according to the patient's body weight. Because insulin enables the transport of nutrients from the blood to the cells, glucose or sugar is able to penetrate into the cellular membranes. IPT takes advantage of this biological structure because as the cellular walls become penetrable, low-dose chemotherapeutic drugs can be administered and absorbed immediately by the cells. Its effect when compared to the usual dosage of chemotherapy is said to be almost the same, but very few studies support this claim.
The claimed therapeutic effect of IPT is not actively caused by insulin itself, as it only optimizes the effects of chemotherapy in an indirect manner by making the cellular walls more penetrable to drugs. Therefore, metastasis, or the spread of cancer cells from one point of the body to another, is halted not by insulin, but by the chemotherapeutic drugs themselves.
Very few studies have been made to establish the therapeutic effect of IPT. One such study was conducted in Uruguay, where 10 breast cancer patients were given insulin and methotrexate. This group responded with a stable condition, compared to another group of breast cancer patients who received insulin or methotrexate alone. The study was conducted in a span of eight weeks, and although the group of patients who received IPT displayed a decrease in the tumor size, they reported to have suffered mouth sores as an unpleasant side effect. This somehow negates the assumption of Dr. Ayre that IPT causes minimal to zero adverse effects. The appearance of mouth sores is actually an area of concern because a cancer patient's immune system is too weak to heal the wound and prevent infection by harmful microorganisms, especially when the oral cavity has ideal conditions conducive to bacterial growth. Moreover, mouth sores dramatically decrease a cancer patient's appetite, whose weight is almost always compromised by cancer in the first place.
Although IPT is claimed to be likewise effective against other chronic diseases like arthritis, many medical experts highly criticize its therapeutic claims against cancer. The study conducted on the breast cancer patients in Uruguay failed to consider necessary areas in oncologic research, such as patient well-being, quality of life and prognosis. Furthermore, the study did not report any long-term improvements among the breast cancer patients.
Some practitioners may believe that IPT is promising, but other than the Uruguay experiment, only individual reports have been published, which are not even strong enough to support that IPT may be used as a first-line therapy akin to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The supporters of this alternative approach have argued that their studies are well-researched, but the overall effectiveness and safety of this procedure are yet to be established. The safety concern is indeed relevant, especially when insulin causes clinical hypoglycemia, or low blood glucose levels. This condition can be very life-threatening because it can cause confusion, seizures, heart arrhythmias, coma and even sudden death. It is also not uncommon for some cancer patients to have diabetes, and the sudden change in blood glucose level may pose as an additional clinical threat. It is for this reason that many oncologists and medical experts do not advocate IPT, as the risks clearly outweigh the benefits of the procedure. Lowering the blood glucose levels, according to most cancer specialists, is not recommended, and especially not at the expense of the health of the patients whose quality of life is already affected by the disease in the first place. Hence, any theoretical assumptions that IPT can either increase or decrease the effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy have yet to be verified.
Until then, the indication of IPT as a main approach to cancer management cannot be approved according to medical standards. As of the time being, chemotherapy and radiotherapy remain to be the two most commonly prescribed treatments to treat cancer. Although they are capable of producing adverse effects of their own, countless research, clinical trials, theoretical studies and even patient testimonials can vouch that these treatments are safer and more effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment