These vegan health articles are presented to assist you in taking a pro-active part in your own health.
See All-Creatures.org Health Position and Disclaimer
Cancer doesn’t have to happen though, at least not in most scenarios. We know for a fact from the work of nutritional scientist T. Colin Campbell, PhD that cancer is largely preventable, as discussed in his book The China Study. With few exceptions, cancer is due to the rich Western diet, not our genes contends Campbell.
[Note from article author Dustin Rudolph – For the record, I’m a clinical hospital pharmacist, educated and surrounded by the best that medicine has to offer. I see the slicing and dicing, the bombardment of radiation, and the administering of chemotherapy all the time in my line of work. I thought to myself there had to be more options for those facing this life-and-death disease called cancer. Did my education and training leave me missing something critical? What I’ve learned is that there is no perfect solution, not every individual is created equal, and not all cancers are deemed equivalent. It’s important to do your homework if facing this deadly disease.]
Cancer — the word actually comes from the Greek word karkinos, a word used to
describe carcinoma tumors by the famous physician Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.).[1]
— is arguably the most terrifying diagnosis anyone can receive from his or
her physician. It’s also the second leading cause of death in the United States
and around the world behind cardiovascular diseases.[1][2] Most people fear
cancer more than any other disease.
Cancer doesn’t have to happen though, at least not in most scenarios. We know
for a fact from the work of nutritional scientist T. Colin Campbell, PhD that
cancer is largely preventable, as discussed in his book The China Study.[3] With
few exceptions, cancer is due to the rich Western diet, not our genes contends
Campbell.
So why is it that everyone automatically turns to surgery, chemotherapy, and
radiation to fight cancer when food is the primary enemy? More often than not,
there are almost no questions asked by patients to their doctors when given only
these forms of conventional treatments to cure their cancer. Shouldn’t we be
thinking outside the box of modern medicine when it comes to cancer, especially
given all the horrendous side effects and meager results of many twenty-first
century treatments? Or, at the very least, shouldn’t we be implementing a major
diet and lifestyle change in conjunction with modern medical interventions when
facing cancer?
These are the billion dollar questions—literally—as the U.S. is projected to
spend $173 billion annually in treating cancer by the year 2020![4]
I certainly don’t have the answers to every situation involving cancer (no one
does), but I will do my best in this article to give you some food for thought
when it comes to treating cancer.
Food vs. Medicine for the Treatment of Cancer
Breast, prostate, and colon cancer are three of the most common cancers in
America. While the data runs deep when it comes to modern medical treatments
(surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, etc.) used for these cancers, the
high-quality research to solidify the effectiveness of a whole food,
plant-based diet (WFPB) as superior to these options is largely missing.
In fact, to my knowledge, only prostate cancer has controlled interventional
studies (the gold standard in determining evidenced-based medical practices)
to evaluate whether or not a WFPB diet should be the standard of treatment
for any type of cancer. Even at that, these interventional studies measured
blood markers as the end result and not morbidity and mortality (disability
and death) due to prostate cancer. This is the equivalent of measuring the
drop in a person’s cholesterol level after taking a statin drug without
worrying about the rate of heart attacks and deaths had the statins not been
taken. The latter is more important in the grand scheme of things. People
care about becoming disabled and dying more than they care about their
cholesterol level.
Nevertheless, the available studies on nutrition and cancer are still
valuable on their own, but it would be nice to someday have studies using a
WFPB diet as the solo treatment option in treating different types of cancer
versus modern medical therapy.
Prostate Cancer – Treatment With Drugs, Surgery, & Radiation
It’s estimated that approximately 2.7 million men were living with prostate
cancer in the United States in 2011.[5] At the time of diagnosis, it’s
reported that 81% of these men had localized prostate cancer (confined only
to the prostate gland), 12% had cancer that had spread to the lymph nodes,
4% had metastasized cancer to other organs in the body, and 3% were
unstaged.
Common treatment options include watchful waiting, surgery, radiation,
hormone therapy, and chemotherapy. Diet treatment alone is considered
unconventional and not practiced by most physicians. I will mostly discuss
available data regarding therapy in lower risk patients (i.e. localized
prostate cancer) since most men fall into this category.
A 2010 article in the Annals of Oncology examined several treatment options
for low-risk prostate cancer in men, including active surveillance (watchful
waiting), radical prostatectomy (removal of prostate gland by surgery), and
radiation therapy.[6] The authors stated, “Ten-year prostate cancer specific
survival approaches 100% for each management option, including active
surveillance for selected patient groups.” In other words, all forms of
treatments led to the same results, even doing nothing (i.e. watchful
waiting).
The study went on to say that for the intermediate-risk group “the actuarial
risk of death from prostate cancer at 12 years was 12.5% for surgery
compared to 17.9% for watchful waiting. Put it another way, the number
needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one death from prostate cancer was 18.5. This
means that on average a little over 18 men had to be treated in order for
one man to avoid death due to prostate cancer. This beneficial impact of
surgery on prostate cancer mortality was restricted to men age 65 or
younger. Radical prostatectomy increased the rate of erectile dysfunction
(ED) by 35%, and urinary leakage (incontinence) by 28%, in comparison with
watchful waiting.”
To clarify the above results, men getting the surgery experienced an
absolute risk reduction in avoiding death after a 12-year period by 5.4%
over men who did nothing. With this small increase in risk reduction,
approximately a fourth to a third of the men experienced the unwanted and
permanent side effects of ED and/or urinary incontinence.
Another common treatment for prostate cancer is hormone therapy, otherwise
known as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), whereby a medication like
Zoladex (goserelin) or Lupron (leuprolide) is given to lower testosterone
levels in the body. These medications are also considered chemotherapy or
antineoplastic agents. In theory, lowering testosterone makes sense because
elevated testosterone levels in men typically go hand-in-hand with prostate
cancer risk. However, it depends on your risk group whether or not these
agents are indicated in prostate cancer.
An article in JAMA in 2008 looked at using ADT in 19,271 men with localized
prostate cancer. Researchers found the 10-year survival rate in men treated
with the medication was actually worse than the rate for those practicing
watchful waiting.[7] ADT is only recommended in men with advanced or
high-risk disease, such as those where the cancer has spread to the lymph
nodes or beyond.[8]
ADT therapy is also not without its side effects. Among potential adverse
effects are changes in serum lipid profiles, increased risk of insulin
resistance, and increased risk of coronary artery disease.[8] In addition,
27%-49% of men will develop erectile dysfunction while on these
medications.[9] It is clear that if you are a male candidate for ADT
therapy, you should consider these risks, along with any potential benefits,
in your decision making process as you talk to your doctor about your
prostate cancer.
Prostate Cancer – Treatment With a WFPB [Whole Food Plant Based] Diet
Dean Ornish, MD, first published his studies on halting and potentially
reversing prostate cancer with a WFPB diet in 2005 in the Journal of
Urology.[10] In this study, Ornish took 93 male patients with biopsy proven,
low-grade prostate cancer and randomized them into an experimental group
(WFPB diet) of 44 men and a control group (Western diet) of 49 men. The WFPB
diet consisted of fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts/seeds.
No animal foods were allowed in the WFPB group. A blood marker called a
prostate specific antigen (PSA) level was taken at baseline and 1 year.
None of the men in the WFPB group required any further conventional medical
treatment for their prostate cancer.
(PSA levels of below 4 ng/ml are considered normal, signifying no prostate
cancer in men. However, the PSA test has been questioned for its accuracy.
It is estimated that the risk of overdiagnosis in prostate cancer in men is
between 5% and 44.9% for those aged 50-69 using the PSA test.[11]
Nevertheless, the PSA test is still one of the best noninvasive indicators
we have in diagnosing prostate cancer. The higher the PSA level, the higher
the risk of prostate cancer. PSA levels between 4-10 ng/ml typically
indicate low-grade prostate cancers. Biopsy of the prostate is ordered if
PSA levels are elevated and then used to prove a diagnosis of prostate
cancer.)
Returning to Ornish’s study, patient results at baseline and 1 year for PSA
levels are shown here for both dietary groups:
The prostate cancer in the WFPB experimental group reversed course, while
those on their regular diets saw a worsening of their disease. In addition,
none of the men in the WFPB group required any further conventional medical
treatment for their prostate cancer. However, six men in the control group
underwent further treatment due to rising PSA levels.
Side effects of the WFPB diet were all positive and included a drop in total
and LDL cholesterol levels, along with an average 10 lb weight loss in the
men. No erectile dysfunction or urinary incontinence was reported with the
switch to a healthy plant-based diet.
These results were confirmed in another study published in 2006 by Saxe et
al.[12] Researchers found either a reduction in PSA levels or a decrease in
the rate of PSA rise in men who adopted a plant-based diet over a 6-month
period.
Breast Cancer – Treatment With Drug Therapy
An estimated 2.9 million women were living with breast cancer in 2011.[5] At
the time of diagnosis it’s reported that 61% of women had localized breast
cancer (confined only to the breast tissue), 32% had cancer that had spread
to the lymph nodes, 5% had metastasized cancer, and 2% of cases were
unstaged.
While I am focusing on treatment options for breast cancer in this article,
diagnosing the disease is a story in and of itself. Please see my article
here for more information on annual mammogram screenings and how beneficial
they may or may not be for women – The Business of Breast Cancer Awareness
Month (And How To Prevent Breast Cancer In The First Place).
Two of the most common treatments for breast cancer include
chemotherapy—specifically, anthracycline (Adriamycin) and taxane (Taxol)
agents—and hormone therapy with a medication like tamoxifen (exerts an
anti-estrogen effect on breast tissue). Tamoxifen typically follows
chemotherapy for a period of 5 years.
Below are the success rates of Taxane and Anthracycline agents for 5- and
10-year breast cancer recurrence rates and survival rates in the treatment
of breast cancer. These are typically what breast cancer victims are
concerned with the most—death and/or a return of their breast cancer.
Statistics are reported in absolute risk reduction terms.[13][14]
Taxane + Anthracycline vs. Anthracycline Agent Alone
Anthracycline Agent Alone vs. No Chemotherapy
For tamoxifen therapy the 5-year success rates are listed below for
hormone-receptor positive cases of breast cancer in women. In
hormone-receptor negative breast cancer cases, tamoxifen has little or no
effect on recurrence and death rates. Once again, results are reported in
terms of absolute risk reduction.[15]
Tamoxifen vs. No Treatment
Now that you’ve seen the benefits of taking the above drugs, let’s take a look at potential risks of experiencing side effects of these medications.[16][17][18]
Taxanes (Taxol)
Neutropenia (78-100%)
Alopecia (55-96%)
Anemia (47-96%)
Arthralgia/myalgia (93%)
Diarrhea (90%)
Leukopenia (90%)
Nausea/vomiting (9-88%)
Opportunistic infections (76%)
Peripheral neuropathy (42-79%)
Thrombocytopenia (4-68%)
Mucositis (5-45%)
Hypersensitivity (2-45%)
Renal impairment (34%)
Hypotension (17%)
Bradycardia (3%)
Anthracyclines (Doxorubicin)
Neutropenia (52%)
Anemia (52%)
Leukopenia (42%)
Pruritus (37%)
Nausea (37%)
Stomatitis (37%)
Fatigue (33%)
CHF (30%)
Thrombocytopenia (24%)
Vomiting (22%)
Rash (21%)
Alopecia (15%)
Anorexia (12%)
Constipation (12%)
Diarrhea (10%)
Cardiomyopathy (0.5-9%)
Tamoxifen
Hot flashes (64%)
Vaginal discharge (30%)
Amenorrhea (16%)
Menstrual changes (13%)
Oligomenorrhea (9%)
Cataracts (8%)
Bone pain (6%)
Nausea (5%)
Cough (4%)
Edema (4%)
Fatigue (4%)
Musculoskeletal pain (3%)
Ovarian cyst (3%)
Depression (2%)
Abdominal cramps (1%)
Anorexia (1%)
Breast Cancer & Diet
As mentioned earlier in this article, I am unaware of any controlled
interventional studies of using a 100% WFPB diet in the treatment of breast
cancer in which breast cancer recurrence and mortality data was reported.
This, again, would be the gold standard in terms of evidence providing the
highest quality of data that can be obtained.
However, John McDougall, MD, did conduct a controlled interventional study
in 1984 using a low-fat, starch-centered, plant-based diet on a small group
of postmenopausal women who had previously been diagnosed with breast
cancer. McDougall found that specific markers (obesity, high cholesterol
levels, high estrogen levels, and high prolactin levels) commonly associated
with a poorer prognosis in breast cancer were all reduced after a 3-month
period on his 100% starch-centered, plant-based diet.[19] While this
information is valuable, we are still in need of long-term data on
recurrence and mortality data in breast cancer with a WFPB diet.
Having said that, there are several population-based and prospective cohort
studies that have observed a correlation of the effect of various diets on
breast cancer.
Numerous studies show that a high-fat, Western diet is associated with
higher incidences of breast cancer.[20][21] These studies show a definite
link between unhealthy dietary patterns containing foods higher in fats
(processed foods, meat, dairy, and animal fat) and breast cancer. Data like
these should sound alarm bells for any woman wanting to avoid breast cancer.
It is certainly a case of “better safe than sorry” when it comes to
considering cutting out foods like beef, chicken, pork, fish, dairy, eggs,
and processed foods from one’s diet in hopes of avoiding breast cancer.
Even though controlled interventional trials are virtually nonexistent for a
low-fat, WFPB diet on breast cancer risk, there are a few randomized,
controlled interventional trials analyzing a low-fat diet and breast cancer
recurrence risk and death rates among breast cancer sufferers. A
meta-analysis published in 2014 looked at two such studies.22 The two
studies tested a low-fat (approximately 20-22% calories from fat) diet that
included both plant and animal foods. This is a far cry from the 8% fat
calories in the diet that McDougall tested in 1984. Nevertheless, in these
studies there was a 23% reduction (statistically significant) on average in
breast cancer recurrence rates and a 17% reduction (non-statistically
significant) on average in all-cause mortality in breast cancer patients.
Another prospective cohort study published in 2013 followed 91,779 women who
had never been diagnosed with breast cancer over a period of 14 years.[23]
The investigators analyzed dietary intake patterns and breast cancer
occurrence rates. The plant-based pattern (high consumption of fruits and
vegetables) was associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk, while the
salad and wine pattern (high consumption of salad, low-fat dressing, fish,
wine, coffee, and tea) was associated with an increase in breast cancer
risk. While all dietary patterns analyzed included both plant and animal
foods in their respective groups, each particular pattern consisted of
significantly higher amount of the foods listed in parentheses. While this
is not the perfectly designed study to test direct cause-and-effect of a
WFPB diet on breast cancer, it does provide yet another valuable lesson in
showing us how whole, unrefined plant foods are protective against this
awful disease.
Summary & Final Thoughts
Cancer is a frightening disease. The suffering that cancer patients endure
during the course of their disease often incites fear not only in those
suffering from the cancer, but also in those of us looking in from the
outside. While no cancer is created equal, we have certainly made great
strides in understanding the disease better. However, we have a long way to
go in finding the ever-elusive “cure.”
Conventional treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery have
their own challenges in treating this disease, especially in terms of side
effects. I’ve always maintained that our best bet is to prevent cancer in
the first place by adopting healthy diet and lifestyle habits in order to
avoid the medical events that follow. We can use these same prevention
strategies in the treatment of cancer too, and we should. Prostate cancer is
a shining example of this.
A health-promoting, cancer-fighting WFPB diet should be implemented in all
patients with cancer regardless of whether or not that patient chooses to
undergo conventional treatment options. There are no additional risks by
doing so and only potential upsides in the form of reduced risks of several
types of cancer.[24]
If you find yourself facing cancer, whatever you do, make sure to perform
your due diligence in exploring all your treatment options in fighting this
deadly disease. After all, knowledge is power and you’re going to need all
the knowledge in the world to help you get through a disease like cancer.
Best of luck to you in your cancer-fighting journey! May life bless you with
an abundance of health and happiness.
References
Return to Vegan Health Articles
Visit Food Hazards in Animal Flesh and By-products
We began this archive as a means of assisting our visitors in answering many of their health and diet questions, and in encouraging them to take a pro-active part in their own health. We believe the articles and information contained herein are true, but are not presenting them as advice. We, personally, have found that a whole food vegan diet has helped our own health, and simply wish to share with others the things we have found. Each of us must make our own decisions, for it's our own body. If you have a health problem, see your own physician.