2 ms·

Lots of mice studies don't translate well into humans. This one is highly specific -- a specific mutation. It's unlikely to have much bearing on real world canc

by api 11y ago

Lots of mice studies don't translate well into humans. This one is highly specific -- a specific mutation. It's unlikely to have much bearing on real world cancer.

OopsCriticality 11y ago
Very true. To be charitable, the future is in personalized medicine, so if a vitamin C population subset can be well-defined then maybe there's something here. That said, cancer cells are notorious for expressing efflux pumps and in so doing frustrating treatment, and there's every reason to think that would happen here given the high doses and long time needed for therapeutic effect. I have to say, the very first thing that came to mind when I read the article was Xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/1217/ http://www.xkcd.com/1217/
notlisted 11y ago
Why is this comment down-voted? It's true. Mouse-models, especially for colon and breast cancers, have proven to be less-than-dependable (Cf. Voskoglou-Nomikos)
nonbel 11y ago
>[Supp Methods:] "To test the effect of vitamin C, two million HCT116 or VACO432 cells were injected subcutaneously into the flank of 6 to 8-week-old female athymic nude mice (Harlan, Indianapolis, IN). After 7-10 days, mice with tumors of 40-60 mm3 were randomly divided into two groups. One group was treated with freshly prepared vitamin C (sodium ascorbate in 400 ul PBS, 4 g per kilogram of body weight) by intraperitoneal (IP) injection twice a day (HCT116: n=6, VACO432: n=6). Control group mice were treated with PBS instead of vitamin C with the same dosing schedule (HCT116: n=4, VACO432: n=7)." [...] [Caption Fig 2:] "Tumor sizes were measured 2-3 times per week in an unblinded manner." http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aaa5004 http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aaa5004 Not only are they mice, but they have no immune system[1]. Also, the dose of vitamin C is like consuming an entire bottle twice a day (~240 g)[2]. They are honest about the lack of blinding, which is good, but obviously that should make us wary of these findings. Also, they do not report tumor size before splitting into treatment vs control groups (only saying mice with 40-60 mm^3 tumors were used). Put the larger ones in the control group and you can easily appear to be slowing tumor growth for totally artefactual reasons. For example, start with low initial (40) and high initial (60) cells in two different mice. If the cells all divide every day how many do you expect after 1:3 days. Low: 40,80,160; High: 60,120,240; Difference: 20,40,80. The difference seems to grow just due to the starting conditions, growth rates were the same. So these results are uninterpretable without knowing the starting tumor sizes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_mouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_mouse [2] http://www.allergyresearchgroup.com/buffered-vitamin-c-240-grams-8.5-oz-powder http://www.allergyresearchgroup.com/buffered-vitamin-c-240-g...
- nonbel 11y ago
  >"Vitamin C treatment significantly reduced tumor growth compared to vehicle control treatment (Fig. 2B)." This is a perfect example of what is wrong with biomed research. Just because the null hypothesis of no difference is rejected does not mean it is for your favorite reason. There are other reasons for this difference. For example, as mentioned above, perhaps the initial tumor size was different (which we cannot see since the size of the points in figure 2 correspond to ~50 mm^3 on the y axis).

by api 11y ago

Lots of mice studies don't translate well into humans. This one is highly specific -- a specific mutation. It's unlikely to have much bearing on real world cancer.

OopsCriticality 11y ago

Very true. To be charitable, the future is in personalized medicine, so if a vitamin C population subset can be well-defined then maybe there's something here. That said, cancer cells are notorious for expressing efflux pumps and in so doing frustrating treatment, and there's every reason to think that would happen here given the high doses and long time needed for therapeutic effect. I have to say, the very first thing that came to mind when I read the article was Xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/1217/ http://www.xkcd.com/1217/

notlisted 11y ago

Why is this comment down-voted? It's true. Mouse-models, especially for colon and breast cancers, have proven to be less-than-dependable (Cf. Voskoglou-Nomikos)

nonbel 11y ago

>[Supp Methods:] "To test the effect of vitamin C, two million HCT116 or VACO432 cells were injected subcutaneously into the flank of 6 to 8-week-old female athymic nude mice (Harlan, Indianapolis, IN). After 7-10 days, mice with tumors of 40-60 mm3 were randomly divided into two groups. One group was treated with freshly prepared vitamin C (sodium ascorbate in 400 ul PBS, 4 g per kilogram of body weight) by intraperitoneal (IP) injection twice a day (HCT116: n=6, VACO432: n=6). Control group mice were treated with PBS instead of vitamin C with the same dosing schedule (HCT116: n=4, VACO432: n=7)." [...] [Caption Fig 2:] "Tumor sizes were measured 2-3 times per week in an unblinded manner." http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aaa5004 http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aaa5004 Not only are they mice, but they have no immune system[1]. Also, the dose of vitamin C is like consuming an entire bottle twice a day (~240 g)[2]. They are honest about the lack of blinding, which is good, but obviously that should make us wary of these findings. Also, they do not report tumor size before splitting into treatment vs control groups (only saying mice with 40-60 mm^3 tumors were used). Put the larger ones in the control group and you can easily appear to be slowing tumor growth for totally artefactual reasons. For example, start with low initial (40) and high initial (60) cells in two different mice. If the cells all divide every day how many do you expect after 1:3 days. Low: 40,80,160; High: 60,120,240; Difference: 20,40,80. The difference seems to grow just due to the starting conditions, growth rates were the same. So these results are uninterpretable without knowing the starting tumor sizes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_mouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_mouse [2] http://www.allergyresearchgroup.com/buffered-vitamin-c-240-grams-8.5-oz-powder http://www.allergyresearchgroup.com/buffered-vitamin-c-240-g...

nonbel 11y ago
>"Vitamin C treatment significantly reduced tumor growth compared to vehicle control treatment (Fig. 2B)." This is a perfect example of what is wrong with biomed research. Just because the null hypothesis of no difference is rejected does not mean it is for your favorite reason. There are other reasons for this difference. For example, as mentioned above, perhaps the initial tumor size was different (which we cannot see since the size of the points in figure 2 correspond to ~50 mm^3 on the y axis).