Life Extension Magazine®

Issue: Oct 2014

Assembly Line Medicine

Cancer patients are being deprived of lifesaving therapies by oppressive bureaucracy, physician apathy, insurance company denials, and inflated medical costs. Find out how cancer victims can circumvent today’s backwards oncology system to improve their odds of long-term survival.

By William Faloon.

William Faloon
William Faloon

People fear cancer more than any other disease—and for good reason.

Upon diagnosis, a patient is often given several treatment choices. None guarantees a cure, but all tend to inflict pain, immobility, mutilation, debilitation, risk of secondary complications (like stroke), and risk of secondary cancers (like leukemia).

Enlightened individuals face a particular degree of anxiety. They’ve heard about less toxic treatments that may be more effective. They often worry they are missing out on a curative therapy because of constraints placed on physicians by today’s bureaucratic medical system that fosters inefficiency and mediocrity.

We at Life Extension® have long been aware of serious gaps that exist between what is discovered by cancer researchers and what is delivered to patients in the clinical oncology setting. When advanced cancer patients send us their medical records, we almost always identify treatment omissions that could have markedly improved odds of remission, improved survival, and even offered a cure.

One example is a drug called cimetidine. It functions via several mechanisms to inhibit metastasis and improves survival in colon cancer patients.1-8 In 2002, results from a clinical trial on patients with an aggressive form of colon cancer were published in the British Journal of Cancer. Compared to controls, 10-year survival improved by a remarkable 2.7-fold in the group receiving cimetidine.4

Assembly Line Medicine  

Life Extension® has been recommending cimetidine since 1985 for certain types of cancer. Not once have we had a cancer patient approach us who had been prescribed this nontoxic drug by their oncologist.

An oncologist is a physician who specializes in the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of those afflicted with cancer. Cancer patients rely on their oncologist to utilize the best therapies to meet their individual needs. Regrettably, “managed care” has diluted the quality of care provided by many oncologists.

In a stunning new development, a health insurance company is offering oncologists $350/month for each patient that is put on the company’s recommended regimen.9 This will enable the insurance company to control treatment-related expenses of cancer patients, who will be afforded less individualized, creative, and comprehensive care.

In this month’s issue, we reveal how to circumvent this backwards approach to cancer treatment.

Within 24 hours of you reading this article, 1,500 Americans will perish from cancer.10 There will be no sensational media accounts of these travesties, just more statistics to confirm the grim failure of mainstream medicine to find cures for this epidemic killer.

We at Life Extension® have never ignored the threat that cancer poses to healthy longevity. Yet many people today are in a state of denial, as if this insidious disease only afflicts others.

The news media redundantly covers details of traumatic deaths such as airline crashes and terrorist attacks. My reaction to these headline news stories is that the number of victims pales in comparison to the estimated 585,000 Americans that die from cancer every year.11

As I wrote in a 2004 article titled “Are You Afraid of Terrorists?” over 2.4 million Americans die each year mostly from age-related disease. Yet one terrorist attack dominates media coverage.12

So here we are 10 years later, and terrorists have killed less than 100 people in the United States. The death toll from cancer in that same time period is around 5.8 million. One could argue from a mathematical standpoint that violent death threats could be disregarded and resources instead poured into more efficient cancer research.

My personal views don’t directly relate to what you are about to read, but may help you understand how committed we are to eradicating cancer in the same way that smallpox was last century.

The Basics About Cancer Treatment

The Basics About Cancer Treatment  

There are some basic rules about cancer that everyone should know.

When it comes to achieving a “cure,” the best opportunity exists at the time of first treatment. Once tumor cells have been exposed to initial therapies, or one’s immune system has been compromised by surgical trauma, a malignancycan proliferate out of control and resist secondary therapeutic attempts.13-20

The best shot for a cure thus involves an individualized, multipronged plan of action to:

  • Eradicate the primary tumor;
  • Decrease fuels that feed metastatic growth;
  • Turn off stimuli that encourage cancer stem cell proliferation;
  • Block the escape routes used by residual cancer cells.

Some people erroneously believe they must try to eradicate their tumor immediately. A more intelligent approach is to take the time needed to:

  • Ensure that the stage or extent of the tumor is within the boundaries of any ablative therapy (such as surgery or radiation);
  • Investigate every mechanism an individual’s cancer will use to ensure its survival;
  • Then introduce agents into the treatment protocol to circumvent each of these tumor survival factors.

What I’m conveying here is that newly diagnosed cancer patients should take advantage of the relatively vulnerable nature of their “ treatment-naïve” tumor to implement a plan that addresses a wide range of escape routes that tumor cells utilize upon exposure to radiation, chemotherapy, hormone blockade, and even surgery.21-25 To provide real world examples of this strategy being put into action, you’re going to read about some remarkable case histories in this month’s issue.

Immune Status Should Be Assessed In All Cancer Patients

Once a tumor is established, it is difficult for the immune system to eradicate it.26-29 That’s why mainstream oncologists pay little attention to the immune status of their newly diagnosed patients. In other words, since bolstering immune function alone won’t cure cancer, oncologists mistakenly think it is not of major importance.

Newly diagnosed patients often present with poor immune status even before immune-damaging chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery are initiated.30-33

Optimizing immune function prior to initiation of cancer treatment can be a critical component of comprehensive therapy with curative intent.12,34-37 This involves in-depth immune profile blood testing and when indicated, precise administration of expensive drugs like interleukin-2,12,38-46 filgrastim (Neupogen®),47,48pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®),49-58 and/or sargramostim (Leukine®).59-62

Health insurance companies are trying to reduce the cost of cancer care and would rather patients not know about the need to optimize immune function before, during, and after toxic therapies are administered.63 The high cost of implementing comprehensive immune support is causing insurance companies to refuse to pay for it.

A large health insurance company is offering oncologists $350/month per patient as a reward to channel treatment towards the insurance company’s “recommended regimen.” We believe this will result in cancer patients dying sooner and using up fewer resources in the process.8 Oncologists following these cookbook protocols will be able to squeeze far more patients into their hurried schedules.

Under this new scheme whereby oncologists are paid $350/month for each patient placed on the “recommended regimen,” insurance companies benefit financially, while patients are largely confined to chemo drug protocols that provide relatively minimal survival improvement in treating metastatic disease.

Impact Of Surgery On Immune Function

Impact Of Surgery On Immune Function  

The first line of defense against malignancy is our natural killer cells (NK). Young individuals have high levels of functional natural killer immune cells, but this declines with aging.64-72

Natural killer cells originate in the bone marrow (like other immune cells) and go through a maturation process that enables them to participate in early control of microbial infections and cancers.73-76

In a study examining NK cell activity in women shortly after surgery for breast cancer, it was reported that low levels of NK cell activity were associated with an increased risk of death from breast cancer.77 In fact, reduced NK cell activity was a better predictor of survival than the actual stage of the cancer itself. In another study, colon cancer patients with reduced NK cell activity before surgery had a 350% increased risk of metastasis during the following 31 months.78

The likelihood of surgery-induced metastasis requires a cancer patient’s immune system to be highly active and vigilant in seeking out and destroying renegade tumor cells immediately before, during, and after surgery. Numerous studies document that cancer surgery results in substantial reduction in NK cell activity.79-82 In one investigation, NK cell activity in women having surgery for breast cancer was reduced by over 50% on the first day after surgery.81 A group of researchers stated that, “We therefore believe that shortly after surgery, even transitory immune dysfunction might permit neoplasms [cancer] to enter the next stage of development and eventually form sizable metastases.80

We know cancer surgery reduces NK activity. This means that NK cell activity becomes impaired when it is most needed to fight metastasis. With that said, the preoperative and perioperative periods present a window of opportunity to actively strengthen immune function by enhancing NK cell activity. Fortunately, validated interventions to enhance NK cell activity are available to the person undergoing cancer surgery.

While there are nutrients that can boost NK function, many cancer patients would benefit enormously with individualized courses of drugs like interleukin-2 (IL-2) and Leukine®.

IL-2 directly promotes NK function,83-85 while Leukine® induces bone marrow production of macrophages.86-88 Since these drugs are expensive, insurance companies will often refuse to pay for them as they are not approved by the FDA for the creative interventions that published studies show may be effective.

How Off-Label Drugs Save Lives

In the world of conventional oncology, FDA-approved drugs are routinely and legally prescribed for “unapproved uses” to better treat the disease.89,90 This is often referred to as using drugs off-label.”

A 2008 study found that eight out of 10 oncologists surveyed had used drugs off-label.91 Studies have reported that about half of the chemotherapy drugs prescribed are for conditions not listed on the FDA-approved drug label.92 The National Cancer Institute has stated, “Frequently the standard of care for a particular type or stage of cancer involves the off-label use of one or more drugs.”92

Off-label drug use in many cases is the genesis of innovation. It enables oncologists to use their training and experience to design creative therapeutic protocols based on new scientific findings. When favorable results are found, the protocol may be published in medical journals so that other oncologists can emulate the treatment successes.

The problem for health insurance companies is that cancer drugs are outlandishly priced, sometimes costing over $100,000 each per patient.93-95 Insurance companies don’t want to bear the costs associated with creatively designed treatments. They want to limit their expenses by confining oncologists to chemo drugs that provide relatively little survival improvement in advanced-stage cancers.63

This helps explain why one insurance company is offering oncologists $350/month per patient to not prescribe drugs beyond the insurance company’s “recommended regimen.”96

Other health insurance companies are doing it differently by reimbursing oncologists less money when they prescribe newer, more expensive cancer drugs.97

Not All Off-Label Drugs Are Expensive

Not All Off-Label Drugs Are Expensive  

Some of the most effective off-label drugs are affordable out-of-pocket (without insurance company involvement). The problem occurs when oncologists are being paid ($350/month) to only offer an insurance company’s “recommended regimen.” This creates a disincentive to utilize Herculean initiatives to ensure their patients receive every therapy that could optimize outcomes with the goal of inducing a complete remission; in other words, the complete disappearance of all manifestations of the cancer.

From our review of the scientific literature spanning decades, many cancer patients would benefit by taking aspirin98-100 and the antidiabetic drug metformin.101-115 Aspirin of course is readily accessible, but cancer patients are unlikely to use it if their oncologist does not recommend it.

Metformin requires a prescription, and if the insurance company catches the oncologist prescribing metformin, which is not part of the “recommended regimen,” the oncologist might lose the $350/month stipend for that patient.

Even the use of aspirin requires the oncologist’s involvement as chemo patients whose platelet count is reduced to fewer than 100 x 10E3/uL are at risk for hemorrhage.116-119 Under these circumstances, aspirin should be deferred until platelet counts are restored.

There are numerous off-label drugs effective against certain cancers (such as COX-2 inhibitors, certain statins, hormone modulators, etc.) that require a prescription, yet we are rapidly regressing to a system where medical decision making is dictated by insurance company cost mandates and not physician dedication and experience.

How Positive Responses To Cancer Therapy Are Defined
How Positive Responses To Cancer Therapy Are Defined
  • Partial remission (PR) indicates 50% or greater reduction in all measureable evidence of tumor dimensions and tumor markers.
  • Complete remission (CR) indicates a disappearance of all measureable indicators of tumor activity.
  • Cure indicates complete disappearance of all manifestations of disease activity that is sustained over years and insures a high probability that the disease will not return.

Cancer Patients Can Derive Survival Benefits when Adjuvant Therapies are Combined with Conventional Treatments


The Insurance Company’s “Recommended Regimen”

The chemotherapy drugs that insurance companies want oncologists to prescribe represent the most commonly used drugs in the industry and can be viewed as aggressive “cookbook medicine approach” treatments. Some of drugs listed, such as Adriamycin®, are being limited by several oncologists at major medical institutions, such as MD Anderson, for use in adjuvant settings due to excessive toxicity.121-123

Progressive oncologists, with whom Life Extension® is working, are using mitoxantrone instead of Adriamycin® in their elderly patients since it has the same survival rate as Adriamycin®, but is less toxic to the heart.124-126

Oncologists will be paid $350/month per patient by one insurer to prescribe chemo drugs such as Adriamycin®, which was approved by the FDA in 1974. Another insurer is offering higher reimbursement to the oncologist when lower-cost chemo drugs are used.

All these chemo drugs are considered standard of care by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, which is an alliance of 25 cancer centers in the United States, most of which are designated by the National Cancer Institute as comprehensive cancer centers.

Health insurance companies reward practicing oncologists for following the standard published protocols that minimize creative approaches for cancer treatment.

Perhaps the greatest failing of the chemo drugs that insurers are paying oncologists to prescribe is that they seldom cure advanced-stage cancers. Despite widespread availability of these chemo drugs, metastatic lung cancer kills 98% of patients within five years.127 Metastatic colon cancer kills 94% within five years.128 Those afflicted with metastatic breast cancer fare better, but 78% still die within five years.129

Clinical oncology practice clearly needs more innovation—yet health insurance companies are providing financial incentives for physicians to prescribe chemo drugs that fail to cure advanced-stage patients. This kind of backwards approach to treatment will stifle the discovery of breakthroughs so desperately needed to spare the lives of more than 585,000 Americans who perish from cancer annually.

I’m purposely leaving the names of the insurance companies out of this article because it is likely that other insurers will follow this pattern of scientific regression. What we are witnessing is clinical oncology practice being driven backwards by outlandish drug prices, along with the high cost of increased physician involvement when aggressive therapies are utilized.

Health insurance companies argue their “recommended regimens” will improve patient care. We at Life Extension® disagree and advocate that more (not fewer) individualized, creative, and comprehensive treatment approaches could spare numerous lives.

The Problem With Cytotoxic (Chemotherapy) Drugs

When chemotherapy drugs were developed in the 1950s to 1970s, there was optimism that a pharmaceutical cure for cancer might soon be found.

These chemo drugs killed cancer cells in the petri dish and shrank tumors in cancer patients. The side effects, however, were horrific and survival improvements were negligible for most solid malignancies.

Medical oncologists are now being offered $350/month per patient to prescribe chemo drugs that, in some cases, were introduced before many of you reading this article were born.

There are drugs in the insurance company’s “recommended regimen” that are new and considered cutting-edge, but provide average survival improvements often measuring less than one year.

In the May 21, 2014, edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, a study was published showing that lung cancer patients survived 1.1 years longer when aggressive genomic testing was done and drugs that specifically target an individual tumor are added to standard chemo regimens.120 These newer drugs target what’s known as “oncogenic drivers,” which are genetic abnormalities critical for tumor development and maintenance. The survival improvement in response to these “targeted” therapies is certainly welcomed news, but a far cry from a cure. The side effects from these newer cancer drugs are similar to old-line chemo drugs, meaning the patients endure significant suffering in exchange for added time.

Our scientific understanding of molecular oncology has grown exponentially over the past 40 to 50 years, yet relatively little of this knowledge is being delivered to the cancer patient. Clinical oncology practice, in fact, has progressed so slowly that many old-line chemo drugs are still considered first-line therapy at cancer institutions today, despite their failures to produce cures in the majority of advanced cases.

The problem is that consumers with health insurance may not have a choice. If their oncologist follows the insurers “recommended regimen,” they will be prescribed chemo drugs that have historically provided relatively minimal survival improvement. These patients might better benefit from creative therapies that health insurance companies now balk at paying for.

On the right side column is a list of chemotherapy drugs that one insurance company wants most of its insured customers restricted to, along with the dates of each drug’s approval and how many years each of these drugs has been in use.

Some of these drugs were approved more than 60 years ago. That does not mean they are not still useful against certain malignancies. The invariable question is whether certain patients who would benefit from more comprehensive and creative approaches will instead be prescribed these “standard-of-care” drugs because of the financial incentives being offered to oncologists.

To receive their $350/month stipend per patient, oncologists have to stay with the insurance company’s “recommended regimen” for that patient. This financial incentive comes to $4,200 a year per patient treated following the insurer’s protocol!

Drug Name

Approval Date

Years In Use


June 20, 1952



November 16, 1959 (Manufacturing changes in 1976,1977, 1979,1984, 1987, 2000) Cytoxan®(lyophilized) equivalent


Fluorouracil (5-FU)

April 25, 1962


DoxorubicinHCL injectable


August 7, 1974


Cisplatin (Platinol®)

December 19, 1978


Carboplatin (Paraplatin®)

March 3, 1989


Paclitaxel (Taxol®)

December 29, 1992

(Manufacturing change or addition 1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2001)


Vinorelbine (Navelbine®)

December 23, 1994


Docetaxel (Taxotere®)

May 14,1996


Gemcitabine (Gemzar®)

May 15, 1996


Irinotecan (Camptosar®)

June 14, 1996


Capecitabine (Xeloda®)

April 30, 1998


Trastuzumab (Herceptin®)

September 25, 1998

(Manufacturing change 2012)


Epirubicin (Ellence®)

September 15, 1999


Oxaliplatin (Eloxatin®)

August 9, 2002


Pemetrexed (Alimta®)

February 4, 2004


Bevacizumab (Avastin®)

February 26, 2004


Erlotinib (Tarceva®)

November 18, 2004


Panitumumab (Vectibix®)

September 27, 2006



March 13, 2007


Pertuzumab (Perjeta®)

June 8, 2012


Regorafenib (Stivarga®)

September 27, 2012


Ado-trastuzumabemtansine (Kadcyla®)

February 22, 2013


Afatinib (Gilotrif®)

July 12, 2013


Average age of chemo drug


Most Effective Brain Tumor Drug Not Approved To Treat Any Cancer

Most Effective Brain Tumor Drug Not Approved To Treat Any Cancer  

Perhaps the most frightening malignancy one can be diagnosed with is a form of brain cancer called glioblastoma. This type of brain cancer has a dismal prognosis, with median overall survival of 12 to 14 months, and a two-year survival rate of 15 to 26%.131

Senator Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with glioblastoma in May 2008. Despite intervention by some of the best brain tumor experts, Kennedy died in August 2009—a mere 15 months later.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on September 5, 2013, may represent the most significant advance yet discovered in treating glioblastoma.131

What follows is an overview of a drug that is not approved to treat any cancer, and thus is likely to be rejected by insurance company mandates:

  • Valganciclovir (Valcyte®) is an FDA-approved drug used to treat cytomegalovirus infection.
  • Cytomegalovirus has been suspected as facilitating the initiation and promotion of brain cancers.132-135 Some 50 to 80% of adults in the US show exposure to cytomegalovirus, but relatively few harbor active viral infection.135
  • Doctors followed 75 glioblastoma patients and found the median overall survival of those with low-grade cytomegalovirus infection was 33 months. In patients with high-grade cytomegalovirus infection, median overall survival was 13 months.131
  • All but one of the 75 glio-blastoma patients studied had active cytomegalovirus infection, indicating that this virus may be involved in the development of this lethal malignancy. 131
  • In glioblastoma patients with high-grade cytomegalovirus infection, median two-year survival was 17.2%. Patients with low-grade cytomegalovirus infection had median two-year survival rates of 63.6%.131 This suggests that high-grade, active cytomegalovirus infection accelerates tumor progression.
  • In a double-blind clinical trial of valganciclovir involving 42 patients with glioblastoma, an exploratory analysis of 22 patients receiving at least six months of antiviral therapy showed 50% overall survival at two years compared with 20.6% of contemporary controls.131 This study showed that valganciclovir-treated patients had a median overall survival of 24.1 months compared to 13.7 months in patients not treated with valganciclovir .
  • Owing to the promising results of this pilot study, physicians at the world-famous Karolinska University Hospital administered valganciclovir to glioblastoma patients and results were then compared to a control group. Both groups received standard conventional therapy and both groups had a similar disease stage and surgical-resection grade.
  • The researchers retrospectively analyzed the data on 50 of these brain cancer patients and found the two-year rate of survival in the valganciclovir group was 62%, whereas two-year survival was only 18% in the control group.131
  • In 40 glioblastoma patients who received valganciclovir for at least six months, the two-year survival rate was 70%, with a median overall survival of 30.1 months.131
  • In 25 glioblastoma patients that received continuous valganciclovir treatment after the first six months, the two-year survival rate was 90%, with a median overall survival of 56.4 months (4.7 years)!131
  • The current median survival of glioblastoma patients is only 12 to 14 months (1.0 to 1.16 years).131 The efforts made to prolong Senator Kennedy’s life by the experts at Duke University Medical Center was a survival of 15 months (1.25 years)—3.45 years less than the median survival in the 25 glioblastoma patients who received continuous valganciclovir treatment as detailed above.

The implication from these findings is that treating active cytomegalovirus infection may dramatically reduce progression, and significantly increase survival time, in patients suffering from the deadly brain cancer glioblastoma. Most exciting is the intriguing data from this retrospective study showing that in glioblastoma patients with active cytomegalovirus, a treatment protocol employing valganciclovir resulted in a median survival of 4.7 years!

Not only does this retrospective data involving the continuous use of valganciclovir substantially extend survival in glioblastoma patients, but it provides an opportunity to incorporate additional complementary therapies that could improve survival even more!


Why Brain Tumor Patients Are Denied Valganciclovir

Why Brain Tumor Patients Are Denied Valganciclovir  

It is illegal for the maker of valganciclovir to promote it as a treatment for brain cancer. The regulatory system in the United States requires that the maker of a drug conduct extensive clinical trials for each disease a drug claims to treat and then submit the trial results to the FDA for approval.

It is not illegal, however, for an oncologist to prescribe valganciclovir to treat glioblastoma.

The problem is the annual cost for valganciclovir is around $50,000. Many health insurers will refuse to pay this outlandish price. If an oncologist tries to prescribe it for a patient it will not be one of the insurance company’s “recommended regimens,” and the oncologists will likely lose his $350/month stipend because he or she did not adhere to the treatment protocols designated by the insurer.

We fear that 12,000 Americans will continue to die prematurely from glioblastoma every year despite impressive findings showing that valganciclovir could extend the survival times of many of these patients diagnosed with this deadly disease.136

Industry Actuaries Guide Your Cancer Treatment
Industry Actuaries Guide Your Cancer Treatment

The practice of medicine has largely devolved to a place where physicians no longer take the lead in guiding treatment.

Consider a scenario that plays out day after day in modern cancer treatment.

An experienced oncologist sees a Medicare patient suffering from an aggressive cancer. The oncologist realizes that there are several viable options, and that the best therapy is not the usual, cost-effective standard-of-care choice covered by Medicare. Rather, it’s a more expensive and newer option with compelling data that shows better results. However, the newer, more expensive treatment option—the one that’s best for the patient in the opinion of the treating oncologist—is not standard of care and therefore, is not covered under Medicare.

The result?

The patient is treated with the Medicare-approved drug. In this case, the federal government’s actuaries at the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services have been the guiding force in treatment of this patient, not the experienced oncologist.

Changing Cancer Care For The Worse

What we are seeing before our eyes are physicians who will give up years of education, creativity, and understanding of the individual patient to instead be directed by an insurance company and rewarded with a monthly stipend of $350 if he or she follows the insurers financially biased “orders.”

The term now used for physicians in such a context is “provider.” They provide the treatment, but are not involved in deciding what treatments to use. Thus, the physician has given up his or her role as “Decider” to become the “Provider.”

The $350/month per patient could possibly be a significant income for the oncologist. Assume that oncologist has 400 active patients and that 100 of them are on the insurers “approved” chemo program. That’s $35,000 per month or $420,000 per year. In most major cities, that’s about what the average medical oncologist makes annually. If the oncologist surrenders his decision making to the insurer, he is doing less work and has fewer worries regarding patient outcome since he was only “following orders.” The insurance company decided on the regimen. Thus, the trade-off to surrender physician autonomy for a substantial monetary reward that involves less stress on the physician becomes an irresistible temptation for far too many highly educated and highly trained medical oncologists.

Another concern is what will the insurer decide regarding the use of supportive care therapy, such as antiemetic and immune protective treatment prior to chemo. What will the insurer mandate regarding which imaging studies can or cannot be done, what laboratory studies are to be obtained and how often, and which immune-augmenting drugs are to be used? Where does the direction of care involving cost cutting stop?

In this newly perverse system brought about by outlandishly high medical prices, why bother using physicians to treat cancer patients? Given this form of cookbook medicine, costs could be further cut by using nurse practitioners or physician assistants to deliver standard care chemo drugs.

Insurers are changing how they pay for cancer care

“Insurers are changing how they pay for cancer care, aiming to blunt soaring costs and push oncologists to adhere to standardized treatment guidelines.” 130

Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2014


Blame The Broken System…Not Just Insurance Companies

A number of health insurance companies are looking into aggressive ways to cut the soaring costs of cancer drugs by seeking to reduce payments to oncologists if they prescribe pricier drugs.

As I wrote earlier this year in an article titled “Unsustainable Cancer Drug Prices,” of the 12 new cancer drugs approved in 2012, 11 were priced above $100,000 a year! Over a hundred oncologists signed a protest letter that concluded that the prices of many of these drugs “are too high, unsustainable, may compromise access of needy patients to highly effective therapy, and are harmful to the sustainability of our national healthcare systems.”137

Just six months after my article was published, we are seeing insurance companies rebel by offering incentives to oncologists to prescribe chemo drugs they perceive as being less expensive. Here is a quote from the insurance company’s oncology medical director:138

“This program—while sharing best practices and evidence-based medicine—also helps to support oncologists who require large staffs to treat these complex patients and provides the practice with enhanced reimbursement to offset the lower fees they receive when prescribing less expensive drugs.”

According to the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, in 2013 the United States spent $37 billion on cancer drugs, which is more than any other category.139 Overall costs for treating cancer are well over $100 billion annually and mounting steadily, according to researchers at the National Cancer Institute. Hospital, diagnostic, and pharmaceutical prices are beyond exorbitant.

Still another reason why medical costs are spiraling upwards are large hospitals that are buying out individual oncology practices so higher “hospital” prices can be billed to Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance companies. When chemo is administered in an oncologist’s private office, the cost is less than compared to a hospital setting. Now hospitals are employing oncologists to make sure patients receive chemo in the hospital’s oncology outpatient facility and billing insurance company’s higher prices, which means you will be paying higher health insurance premiums, along with higher co-pays and deductibles.

The financial coffers of insurance companies are being plundered by the excess charges of hospitals and outrageously high drug prices. Insurance companies are responding by seeking to pay doctors to provide less costly treatments. This is bad news for cancer victims.

It is important to point out that in many clinical oncology settings, the insurance company’s new “recommended regimens” may not be any worse than what patients are getting anyway. Bureaucracies have replaced the “special” physician, the one that comes up with creative approaches and who devours the literature looking for clues to help save his or her patient. Mainstream mediocrity has become the “standard of care” in too many instances and the public apathetically accepts it until they or a loved one is stricken with cancer.

The major factor responsible for the decay and dysfunction of sick care in the US is the powerful pharmaceutical lobby, the health insurance industry, and the burdensome legislation enacted by Congress that stifles innovation in the medical arena. None of these revelations should sur­prise Life Extension® members, who long ago learned how regulatory strangleholds inflict harsh economic pain, along with needless suffering and death.

Aggressive Approaches Can Cure Terminal Cancer
Aggressive Approaches Can Cure Terminal Cancer

In April of 2000, a patient came to us with advanced head and neck cancer with a primary location in the sinus and infiltration to the brain and orbital (eye) cavity. The tumor was the approximate size of a baseball and every oncologist consulted stated the patient had only months to live. Hospice was recommended as there was no conventional therapy that could treat this patient due to the complex anatomical locations of the tumor.

Just imagine the challenge of treating a tumor of this size growing inside someone’s head. The tumor’s location made it untreatable, according to every oncology expert. The only advantage we had is that no treatment had yet been administered, meaning the tumor was “treatment naïve,” and thus vulnerable to eradication by multimodal therapies. Our dilemma was figuring out how to administer therapy to this delicate anatomical region of the body without blinding the patient and creating permanent brain damage.

The hospital wanted to administer systemic cisplatin chemotherapy, which would have temporarily shrunk the tumor, but at the cost of horrific side effects and the mutation of the tumor to a virtually invulnerable stage. We stopped the patient from getting the systemic cisplatin in the nick of time.

The scientific team at Life Extension® devised an unprecedented protocol that involved inserting a catheter into the patient’s femoral artery. The catheter was directed into the aorta and from there threaded into the external carotid arteries. Using the catheter as a chemotherapy delivery system to the tumor, a relatively massive dose of cisplatin was initially used to target the tumor. It would have been impossible to deliver enough of this highly toxic chemo drug in any other way. Even by delivering cisplatin directly into the tumor, there were still some side effects (renal impairment) which were able to be reversed.

Following initial direct-to-the-tumor cisplatin therapy, the chemo drug paclitaxel was administered via this same intra-arterial route for four additional weeks.

These intra-arterial chemotherapy sessions were immediately followed by proton beam-accelerated radiation and the use of numerous drugs not approved to treat this cancer. For example, to enhance the tumor-killing effects of the proton beam-accelerated radiation, the radiation sensitizer 3-chloroprocainamide (3-CPA) was used. This had to be synthesized in our lab, as it was not commercially available to us. To further enhance the proton-beam therapy, the patient ingested 18 grams of arginine before treatment and breathed pure oxygen during treatment. The objective was to thoroughly oxygenate the patient in order to induce maximal tumor cell death during the proton-beam therapy.

It took until late June 2000 (the patient was diagnosed in April 2000) to initiate this complex therapy. By September 2000, there was no sign of active tumor. The patient was in complete remission, meaning there was no sign of tumor activity in the patient’s body. Oncologists at Loma Linda Medical Center were so impressed that they used this same protocol on another patient with advanced sinus cancer. We were informed that in this patient a complete remission was also attained.

Our client was prescribed a three-year follow up cyclical dosing of interferon alfa-2b and 13-cis retinoic acid to mop up any residual tumor cells that may have escaped the aggressive proton beam and intra-arterial chemo that was delivered over an eight-week time period.

Within two years, our client developed radiation necrosis of the brain, which was caused by the high dose of proton beam radiation therapy. This is a common side effect when the brain is irradiated. Once again, conventional doctors pronounced our client “terminal,” since there was no recognized treatment to overcome the raging inflammatory fires destroying the brain.

The scientific team here at Life Extension® went back to work and identified two drugs (cabergoline and pentoxifylline), both not approved to treat radiation necrosis. The two-drug combination suppressed the radiation necrosis, and once again to the doctor’s amazement, this patient was cured of a side effect that had been pronounced terminal. Our client remains alive today, 14 years since the original “terminal” diagnosis was made.

What We Are Doing To Save Lives

For over 30 years, we at Life Extension® have relentlessly combatted the high cost of medicine, along with conventional oncology’s less-than-optimal approach to cancer treatment.

We offer a service for customers who develop cancer. One is free phone/email access to our cancer advisors. There is seldom a call where we can’t suggest validated ways to improve survival, sometimes as simple as adding aspirin and metformin to conventional treatment. To speak with a Senior Wellness Specialist, call 1-866-864-3027.

In this month’s issue, you’re going to read a case history of an advanced stage pancreatic cancer patient who contacted us in time for aggressive innovative therapies to be initiated. Another case history whereby our team of experts saved the life of a very “terminal“ head and neck cancer patient can be read on the next page.

We were also going to publish in this month’s issue an update on the successes we are seeing with breast cancer patients using innovative therapeutic approaches we helped develop. We are deferring that article until at least next month because when we reported on these treatment successes two years ago, the clinic was overwhelmed and had to stop taking new patients. I was informed this clinic should be ready to accept at least some new patients starting around October 15th of this year.

For longer life,

For Longer Life

William Faloon

Quote From Ayn Rand Regarding Doctors
Quote From Ayn Rand Regarding Doctors

“I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind, yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.”

From Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand



  1. Lefranc F, Yeaton P, Brotchi J, Kiss R. Cimetidine, an unexpected anti-tumor agent, and its potential for the treatment of glioblastoma. Int J Oncol. 2006 May;28(5):1021-30.
  2. Natori T, Sata M, Nagai R, Makuuchi M. Cimetidine inhibits angiogenesis and suppresses tumor growth. Biomed Pharmacother. 2005 Jan-Feb;59(1-2):56-60.
  3. Tomita K, Izumi K, Okabe S. Roxatidine- and cimetidine-induced angiogenesis inhibition suppresses growth of colon cancer implants in syngeneic mice. J Pharmacol Sci. 2003 Nov;93(3):321-30.
  4. Matsumoto S, Imaeda Y, Umemoto S, Kobayashi K, Suzuki H, Okamoto T. Cimetidine increases survival of colorectal cancer patients with high levels of sialyl Lewis-X and sialyl Lewis-A epitope expression on tumour cells. Br J Cancer. 2002 Jan 21;86(2):161-7.
  5. Adams WJ, Lawson JA, Morris DL. Cimetidine inhibits in vivo growth of human colon cancer and reverses histamine stimulated in vitro and in vivo growth. Gut. 1994 Nov;35(11):1632-6.
  6. Adams WJ, Lawson JA, Nicholson SE, Cook TA, Morris DL. The growth of carcinogen-induced colon cancer in rats is inhibited by cimetidine. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1993 Aug;19 (4):332-5.
  7. Adams WJ, Morris DL, Ross WB, Lubowski DZ, King DW, Peters L. Cimetidine preserves nonspecific immune function after colonic resection for cancer. Aust N Z J Surg. 1994 Dec;64(12):847-52.
  8. Adams WJ, Morris DL. Short-course cimetidine and survival with colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1994 Dec 24-31;344(8939-8940):1768-9.
  9. Available at: Accessed June 24, 2014.
  10. Available at: Accessed July 12, 2014.
  11. Available at: Accessed July 12, 2014.
  12. Available at: Accessed July 12, 2014.
  13. Brivio F, Lissoni P, Rovelli F, et al. Effects of IL-2 preoperative immunotherapy on surgery-induced changes in angiogenic regulation and its prevention of VEGF increase and IL-12 decline. Hepatogastroenterology. 2002 Mar-Apr;49(44):385-7.
  14. Shankaran V, Ikeda H, Bruce AT, et al. IFN gamma and lymphocytes prevent primary tumour development and shape tumour immunogenicity. Nature. 2001 Apr 26;410(6832):1107-11.
  15. Fadul CE, Fisher JL, Hampton TH, et al. Immune response in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme treated with intranodal autologous tumor lysate-dendritic cell vaccination after radiation chemotherapy. J Immunother. 2011 May;34(4):382-9.
  16. Seeger RC. Immunology and immunotherapy of neuroblastoma. Semin Cancer Biol. 2011 Oct;21(4):229-37.
  17. Louis CU, Savoldo B, Dotti G, et al. Antitumor activity and long-term fate of chimeric antigen receptor-positive T cells in patients with neuroblastoma. Blood. 2011 Dec 1;118(23):6050-6.
  18. Ardon H, Van Gool S, Lopes IS, et al. Integration of autologous dendritic cell-based immunotherapy in the primary treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: a pilot study. J Neurooncol. 2010 Sep;99(2):261-72.
  19. Smith C, Tsang J, Beagley L, et al. Effective treatment of metastatic forms of Epstein-Barr virus-associated nasopharyngeal carcinoma with a novel adenovirus-based adoptive immunotherapy. Cancer Res. 2012 Mar 1;72(5):1116-25.
  20. Miles SA, Sandler AD. CpG oligonucleotides for immunotherapeutic treatment of neuroblastoma. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2009 Mar 28;61(3):275-82.
  21. Available at: Accessed June 25, 2014.
  22. Available at: Accessed June 25, 2014.
  23. Hoogstraat M, de Pagter MS, Cirkel GA, van Roosmalen M J, Harkins TT, Duran, K, et al. Genomic and transcriptomic plasticity in treatment-naïve ovarian cancer. Genome Res. 2014 Feb;24(2):200-11.
  24. Attar RM, Takimoto CH, Gottardis MM. Castration-resistant prostate cancer: locking up the molecular escape routes. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(10):3251-55.
  25. Available at: . Accessed July 14, 2014.
  26. Huang Y, Shah S, Qiao L. Tumor resistance to CD8+ T cell-based therapeutic vaccination. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2007 Jul-Aug;55(4):205-17.
  27. Huang Y, Obholzer N, Fayad R, Qiao L. Turning on/off tumor-specific CTL response during progressive tumor growth. J Immunol. 2005 Sep 1;175(5):3110-6.
  28. Speiser DE, Ohashi PS. Activation of cytotoxic T cells by solid tumours? Cell Mol Life Sci. 1998 Mar;54(3):263-71.
  29. Igney FH, Krammer PH. Immune escape of tumors: apoptosis resistance and tumor counterattack. J Leukoc Biol. 2002 Jun;71(6):907-20.
  30. Sun S, Fei X, Mao Y, et al. PD-1(+) immune cell infiltration inversely correlates with survival of operable breast cancer patients. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2014 Apr;63(4):395-406.
  31. Huang JJ, Jiang WQ, Lin TY, et al. Absolute lymphocyte count is a novel prognostic indicator in extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type. Ann Oncol. 2011 Jan;22(1):149-55.
  32. Xu L, Xu W, Qiu S, Xiong S. Enrichment of CCR6+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in the tumor mass correlates with impaired CD8+ T cell function and poor prognosis of breast cancer. Clin Immunol. 2010 Jun;135(3):466-75.
  33. Masmoudi A, Toumi N, Khanfir A, et al. Epstein-Barr virus-targeted immunotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2007 Oct;33(6):499-505.
  34. Angelini C, Bovo G, Muselli P, et al. Preoperative interleukin-2 immunotherapy in pancreatic cancer: preliminary results. Hepatogastroenterology. 2006 Jan-Feb;53(67):141-4.
  35. Ratto GB, Costa R, Maineri P, et al. Neo-adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy in the treatment of stage III (N2) non-small cell lung cancer: a phase I/II pilot study. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011 Oct-Dec;24(4):1005-16.
  36. Ludgate CM. Optimizing cancer treatments to induce an acute immune response: radiation Abscopal effects, PAMPs, and DAMPs. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Sep 1;18(17):4522-5.
  37. Sarkar S, Döring A, Zemp FJ, et al. Therapeutic activation of macrophages and microglia to suppress brain tumor-initiating cells. Nat Neurosci. 2014 Jan;17(1):46-55.
  38. Antony GK, Dudek AZ. Interleukin 2 in cancer therapy. Curr Med Chem. 2010;17(29):3297-302.
  39. Maroto JP, del Muro XG, Mellado B, et al. Phase II trial of sequential subcutaneous interleukin-2 plus interferon alpha followed by sorafenib in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Clin Transl Oncol. 2013 Sep;15(9):698-704.
  40. Weide B, Eigentler TK, Pflugfelder A, et al. Survival after intratumoral interleukin-2 treatment of 72 melanoma patients and response upon the first chemotherapy during follow-up. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2011 Apr;60(4):487-93.
  41. Slavin S, Ackerstein A, Or R, et al. Immunotherapy in high-risk chemotherapy-resistant patients with metastatic solid tumors and hematological malignancies using intentionally mismatched donor lymphocytes activated with rIL-2: a phase I study. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2010 Oct;59(10):1511-9.
  42. Vuoristo MS, Vihinen P, Skyttä T, Tyynelä K, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P. Carboplatin and vinorelbine combined with subcutaneous interleukin-2 in metastatic melanoma with poor prognosis. Anticancer Res. 2009 May;29(5):1755-9.
  43. Hallett WH, Ames E, Alvarez M, et al. Combination therapy using IL-2 and anti-CD25 results in augmented natural killer cell-mediated antitumor responses. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Oct;14(10):1088-99.
  44. Lissoni P, Brivio F, Fumagalli L, Di Fede G, Brera G. Enhancement of the efficacy of chemotherapy with oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil by pretreatment with IL-2 subcutaneous immunotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with lymphocytopenia prior to therapy. In Vivo. 2005 Nov-Dec;19(6):1077-80.
  45. Quan WD Jr, Quan FM, Perez M, Johnson E. Outpatient intravenous interleukin-2 with famotidine has activity in metastatic melanoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2012 Sep;27(7):442-5.
  46. Hanzly M, Aboumohamed A, Yarlagadda N, et al. High-dose interleukin-2 therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a contemporary experience. Urology. 2014 May;83(5):1129-34.
  47. Schäfer H, Hübel K, Bohlen H, et al. Perioperative treatment with filgrastim stimulates granulocyte function and reduces infectious complications after esophagectomy. Ann Hematol. 2000 Mar;79(3):143-51.
  48. Wenisch C, Werkgartner T, Sailer H, et al. Effect of preoperative prophylaxis with filgrastim in cancer neck dissection. Eur J Clin Invest. 2000 May;30(5):460-6.
  49. Hill G, Barron R, Fust K, et al. Primary vs secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for the reduction of febrile neutropenia risk in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: cost-effectiveness analyses. J Med Econ. 2014 Jan;17(1):32-42.
  50. Tesařová P. OPERa Study. Klin Onkol (Czech). 2013 26(6):425-33.
  51. Naeim A, Henk HJ, Becker L, Chia V, Badre S, Li X, Deeter R. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization of cancer patients than filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective United States claims analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF). BMC Cancer. 2013 Jan 8;13:11.
  52. Hadji P, Kostev K, Schröder-Bernhardi D, Ziller V. Cost comparison of outpatient treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) in Germany. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Apr;50(4):281-9.
  53. Hirsch BR, Lyman GH. Pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors: a critical and systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012 Jun 1;30(6):497-511.
  54. Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, et al. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2011 Jan;47(1):8-32.
  55. Bonanno G, Procoli A, Mariotti A, et al. Effects of pegylated G-CSF on immune cell number and function in patients with gynecological malignancies. J Transl Med. 2010 Nov 9;8:114.
  56. Sehouli J, Goertz A, Steinle T, et al. Pegfilgrastim vs filgrastim in primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer after chemotherapy: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2010 Mar;135(9):385-9.
  57. Lyman G, Lalla A, Barron R, Dubois RW. Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma receiving CHOP-21 in United States. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009 Feb;25(2):401-11.
  58. Ramsey SD, Liu Z, Boer R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Value Health. 2009 Mar-Apr;12(2):217-25.
  59. Waller EK. The role of sargramostim (rhGM-CSF) as immunotherapy. Oncologist. 2007 12 Suppl 2:22-6.
  60. Rini BI, Fong L, Weinberg V, Kavanaugh B, Small EJ. Clinical and immunological characteristics of patients with serologic progression of prostate cancer achieving long-term disease control with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. J Urol. 2006 Jun;175(6):2087-91.
  61. Kurbacher CM, Kurbacher JA, Cramer EM, et al. Continuous low-dose GM-CSF as salvage therapy in refractory recurrent breast or female genital tract carcinoma. Oncology (Williston Park). 2005 Apr;19(4 Suppl 2):23-6.
  62. Heaney ML, Toy EL, Vekeman F, et al. Comparison of hospitalization risk and associated costs among patients receiving sargramostim, filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Cancer. 2009 Oct 15;115(20):4839-48.
  63. Available at: Accessed June 28, 2014.
  64. Albright JW, Albright JF. Impaired natural killer cell function as a consequence of aging. Exp Gerontol. 1998 Jan-Mar;33(1-2):13-25.
  65. Ogata K, Yokose N, Tamura H, et al. Natural killer cells in the late decades of human life. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1997 Sep;84(3):269-75.
  66. Kmiec Z, Myśliwska J, Rachón D, Kotlarz G, Sworczak K, Myśliwski A. Natural killer activity and thyroid hormone levels in young and elderly persons. Gerontology. 2001 Sep-Oct;47(5):282-8.
  67. Vitale M, Zamai L, Neri LM, et al. The impairment of natural killer function in the healthy aged is due to a postbinding deficient mechanism. Cell Immunol. 1992 Nov;145(1):1-10.
  68. Di Lorenzo G, Balistreri CR, Candore G, et al. Granulocyte and natural killer activity in the elderly. Mech Ageing Dev. 1999 Apr 1;108(1):25-38.
  69. McNerlan SE, Rea IM, Alexander HD, Morris TC. Changes in natural killer cells, the CD57CD8 subset, and related cytokines in healthy aging. J Clin Immunol. 1998 Jan;18(1):31-8.
  70. Dussault I, Miller SC. Decline in natural killer cell-mediated immunosurveillance in aging mice-a consequence of reduced cell production and tumor binding capacity. Mech Ageing Dev. 1994 Aug;75(2):115-29.
  71. Camous X, Pera A, Solana R, Larbi A. NK cells in healthy aging and age-associated diseases. BioMed Research International. 2012;2012:195956.
  72. Lutz CT, Quinn LS. Sarcopenia, obesity, and natural killer cell immune senescence in aging: altered cytokine levels as a common mechanism. Aging (Albany NY). 2012; 4(8):535-46.
  73. Wu J, Lanier LL. Natural killer cells and cancer. Adv Cancer Res. 2003 90:127-56.
  74. Lodoen MB, Lanier LL. Natural killer cells as an initial defense against pathogens. Curr Opin Immunol. 2006 Aug;18(4):391-8.
  75. Grégoire C, Chasson L, Luci C, et al. The trafficking of natural killer cells. Immunol Rev. 2007 Dec;220:169-82.
  76. Vivier E, Tomasello E, Baratin M, Walzer T, Ugolini S. Functions of natural killer cells. Nat Immunol. 2008 May;9(5):503-10.
  77. Mccoy JL, Rucker R, Petros JA. Cell-mediated immunity to tumor-associated antigens is a better predictor of survival in early stage breast cancer than stage, grade or lymph node status. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000 Apr;60(3):227-34.
  78. Koda K, Saito N, Takiguchi N, Oda K, Nunomura M, Nakajima N. Preoperative natural killer cell activity: c`orrelation with distant metastases in curatively research colorectal carcinomas. Int Surg. 1997 Apr-Jun;82(2):190-3.
  79. Da Costa ML, Redmond P, Bouchier-Hayes DJ. The effect of laparotomy and laparoscopy on the establishment of spontaneous tumor metastases. Surgery. 1998 Sep;124(3):516-25.
  80. Shakhar G, Ben-Eliyahu S. Potential prophylactic measures against postoperative immunosuppression: could they reduce recurrence rates in oncological patients? Ann Surg Oncol. 2003 Oct;10(8):972-92.
  81. McCulloch PG, MacIntyre A. Effects of surgery on the generation of lymphokine-activated killer cells in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg. 1993 Aug;80(8):1005-7.
  82. Rosenne E, Shakhar G, Melamed R, Schwartz Y, Erdreich-Epstein A, Ben-Eliyahu S. Inducing a mode of NK-resistance to suppression by stress and surgery: a potential approach based on low dose of poly I-C to reduce postoperative cancer metastasis. Brain Behav Immun. 2007 May;21(4):395-408.
  83. Fehniger TA, Bluman EM, Porter MM, et al. Potential mechanisms of human natural killer cell expansion in vivo during low-dose IL-2 therapy. J Clin Invest. 2000 Jul;106(1):117-24.
  84. Caligiuri MA, Zmuidzinas A, Manley TJ, Levine H, Smith KA, Ritz J. Functional consequences of interleukin 2 receptor expression on resting human lymphocytes. Identification of a novel natural killer cell subset with high affinity receptors. J Exp Med. 1990 May 1;171(5):1509-26.
  85. Orange JS, Roy-Ghanta S, Mace EM, et al. IL-2 induces a WAVE2-dependent pathway for actin reorganization that enables WASp-independent human NK cell function. J Clin Invest. 2011 Apr;121(4):1535-48.
  86. Rowe JM, Andersen JW, Mazza JJ, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled phase III study of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in adult patients (> 55 to 70 years of age) with acute myelogenous leukemia: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (E1490). Blood. 1995 Jul 15;86(2):457-62.
  87. Buchsel PC, DeMeyer ES. Dendritic cells: emerging roles in tumor immunotherapy. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2006 Oct;10(5):629-40.
  88. Spitler LE. Adjuvant therapy of melanoma. Oncology (Williston Park). 2002 Jan;16(1 Suppl 1):40-8.
  89. Available at: Accessed July 2, 2014.
  90. Available at: . Accessed July 2, 2014.
  91. Peppercorn J, Burstein H, Miller FG, Winer E, Joffe S. Self-reported practices and attitudes of US oncologists regarding off-protocol therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 20;26(36):5994-6000.
  92. Available at: . Accessed June 23, 2014.
  93. Available at: . Accessed July 9, 2014.
  94. Available at: . Accessed July 9, 2014.
  95. Available at: Accessed July 9, 2014.
  96. Available at: . Accessed June 24, 2014.
  97. Available at: . Accessed June 24, 2014.
  98. Chattopadhyay M, Kodela R, Kashfi K. P09 Therapeutic potential of NOSH-aspirin, a dual nitric oxide- and hydrogen sulfide-donating hybrid in colon cancer. Nitric Oxide. 2013 Sep 1;31 Suppl 2:S37-8.
  99. Fraser DM, Sullivan FM, Thompson AM, McCowan C. Aspirin use and survival after the diagnosis of breast cancer: a population-based cohort study. Br J Cancer. 2014 Jun 19.
  100. Yue W, Yang CS, DiPaola RS, Tan XL. Repurposing of metformin and aspirin by targeting AMPK-mTOR and inflammation for pancreatic cancer prevention and treatment. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2014 Apr;7(4):388-97.
  101. Ucbek A, Ozünal ZG, Uzun O, Gepdıremen A. Effect of metformin on the human T98G glioblastoma multiforme cell line. Exp Ther Med. 2014 May;7(5):1285-90.
  102. Zhang ZJ, Bi Y, Li S, et al. Reduced risk of lung cancer with metformin therapy in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Jul 1;180(1):11-4.
  103. Wang Z, Lai ST, Xie L, et al. Metformin is associated with reduced risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Apr 18.
  104. Fasih A, Elbaz HA, Hüttemann M, Konski AA, Zielske SP. Radiosensitization of Pancreatic Cancer Cells by Metformin through the AMPK Pathway. Radiat Res. 2014 Jul;182(1)50-9.
  105. Queiroz EA, Puukila S, Eichler R, et al. Metformin Induces Apoptosis and Cell Cycle Arrest Mediated by Oxidative Stress, AMPK and FOXO3a in MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cells. PLoS One. 2014 May 23;9(5):e98207.
  106. Takahashi A, Kimura F, Yamanaka A, et al. Metformin impairs growth of endometrial cancer cells via cell cycle arrest and concomitant autophagy and apoptosis. Cancer Cell Int. 2014 Jun 16;14:53.
  107. Joshua AM, Zannella VE, Downes MR, et al. A pilot ‘window of opportunity’ neoadjuvant study of metformin in localised prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014 May 27.
  108. Preston MA, Riis AH, Ehrenstein V, et al. Metformin Use and Prostate Cancer Risk. Eur Urol. 2014 May 21. pii: S0302-2838(14)00408-4.
  109. Zhang T, Zhang L, Zhang T, et al. Metformin Sensitizes Prostate Cancer Cells to Radiation Through EGFR/p-DNA-PKCS In Vitro and In Vivo. Radiat Res . 2014 Jun;181(6):641-9.
  110. Miyoshi H, Kato K, Iwama H, et al. Effect of the anti-diabetic drug metformin in hepatocellular carcinoma in vitro and in vivo. Int J Oncol. 2014 Jul;45(1):322-32.
  111. Cho SW, Yi KH, Han SK, et al. Therapeutic potential of metformin in papillary thyroid cancer in vitro and in vivo. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2014 Jun 3;393(1-2):24-29.
  112. Yen YC, Lin C, Lin SW, Lin YS, Weng SF. Effect of metformin on the incidence of head and neck cancer in diabetes. Head Neck. 2014 May 7.
  113. Sun XJ, Zhang P, Li HH, Jiang ZW, Jiang CC, Liu H. Cisplatin combined with metformin inhibits migration and invasion of human nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells by regulating E-cadherin and MMP-9. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014 15(9):4019-23.
  114. Cerezo M, Tomic T, Ballotti R, Rocchi S. Is it time to test biguanide metformin in the treatment of melanoma? Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2014 May 24.
  115. Nenu I, Popescu T, Aldea MD, et al. Metformin associated with photodynamic therapy - A novel oncological direction. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2014 May 21;138C:80-91.
  116. Kantarjian H, Giles F, List A, et al. The incidence and impact of thrombocytopenia in myelodysplastic syndromes. Cancer. 2007 May 1;109(9):1705-14.
  117. Quintás-Cardama A, Kantarjian H, Ravandi F, et al. Bleeding diathesis in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia receiving dasatinib therapy. Cancer. 2009 Jun 1;115(11):2482-90.
  118. Rickles FR, Falanga A, Montesinos P, Sanz MA, Brenner B, Barbui T. Bleeding and thrombosis in acute leukemia: what does the future of therapy look like? Thromb Res. 2007;120 Suppl 2:S99-106.
  119. Avvisati G, Tirindelli MC, Annibali O. Thrombocytopenia and hemorrhagic risk in cancer patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003 Oct 15;48(Suppl):S13-6.
  120. Kris MG, Johnson BE, Berry LD, et al. Using multiplexed assays of oncogenic drivers in lung cancers to select targeted drugs. JAMA. 2014 May 21;311(19):1998-2006.
  121. Available at: . Accessed July 12, 2014.
  122. Available at: Accessed July 12, 2014.
  123. Swain SM, Whaley FS, Ewer MS. Congestive heart failure in patients treated with doxorubicin: a retrospective analysis of three trials. Cancer. 2003 Jun 1;97(11):2869-79.
  124. Delozier T, Vernhes JC. Comparative study of adriamycin, epirubicin and mitoxantrone in cancer of the breast. Review of the literature. Bull Cancer. 1991 Nov;78(11):1013-25.
  125. Wiseman LR, Spencer CM. Mitoxantrone. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in the management of hormone-resistant advanced prostate cancer. Drugs Aging. 1997 Jun;10(6):473-85.
  126. Henderson IC, Allegra JC, Woodcock T, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing mitoxantrone with doxorubicin in previously treated patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1989 May;7(5):560-71.
  127. Available at: . Accessed July 3, 2014.
  128. Available at: . Accessed July 3, 2014.
  129. Available at: . Accessed July 3, 2014.
  130. Available at: Accessed July 3, 2014.
  131. Soderberg-Naucler C, Rahbar A, Stragliotto G. Survival in patients with glioblastoma receiving valganciclovir. NEJM. Sep 5 2013;369(10):985-6.
  132. Dziurzynski K, Chang SM, Heimberger AB, et al. Consensus on the role of human cytomegalovirus in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2012 Mar 14(3):246-55.
  133. Barami K. Oncomodulatory mechanisms of human cytomegalovirus in gliomas. J Clin Neurosci. 2010 July 17(7):819-23.
  134. Soroceanu L, Cobbs CS. Is HCMV a tumor promoter? Virus Res. 2011 May 157(2):193-203.
  135. Available at: Accessed June 26, 2014.
  136. Available at: . Accessed June 26, 2014.
  137. Available at: . Accessed June 30, 2014.
  138. Available at: =. Accessed June 30, 2014.
  139. Available at: ?vgnextoid=19b381d71adc5410VgnVCM10000076192ca2RCRD&vgnextfmt=default . Accessed June 30, 2014.