THC Cuts Lung Cancer Growth

Jim Finnel

Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.

Acting through cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, endocannabinoids (as well as THC) are thought to play a role in variety of biological functions, including pain and anxiety control, and inflammation. Although a medical derivative of THC, known as Marinol, has been approved for use as an appetite stimulant for cancer patients, and a small number of U.S. states allow use of medical marijuana to treat the same side effect, few studies have shown that THC might have anti-tumor activity, Preet says. The only clinical trial testing THC as a treatment against cancer growth was a recently completed British pilot study in human glioblastoma.

In the present study, the researchers first demonstrated that two different lung cancer cell lines as well as patient lung tumor samples express CB1 and CB2, and that non-toxic doses of THC inhibited growth and spread in the cell lines. "When the cells are pretreated with THC, they have less EGFR stimulated invasion as measured by various in-vitro assays," Preet said.

Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression, Preet says.

Although the researchers do not know why THC inhibits tumor growth, they say the substance could be activating molecules that arrest the cell cycle. They speculate that THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.

Preet says much work is needed to clarify the pathway by which THC functions, and cautions that some animal studies have shown that THC can stimulate some cancers. "THC offers some promise, but we have a long way to go before we know what its potential is," she said.



News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: ENCOD
Copyright: 2008 European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies
Contact: Encod.org
Website: THC CUTS LUNG CANCER GROWTH - Encod.org
 
What a great finding!

What I really like is that this is a REAL scientific study, done by PhDs at Harvard.

There's another study making headline news all over the place today about how THC supposedly increases testicular cancer rates. That study is anecdotal pseudo-science, but it's getting way more press than this Harvard experiment.

The testicular cancer one is based on a survey of 369 people, claiming that those who smoked weed had a 70% higher chance of getting testicular cancer. While 70% sounds like a big number, it really means your yearly chance of getting the cancer goes from 0.01% to 0.017%. Such a tiny change (0.007%) is well within the margin-of-error in a survey of 369 people. Further, the study makes no connection between cause and effect at all! Maybe the weed-smokers had more sex, and excessive sex is the cause of the cancer. Or maybe poor people smoke more weed, and the cause is nutrition-based. Or maybe they just happened to pick a group of 369 people where a couple more of the weed smokes happened to get cancer. The study is totally meaningless.

But that's the world we live in. Harvard PhDs are ignored if their findings are pro-weed, while junk-science is headline news if it sustains reefer madness.
 
Back
Top Bottom