| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Clinical Pharmacology |
a Biomedical Analysis, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; b Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, Slotervaart Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; c Department of Medical Oncology & Experimental Therapy, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital/The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Key Words. Herb–drug interactions • Chemotherapeutics • Induction • PXR • VDR • CAR
Correspondence: Irma Meijerman, Ph.D.,Biomedical Analysis, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University Sorbonnelaan 16, PO Box 80082, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: 31-30-2537590; Fax: 31-30-2535180; e-mail address: i.meijerman{at}pharm.uu.nl
An increasing number of cancer patients are using complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) in combination with their conventional chemotherapeutic treatment. Considering the narrow therapeutic window of oncolytic drugs, this CAM use increases the risk of clinically relevant herb–anticancer drug interactions. Such a relevant interaction is that of St. John’s wort with the anticancer drugs irinotecan and imatinib. It is, however, estimated that CAM–anticancer drug interactions are responsible for substantially more unexpected toxicities of chemotherapeutic drugs and possible undertreatment seen in cancer patients.
Induction of drug-metabolizing enzymes and ATP-binding cassette drug transporters can be one of the mechanisms behind CAM–anticancer drug interactions. Induction will often lead to therapeutic failure because of lower plasma levels of the anticancer drugs, and will easily go unrecognized in cancer treatment, where therapeutic failure is common.
Recently identified nuclear receptors, such as the pregnane X receptor, the constitutive androstane receptor, and the vitamin D-binding receptor, play an important role in the induction of metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters. This knowledge has already been an aid in the identification of some CAM probably capable of causing interactions with anticancer drugs: kava-kava, vitamin E, quercetin, ginseng, garlic, β-carotene, and echinacea. Evidently, more research is necessary to prevent therapeutic failure and toxicity in cancer patients and to establish guidelines for CAM use.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  R. T. Lee, F. J. Hlubocky, J.-J. Hu, R. S. Stafford, and C. K. Daugherty An International Pilot Study of Oncology Physicians' Opinions and Practices on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Integr Cancer Ther, June 1, 2008; 7(2): 70 - 75. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Takagi, M. Nakajima, T. Mohri, and T. Yokoi Post-transcriptional Regulation of Human Pregnane X Receptor by Micro-RNA Affects the Expression of Cytochrome P450 3A4 J. Biol. Chem., April 11, 2008; 283(15): 9674 - 9680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. S. Eschiti Lesson From Comparison of CAM Use by Women With Female-Specific Cancers to Others: It's Time to Focus on Interaction Risks With CAM Therapies Integr Cancer Ther, December 1, 2007; 6(4): 313 - 344. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Marchetti, R. Mazzanti, J. H. Beijnen, and J. H. M. Schellens Concise Review: Clinical Relevance of Drug Drug and Herb Drug Interactions Mediated by the ABC Transporter ABCB1 (MDR1, P-glycoprotein) Oncologist, August 1, 2007; 12(8): 927 - 941. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| THE ONCOLOGIST | STEM CELLS | CME | ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS |
