Dataset Information

Cannabinoids and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Animal Studies.

ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer is a major cause of death among men worldwide. Recent preclinical evidence implicates cannabinoids as powerful regulators of cell growth and differentiation, as well as potential anti-cancer agents. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effect of cannabinoids on in vivo prostate cancer models. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to August 2020. Articles reporting on the effect of cannabinoids on prostate cancer were deemed eligible. We identified six studies that were all found to be based on in vivo/xenograft animal models. Results: In PC3 and DU145 xenografts, WIN55,212-2 reduced cell proliferation in a dose-dependent manner. Furthermore, in LNCaP xenografts, WIN55,212-2 reduced cell proliferation by 66-69%. PM49, which is a synthetic cannabinoid quinone, was also found to result in a significant inhibition of tumor growth of up to 90% in xenograft models of LNCaP and 40% in xenograft models of PC3 cells, respectively. All studies have reported that the treatment of prostate cancers in in vivo/xenograft models with various cannabinoids decreased the size of the tumor, the outcomes of which depended on the dose and length of treatment. Within the limitation of these identified studies, cannabinoids were shown to reduce the size of prostate cancer tumors in animal models. However, further well-designed and controlled animal studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

SUBMITTER: Singh K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7503992 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cannabinoids and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Animal Studies.

Singh Kanika K Jamshidi Negar N Zomer Roby R Piva Terrence J TJ Mantri Nitin N

International journal of molecular sciences 20200829 17

Prostate cancer is a major cause of death among men worldwide. Recent preclinical evidence implicates cannabinoids as powerful regulators of cell growth and differentiation, as well as potential anti-cancer agents. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effect of cannabinoids on in vivo prostate cancer models. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to August 2020. Articles reporting on the effect of cannabinoids on prostate cancer were deeme ...[more]

PMID: 32872551

Similar Datasets

Project description:Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer in men. Screening for prostate cancer is widely accepted; however concerns regarding the harms outweighing the benefits of screening exist. Although patient's play a pivotal role in the decision making process, men may not be aware of the controversies regarding prostate cancer screening. Therefore we aimed to describe men's attitudes, beliefs and experiences of prostate cancer screening.Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on men's perspectives of prostate cancer screening. Electronic databases and reference lists were searched to October 2016.Sixty studies involving 3,029 men aged from 18-89 years, who had been screened for prostate cancer by Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) or Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) and not screened, across eight countries were included. Five themes were identified: Social prompting (trusting professional opinion, motivation from family and friends, proximity and prominence of cancer); gaining decisional confidence (overcoming fears, survival imperative, peace of mind, mental preparation, prioritising wellbeing); preserving masculinity (bodily invasion, losing sexuality, threatening manhood, medical avoidance); avoiding the unknown and uncertainties (taboo of cancer-related death, lacking tangible cause, physiological and symptomatic obscurity, ambiguity of the procedure, confusing controversies); and prohibitive costs.Men are willing to participate in prostate cancer screening to prevent cancer and gain reassurance about their health, particularly when supported or prompted by their social networks or healthcare providers. However, to do so they needed to mentally overcome fears of losing their masculinity and accept the intrusiveness of screening, the ambiguities about the necessity and the potential for substantial costs. Addressing the concerns and priorities of men may facilitate informed decisions about prostate cancer screening and improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Project description:Body composition parameters are not captured by measures of body mass, which may explain inconsistent associations between body weight and prostate cancer (PC) risk. The objective of this systematic review was to characterize the association between fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) parameters and PC risk. A search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science identified case-control and cohort studies that measured body composition in relation to PC risk. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Thirteen observational studies were included, of which 8 were case-control studies (n = 1572 cases, n = 1937 controls) and 5 were prospective cohort studies (n = 7854 incident cases with PC). The NOS score was 5.9 ± 1.1 for case-control studies and 8.4 ± 1.3 for cohort studies. The most common body composition technique was bioelectrical impedance analysis (n = 9 studies), followed by DXA (n = 2), computed tomography (n = 2), air displacement plethysmography (n = 1), and MRI (n = 1). No case-control studies reported differences in %FM between PC cases and controls and no consistent differences in FM or FFM (in kilograms) were observed. Two out of 5 cohort studies reported that higher %FM was associated with lower PC risk. Conversely, 3 cohort studies reported a greater risk of being diagnosed with advanced/aggressive PC with higher FM (expressed in kilograms, %FM, or fat distribution). Two out of 4 studies (both case-control and cohort) found that higher abdominal adipose tissue was associated with increased PC risk. In conclusion, although results were inconsistent, there is some evidence that FM may be negatively associated with total PC risk but positively associated with the risk of advanced/aggressive PC; modest evidence suggests that abdominal adipose tissue may increase the risk of PC. Future work should elucidate unique patterns of FM distribution and PC risk to triage men at risk for developing PC. This study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database as CRD42019133388.

Project description:BackgroundFor patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids, which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects. Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of randomized clinical trials in recent years; therefore, a systematic review of the evidence was warranted.ObjectiveTo analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases.Eligibility criteriaEnglish language randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain.Data extraction and synthesisStudy quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All stages were conducted independently by a team of 6 reviewers. Data were pooled through meta-analysis with different durations of treatment (2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months) and stratified by route of administration (smoked, oromucosal, oral), conditions, and type of cannabinoids.Main outcomes and measuresPatient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs).ResultsThirty-six trials (4006 participants) were included, examining smoked cannabis (4 trials), oromucosal cannabis sprays (14 trials), and oral cannabinoids (18 trials). Compared with placebo, cannabinoids showed a significant reduction in pain which was greatest with treatment duration of 2 to 8 weeks (weighted mean difference on a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale -0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.96 to -0.40, I 2 = 8%, P < .00001; n = 16 trials). When stratified by route of administration, pain condition, and type of cannabinoids, oral cannabinoids had a larger reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to oromucosal and smoked formulations but the difference was not significant (P[interaction] > .05 in all the 3 durations of treatment); cannabinoids had a smaller reduction in pain due to multiple sclerosis compared with placebo relative to other neuropathic pain (P[interaction] = .05) within 2 weeks and the difference was not significant relative to pain due to rheumatic arthritis; nabilone had a greater reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to other types of cannabinoids longer than 2 weeks of treatment but the difference was not significant (P[interaction] > .05). Serious AEs were rare, and similar across the cannabinoid (74 out of 2176, 3.4%) and placebo groups (53 out of 1640, 3.2%). There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo.ConclusionsThere was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic, non-cancer pain at 2 weeks. Similar results were observed at later time points, but the confidence in effect is low. There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs, although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use.

Dataset Information

Cannabinoids and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Animal Studies.

Publications

Cannabinoids and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Animal Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets