Interpret With Caution
This recent study from a skilled Austrian team of researchers notes differences in responses between mostly animal models of different human cancers. This team has done strong work in the field of metabolic dietary augmetation of cancer treatment- one notable contribution being finding an optimal ratio of fats (medium chain vs long chain) that support the strongest anti-cancer response. The findings of this team's review are summarized in the above chart. Stronger results in glioblastoma and consistent results in solid tumors such as prostate, colon, pancreatic, lung, and breast.
Scientists like surprises- though they like the surprises to be verified. This is how advances are made. The team noted in a small number of trials (and these were mouse or rat trials) a worse outcome in kidney cancer and melanoma. Here are some issues with this and why we should interpret this with caution.
The ketogenic diet has been used in conventional medicine for treatment of resistant epilepsy. There has been a longer term use of the diet as a metabolic approach to treating cancer. Nasha Winters in her excellent "The Metabolic Approach to Cancer" lays out the scientific groundwork in understandable terminology. Her book is well worth a read. The basic idea is that the Warburg effect in cancer cells- basically the cellular machinery needing and being greedy for glucose- is possible to use as a treatment for cancer. It is already used diagnostically as the basic premise for PET scans. Cancer cells tend not to be able to use ketones, enjoyed for centuries as the primary fuel for inuit people and there are many case reports of patients having responses to a ketogenic diet.
This is where I find the above study valuable- it does support my experience especially with glioblastoma. The ketogenic diet is a consistent refrain in survivor's treatment protocols in this terrible disease. I have also seen response in the solid tumors as outlined by these researchers. The science is evolving!