Skip to main content

Resveratrol, wine, and cancer: an update


A recent study on the effects of resveratrol on prostate cancer highlights one of the tantalizing aspects of this red wine antioxidant: a long list of potential anti-cancer properties. It must be pointed out however that nearly all of the evidence for this comes from laboratory research, and though there are some clinical trials in progress it is premature to claim anti-cancer benefits for resveratrol supplements. But if any of it pans out it could lead to significant breakthroughs.

One of the things that make resveratrol so intriguing as an anti-cancer agent is that it not only suppresses cancer cell growth but seems to protect normal cells from the toxic effects of cancer treatment. Radiation treatment is a particularly troublesome therapy because of lasting effects on healthy cells in the treatment zone. But several lines of evidence suggest that resveratrol may pull off the ultimate hat trick: protecting the healthy cells while sensitizing cancerous cells to radiation.

This most recent study evaluated resveratrol as a ‘radiosensitizing” agent on a “radioresistant” clone of prostate cancer cells in culture.  (Again, not an animal study or human clinical trial.) This confirms findings of earlier studies on prostate cancer, but other tumor lines exhibit a similar response to resveratrol. One intriguing example is glioblastoma, a particularly aggressive form of brain cancer. [reference]  Melanoma cells may do likewise [reference] as do some types of lung cancer [reference].

Clinical evidence however points to a role for wine consumption. In a large series  from Italy,  patients undergoing radiation treatment for breast cancer had less irritation of the skin (called radiodermatitis) if they consumed red wine regularly. What is notable about this is that there isn’t enough resveratrol in wine to explain the effect. This is in fact the central dilemma about resveratrol as a candidate for all the healthy things that red wine does: lab studies show a plausible cause-effect explanation for observed inverse correlations between wine and disease, yet the amounts required to produce the effect are far more than what is available by consuming wine.

So what conclusion can we draw from this? First, much work needs to be done in the laboratory and the clinic before we can say definitively that resveratrol (or a derivative) is a useful adjunct to cancer treatment. Wine consumption generally correlates with reduced risk of cancer, in a J-shaped curve with the maximum benefit at moderate levels of consumption and increased risk with heavy consumption. It just doesn’t appear that this has much to do with resveratrol.

Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I will tell my friends about this good blog for them to read. I am sure they will like it so much because it contains much useful information for us.

    Retin-a cream

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Which came first: Beer or wine? (or something else?)

Actually neither beer nor wine was the first fermented beverage, and wine arguably has a closer connection to health, but recent evidence indicates that humans developed the ability to metabolize alcohol long before we were even human. The uniquely human ability to handle alcohol comes from the digestive enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase, or ADH4. A new science called paleogenetics identifies the emergence of the modern version of the ADH4 gene in our ape ancestors some 10 million years ago. Interestingly, this corresponds to the time when our arboreal forebears transitioned to a nomadic lifestyle on the ground. We went from swinging from tree limbs to walking upright, and the rest is history. Understanding the circumstances that led to perpetuation of the ADH4 mutation may contain clues to what made us human in the first place. How the ability to metabolize alcohol made us human Paleogenetecist Matthew Carrigan has an idea about how this happened . Arboreal species rely on fruit tha

Why I am not surprised that the NIH cancelled the alcohol-health study

Not long after enrolling the first patients in the much hyped prospective study on alcohol and health, the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they were pulling the plug. I am actually more surprised that they ever got it off the ground in the first place. As I wrote a year ago when the study was still in its planning stages, there were too many competing interests, criticisms of the study design, and concerns about funding to expect that whatever results came out would be universally accepted. Nevertheless, I am disappointed. The study, called Moderate Alcohol and Cardiovascular Health Trial (MACH) was intended to provide hard evidence about the health effects of moderate alcohol consumption by prospectively assigning subjects with heart disease to one drink per day or not drinking, which they were to follow for up to 10 years. Most existing data on the question is retrospective, or simply tracks a subject population according to their drinking preferences, w