|
Other common
name(s): immunoaugmentative therapy, immuno-augmentative
therapy, immune augmentative therapy, immune augmentation therapy,
immuno-augmentation therapy, IAT
Scientific/medical
name(s): none
Description
Immuno-augmentative therapy (IAT) is promoted as an
alternative form of cancer treatment. It consists of daily injections
of a protein mixture made from human blood with the goal of helping the
patient's immune system to attack the cancer. The protein mixture is
claimed to contain antitumor antibodies and "deblocking proteins" from
healthy donors.
Overview
Available scientific evidence does not support claims that IAT
is effective in treating cancer. The existence of "blocking" and
"deblocking" proteins has not been verified. In the past, infections
have developed in some patients while they were receiving this
treatment, although currently this does not seem to be a problem.
IAT should not be confused with immunotherapy, a type of
mainstream cancer treatment that uses cytokines (immune system
hormones), antibodies, vaccines, and other methods to boost the immune
system's attack on cancer cells.
How is it promoted for use?
Proponents claim IAT is a safe, nontoxic, and effective
treatment for all types of cancer. They claim IAT causes cancer to
stabilize or go into remission. It is not promoted as a cure for
cancer, but as a long-term treatment. Like diabetics, IAT patients are
told that they can live normal lives as long as they continue to have
daily injections.
Practitioners of IAT believe that cancer cells begin to grow
and multiply when a person's immune system is out of balance. The
components of IAT, which are derived from human blood, consist of
antitumor antibodies, which attack the cancer, and "deblocking
proteins," which remove a "blocking factor" that prevents the patient's
immune system from detecting the cancer.
What does it involve?
This therapy involves daily injections under the skin of a
protein mixture made from human blood. The first IAT session requires a
trip to an IAT clinic. At the clinic, a patient is given a physical
exam and blood and urine tests. The results of these tests are fed into
a computer program to determine the patient's immune system status.
Once this is done, IAT treatment begins. Patients are given daily IAT
injections according to their particular situation. Blood tests are
done once or twice a day, 5 days a week, to measure "immune response"
and to determine the dose of treatment to be given the next day.
Treatment continues until the practitioner believes that the patient's
cancer is controlled.
The initial treatments require patients to stay in the area of
the clinic for an average of 3 to 3 months. The patient is then shown
how to self-inject and is sent home to continue treatment, although
further clinic visits may be needed.
What is the history behind it?
According to a 1991 review article in CA: A Cancer Journal for
Clinicians, biologist Lawrence Burton, PhD, developed IAT
in the early 1970s, based on his research with fruit flies and mice. He
developed a mixture of blood proteins that he believed would slow or
stop the growth of cancer cells. He claimed that IAT caused cancer in
mice to go into remission. However, a 1990 report from the U.S. Office
of Technology Assessment (OTA) said that other researchers questioned
the validity of Burton's claims and tried to replicate his experiments
but could not achieve the same results.
According to the OTA report, Dr. Burton first offered his
treatment to cancer patients in 1973, when he and some sponsors
established the Immunology Research Foundation in Great Neck, New York.
The CA article notes that in 1974 Dr. Burton submitted an
investigational new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to begin human trials with IAT. He later withdrew
his application when the FDA asked for further details about his
experimental evidence.
In 1977, Dr. Burton closed his New York clinic and opened the
Immunology Researching Centre in the Bahamas. According to the OTA
report, representatives of the Bahamian Ministry of Health and the Pan
American Health Organization visited his facility in 1978 and reviewed
the charts of several patients. The report they filed concluded that
"no consistent treatment effect has been achieved when assessed by
objective criteria." The report also stated:
The material being used to
treat patients is similarly a totally unknown quantity. Although the
various fractions are referred to by Dr. Burton as 'antibody fractions'
and 'complement fractions,' there is in fact no evidence that any of
these fractions do contain antibody of any relevance to the tumor
involved or that in fact there are any active or even inactive
complement components.
The OTA report mentioned that the representatives noted that
the "[Immunology Researching Centre] was not carrying out its stated
intent…to evaluate IAT as a cancer treatment." The group's
report concluded that "the present procedures of the Center do not
permit any meaningful evaluation," and recommended that the clinic be
closed. The clinic remained open despite these findings. The OTA report
stated that Bahamian health authorities closed the clinic in 1985 on
charges that the compounds used for IAT injections may have been
contaminated with hepatitis B virus and HIV, after samples were tested
by the State of Washington's Health Department and the CDC. The clinic
reopened less than a year later. In the late 1980s Dr. Burton opened
additional clinics in West Germany and Mexico.
The OTA report noted that, during the late 1970s and early
1980s, National Cancer Institute officials contacted Dr. Burton asking
to evaluate his IAT techniques. No agreement could be reached on
research methods and Dr. Burton never disclosed his technique for
isolating the blood proteins in IAT, which he had patented. In 1986,
the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, working with Dr. Burton,
developed procedures for a clinical trial of IAT on patients with colon
cancer. Communication between Dr. Burton and the OTA eventually broke
down and the OTA's final report stated that "no reliable data are
available on which to base a determination of IAT's efficacy."
The OTA report states that the FDA imposed a ban on the import
of IAT drugs in 1986 "due to the direct hazards that have been
associated with IAT agents."
Dr. Burton died in 1993, but his clinic in the Bahamas
continues to operate. Though the clinic has had a different name since
2003, the clinic's Web site notes that it is part of the IRC.
What is the evidence?
The concept that cancer can be treated by enhancing the
activity of the immune system is reasonable and is the basis for
mainstream immunotherapy. Unlike IAT, however, conventional
immunotherapy is founded on scientific principles of immunology and is
tested in clinical trials. It has been shown to be useful in treating
melanoma, lymphoma, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, and other types of
cancer.
Available scientific evidence does not support claims that IAT
is effective in treating people with cancer. Success stories associated
with the treatment are based mainly on individual reports provided by
Dr. Burton's clinics, and they include little or no supporting
evidence.
No outside laboratories or researchers have confirmed the
existence of the "blocking" or "deblocking" proteins, which are an
essential part of Dr. Burton's theory and treatment. The 1991 CA
article notes that a contract between Dr. Burton and MetPath (now Quest
Diagnostics), a large biomedical laboratory firm, was terminated in
December 1980.
The OTA report states:
According to a 1981 letter
from Paul Brown, MD, Chairman of the Board of MetPath at the time of
the interaction with Burton, MetPath was unable to develop a reliable
test based on Burton's information and “extensive laboratory
testing.” There were 25 percent false positives in patients
without cancer, and 25 percent false negatives in patients with cancer.
There have been no published reports of randomized controlled
clinical trials or of any type of prospective studies of IAT.
Dr. Burton published one best case series of 11 patients with
mesothelioma (a cancer of the lining surrounding the lungs or other
organs) in 1988. The extent of the patients' cancer was not described.
According to the report, the average survival time on IAT was about 30
months, which is longer than is normally seen in these patients. This
was a small group of selected patients, and no formal studies have been
done to confirm these results.
Another small best case series was conducted for the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality to determine if IAT warranted
further study. Researchers looked at the medical records of 60 cancer
patients treated at the IAT clinic in the Bahamas. Of these, 9 were
found to have had positive outcomes and enough verified data to be
considered in the series, although the researchers noted that even some
of these records were not complete. While this was a selected best case
series and not a predesigned study, the overall suggestion was that
there was enough evidence "to recommend that a random controlled trial
could be considered."
Researchers from the University of Kentucky evaluated the
results of 46 cancer patients treated consecutively at an IAT clinic in
Mexico during 1989 and published their findings in June 2003. While no
significant side effects were noted, none of the patients' tumors
shrank. In 40 patients (87 percent), the cancer progressed, and 25 of
these patients died within 6 months. Quality of life got worse in 35 of
the 46 patients during the 3 months of treatment, although overall, 38
of the patients decided to continue getting IAT. The researchers
concluded that the study did not justify the continued use of IAT.
Are there any possible problems and
complications?
These
substances may have not been thoroughly tested to find out how they
interact with medicines, foods, or dietary supplements. Even though
some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full
studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of
these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions
below should be considered incomplete.
The safety of IAT has not been established in clinical
studies. Based on individual reports from patients who have received
IAT, side effects appear to be minor and include fatigue, pain at the
injection site, and flu-like symptoms. Some medical professionals fear
that infectious agents, such as HIV and hepatitis B virus, may
contaminate the unregulated compounds used in IAT, which come from
human blood. While there were reports of such exposures in the 1980s,
none have been reported in recent years.
Relying on this type of treatment and avoiding or delaying
conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health
consequences.
Additional Resources
More information from your American Cancer
Society
The following information on complementary and alternative
therapies may also be helpful to you. These materials may be found on
our Web site (www.cancer.org)
or ordered from our toll-free number (1-800-ACS-2345).
References
American Cancer Society. Questionable methods of cancer
management. Immuno-augmentative therapy (IAT). CA Cancer J Clin.
1991;41:357-364.
Barrett S. Immuno-augmentative therapy. Accessed at:
www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/iat.html on June 11,
2008.
Clement RJ, Burton L, Lampe GN. Peritoneal mesothelioma.
Quantum Medicine: A J
Comp Thera. 1988;1:68-73.
Coulter I, Hardy M, Shekelle P, et al. Best-Case Series for
the Use of Immuno-Augmentation Therapy and Naltrexone for the Treatment
of Cancer. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 78 (Prepared by
Southern California-RAND Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract
No 290-97-0001). AHRQ Publication No. 03-E030. Rockville, MD: Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2003.
Green S. Immunoaugmentative therapy. An unproven cancer
treatment. JAMA.
1993;70:1719-1723.
Pfeifer BL, Jonas WB. Clinical evaluation of
"immunoaugmentative therapy (IAT)": An unconventional cancer treatment.
Integr Cancer Ther.
2003 Jun;2(2):112-119.
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Cancer. Immune
augmentation therapy: Detailed scientific review. 2005. Accessed at:
www.mdanderson.org/departments/cimer/display.cfm?id=ADFAC0FB-16E9-11D5-811000508B603A14&method=displayFull&pn=6EB86A59-EBD9-11D4-810100508B603A14
on June 11, 2008.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Unconventional
Cancer Treatments. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1990.
Publication OTA-H-405.
Note:
This
information may not cover all possible claims, uses, actions,
precautions, side effects or interactions. It is not intended as
medical advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for
consultation with your doctor, who is familiar with your medical
situation.
Last Medical Review: 11/01/2008
Last Revised: 11/01/2008
|
