Herbal compounds as promising therapeutic agents in precision medicine strategies for cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The field of personalized medicine has gained increasing attention in cancer care, with the aim of tailoring treatment strategies to individual patients for improved outcomes. Herbal medicine, with its long-standing historical use and extensive bioactive compounds, offers a rich source of potential treatments for various diseases, including cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the current knowledge and evidence associated with incorporating herbal compounds into precision medicine strategies for cancer diseases. Additionally, to explore the general characteristics of the studies included in the analysis, focusing on their key features and trends. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from multiple online databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL-EBSCO. The search strategy was designed to identify studies related to personalized cancer medicine and herbal interventions. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Publications pertaining to cancer research conducted through in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies, employing natural products were included in this review. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied inclusion and inclusion criteria, data extraction, and assessments of methodological quality. The quality assessment and biases of the studies were evaluated based on modified Jadad scales. A detailed quantitative summary of the included studies is presented, providing a comprehensive description of their key features and findings. RESULTS: A total of 121 studies were included in this review for analysis. Some of them were considered as comprehensive experimental investigations both in vitro and in vivo. The majority (n = 85) of the studies included in this review were conducted in vitro, with 44 of them specifically investigating the effects of herbal medicine on animal models. Additionally, 7 articles with a combined sample size of 31,271 patients, examined the impact of herbal medicine in clinical settings. CONCLUSION: Personalized medication can optimize the use of herbal medicine in cancer treatment by considering individual patient factors such as genetics, medical history, and other treatments. Additionally, active phytochemicals found in herbs have shown potential for inhibiting cancer cell growth and inducing apoptosis, making them a promising area of research in preclinical and clinical investigations. Please cite this article as: Tayeb BA, Kusuma IY, Osman AAM, Minorics R. Herbal compounds as promising therapeutic agents in precision medicine strategies for cancer: A systematic review. J Integr Med. 2024; 22(2): 137-162.

Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Comparative Study From Sudan.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing adverse effect. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA)-containing regimens are the standard regimens for CINV prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). NK1RA agents are expensive and were not registered in Sudan. Recently, regimens containing olanzapine, the available and affordable medication in Sudan, were introduced as another option. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of an olanzapine-containing regimen with the antiemetic regimen that was currently used in our institute for CINV prophylaxis in HEC/MEC settings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study prospectively compared an olanzapine-containing regimen (acute phase: olanzapine, ondansetron, dexamethasone; delayed phase: olanzapine, ondansetron) with an ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen (acute phase: ondansetron, dexamethasone; delayed phase: ondansetron) in adult patients with cancer receiving HEC or MEC. The study outcomes were complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medications) and nausea control (no nausea), which were assessed in the acute (0 to 24 hours), delayed (24 to 120 hours), and overall (0 to 120 hours) phases. RESULTS: The study included 131 patients (olanzapine-containing: 50 patients; ondansetron/dexamethasone: 81 patients). CR and nausea control were higher in the olanzapine-containing than in the ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen (CR: acute phase, 86% v 71.6%; P = .086; delayed phase, 72% v 30.9%; P < .001; overall phase, 66% v 25.9%; P < .001; nausea control: acute phase, 86% v 74.1%; P = .127; delayed phase, 76% v 34.6%; P < .001; overall phase, 72% v 29.6%; P < .001). The major toxicity of olanzapine was grade 1 and 2 sedation or drowsiness (25 patients). CONCLUSION: An olanzapine-containing regimen has better efficacy for prevention of CINV in the HEC/MEC setting. Oncologists working in a limited-resource setting should be familiar with olanzapine-containing regimens, because NK1RA agents are not affordable and not easily available.