ReviewSeminars in cancer biology2016
Food-based natural products for cancer management: Is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?
Review in Seminars in cancer biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research Progress on the Anti-Inflammatory and Antioxidant Effects of Daidzein: Its Mechanisms of Action in Related Diseases, and Related Nanoformulations to Enhance Its Bioavailability.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Interplay Between Traditional and Scientific Knowledge: Phytoconstituents and Their Roles in Lung and Colorectal Cancer Signaling Pathways.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Plant-Derived Anti-Cancer Therapeutics and Biopharmaceuticals.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Chlorogenic Acid and Cinnamaldehyde in Combination Inhibit Metastatic Traits and Induce Apoptosis via Akt Downregulation in Breast Cancer Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Natural Compounds and Breast Cancer: Chemo-Preventive and Therapeutic Capabilities of Chlorogenic Acid and Cinnamaldehyde.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Comparative Anticancer Potential of Green Tea Extract and Epigallocatechin-3-gallate on Breast Cancer Spheroids.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Extracellular Polysaccharide fromJournal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2022Article
- Use of cucurbitacins for lung cancer research and therapy.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2021Review
- Leukoplakia and Immunology: New Chemoprevention Landscapes?International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Dietary phytochemicals as the potential protectors against carcinogenesis and their role in cancer chemoprevention.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2020Review
- Role and Mechanism of Rhizopus Nigrum Polysaccharide EPS1-1 as Pharmaceutical for Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- Nanotechnology-Based Strategies for Berberine Delivery System in Cancer Treatment: Pulling Strings to Keep Berberine in Power.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Review
- Avenanthramide A triggers potent ROS-mediated anti-tumor effects in colorectal cancer by directly targeting DDX3.Cell death & disease · 2019Article
- The Roles of Plant-Derived Triptolide on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Oncology research · 2019Review
- Role of Key Micronutrients from Nutrigenetic and Nutrigenomic Perspectives in Cancer Prevention.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Review
- Andrographolide induces DNA damage in prostate cancer cells.Oncotarget · 2019Article
- Specific Cytotoxic Effects of Parasporal Crystal Proteins Isolated from Native Saudi ArabianMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- The immunomodulatory potential of natural compounds in tumor-bearing mice and humans.Critical reviews in food science and nutrition · 2019Review
- Dietary phytochemicals in breast cancer research: anticancer effects and potential utility for effective chemoprevention.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The rise in cancer incidence and mortality in developing countries together with the human and financial cost of current cancer therapy mandates a closer look at alternative ways to overcome this burgeoning global healthcare problem. Epidemiological evidence for the association between cancer and diet and the long latency of most cancer progression have led to active exploration of whole and isolated natural chemicals from different naturally occurring substances in various preclinical and clinical settings. In general the lack of systemic toxicities of most 'whole' and 'isolated' natural compounds, their potential to reduce toxic doses and potential to delay the development of drug-resistance makes them promising candidates for cancer management. This review article examines the suggested molecular mechanisms affected by these substances focusing to a large extent on prostate cancer and deliberates on the disparate results obtained from cell culture, preclinical and clinical studies in an effort to highlight the use of whole extracts and isolated constituents for intervention. As such these studies underscore the importance of factors such as treatment duration, bioavailability, route of administration, selection criteria, standardized formulation and clinical end points in clinical trial design with both entities. Overall lack of parallel comparison studies between the whole natural products and their isolated compounds limits decisive conclusions regarding the superior utility of one over the other. We suggest the critical need for rigorous comparative research to identify which one of the two or both entities from nature would be best qualified to take on the mantle of cancer management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.