Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background. Intravenous vitamin C (IVC) is a contentious adjunctive cancer therapy, widely used in naturopathic and integrative oncology settings. We conducted a systematic review of human interventional and observational studies assessing IVC for use in cancer patients. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and AMED from inception to April 2013 for human studies examining the safety, effectiveness, or pharmacokinetics of IVC use in cancer patients. Results. Of 897 records, a total of 39 reports of 37 studies were included: 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 15 uncontrolled trials, 6 observational studies, and 14 case reports. IVC dosing ranged from 1 g to more than 200 g ascorbic acid per infusion, typically administered 2 to 3 times weekly. IVC does not appear to increase toxicity or interfere with antitumor effects of gemcitabine/erlotinib therapy or paclitaxel and carboplatin. Based on 1 RCT and data from uncontrolled human trials, IVC may improve time to relapse and possibly enhance reductions in tumor mass and improve survival in combination with chemotherapy. IVC may improve quality of life, physical function, and toxicities associated with chemotherapy, including fatigue, nausea, insomnia, constipation, and depression. Case reports document several instances of tumor regression and long-term disease-free survival associated with use of IVC. Conclusion. There is limited high-quality clinical evidence on the safety and effectiveness of IVC. The existing evidence is preliminary and cannot be considered conclusive but is suggestive of a good safety profile and potentially important antitumor activity; however, more rigorous evidence is needed to conclusively demonstrate these effects. IVC may improve the quality of life and symptom severity of patients with cancer, and several cases of cancer remission have been reported. Well-designed, controlled studies of IVC therapy are needed.

Keywords

ascorbic acid cancer chemotherapy interactions integrative oncology intravenous vitamin C naturopathic oncology quality of life systematic review vitamin C

Introduction

Intravenous vitamin C (IVC) is a commonly used therapy among naturopathic doctors and other integrative oncology health care practitioners. A survey published in 2010 evaluating the use of IVC among health care practitioners attending annual complementary medicine conferences found that 84% of complementary medicine practitioners (172 of 199 respondents) reported using IVC in more than 11 000 patients for various conditions, including cancer.¹ In addition to widespread use, a body of evidence is emerging on the biological effects of IVC in cancer patients. In 2006, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published 3 reports of objectively verified cases of cancer remission associated with IVC therapy.² Since then there has been an explosion of new research on the use of IVC, with 4 phase I trials as well as other reports published in the last 3 years alone.^3-8 Based on emerging data, IVC appears to have therapeutic potential in cancer patients; however, there is a lack of an unbiased synthesis of data on its safety and effectiveness.

IVC as a therapy for cancer was first developed in the 1970s by Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling.⁹ Cameron and Pauling published preliminary studies as case series and uncontrolled trials. Their work found longer survival times among advanced cancer patients treated with vitamin C given orally and intravenously, compared to controls who were not given the vitamin C, and when compared to expected survival times based on disease stage.^10,11 These studies have since been criticized for weak methodology; however, they sparked wider interest in vitamin C as a therapeutic agent for cancer care. More recent clinical and laboratory-based studies have investigated the effects of IVC on tumor growth, quality of life (QOL), potential interactions with chemotherapy, and mitigation of side effects from chemotherapy.^3,7 Laboratory studies demonstrate that vitamin C in high concentrations has antitumor and chemosensitizing effects.^12-14 Studies in humans have shown improvements in QOL and cancer-related symptoms.^6,8 Evidence to date while inconclusive is promising that IVC may represent an important emerging therapy with a spectrum of benefit for patients with cancer.

The mechanisms of high-dose IVC are distinct from those of orally administered vitamin C.¹⁵ Oral dosing achieves a maximum serum concentration of less than 250 µM (0.25 mM) due to the limited absorptive capacity of the gastrointestinal tract.^15,16 Intravenously administered vitamin C will increase serum levels more than 100-fold: up to 30 mM.¹⁵ In a study comparing a low dose of 1.25 g oral and IV vitamin C administration, there was a 6.6-fold greater plasma concentration achieved by the IV route over the oral route. Based on pharmacokinetic modeling, intravenous doses of 50 and 100 g were expected to yield plasma concentrations of approximately 13 to 15 mM, compared to 220 µM concentrations achieved by the maximum tolerated oral dose, 3 g 4 times daily.¹⁷ When present at such high serum concentrations, vitamin C generates the cytotoxic reactive oxygen species, hydrogen peroxide.^18-22 In normal cells, hydrogen peroxide is metabolized to water and oxygen according to the following reaction, by the enzyme catalase: 2H₂O₂ → 2H₂O + O_2.¹⁹ Tumor cells lack catalase, leaving them vulnerable to the cytotoxic effects of hydrogen peroxide and resulting in preferential cytolytic activity associated with high concentrations of vitamin C.^18-21,23,24 In addition to the inability to convert hydrogen peroxide, tumor cells selectively take up more vitamin C compared to normal cells through facilitated transport by glucose transporters (GLUT),^25-29 a process upregulated in tumor cells due to their increased metabolic need for glucose.^30,31

With an apparently high safety profile, and preliminary evidence suggesting plausible biological activity, this inexpensive and unpatentable agent deserves closer examination for its potential anticancer effects. We conducted a systematic review of the literature describing the use and pharmacokinetics of IVC therapy in patients with cancer. Our goal was to review and summarize this body of literature according to the safety and effectiveness of IVC use in cancer care, as well considering potential interactions with conventional chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Methods

Search Strategy

Electronic search strategies were developed and tested through an iterative process by an experienced medical information specialist in consultation with the review team. Using the OVID platform, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine), and PsycINFO. We also searched the Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, HTA, and NHS EED). The original searches were performed March 29, 2010, and updated to April 29, 2013.

Strategies used a combination of controlled vocabulary (eg, “Ascorbic Acid,” “Injections, Intravenous”) and keywords (eg, intravenous vitamin c, IV vitamin c). Vocabulary and syntax were adjusted across databases. There were no language or date restrictions on any of the searches. Additional references were also sought through hand-searching the bibliographies of relevant items. Authors were contacted to obtain details of unpublished studies.

Specific details regarding the search strategies appear in the appendix.

Inclusion Criteria

For inclusion, evidence had to come from human studies published in English, including clinical trials, uncontrolled trials, observational studies, case series, or case reports. Studies had to assess the safety and/or effectiveness of IVC in cancer patients with respect to one or more of the following: (a) antitumor effects, including tumor response; (b) survival, including overall survival and time to relapse or disease-free survival; (c) impact on side effects associated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy and/or cancer-related symptoms; (d) impact on QOL; or (e) interactions with conventional chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Studies assessing clinical surrogate outcomes were included if they examined endpoints directly related to cancer risk or tumor activity, such as tumor markers, or objective markers assessing healthy bodily function, such as hematological or immune function in cancer patients. IVC could be used as a single, adjuvant, or cyclic agent in studies. We included controlled and uncontrolled studies; controlled studies had to compare patients with cancer receiving IVC to patients with cancer not receiving IVC. We excluded studies assessing oral vitamin C exclusively. In vitro and in vivo studies were excluded due to the high risk for confounding and previous work showing a lack of correlation between preclinical and clinical results.³²

Record Screening and Selection

First pass record screening was conducted independently by 3 researchers (HF, GF, MC) based on title review, with second pass conducted on abstracts and/or full text where uncertainty existed. Disagreement between researchers was resolved by consensus. Reports published in English were included for full analysis if they met inclusion criteria.

Data Extraction

We piloted data extraction forms and conducted extraction in triplicate for 30% of studies to assess interresearcher reliability (HF, GF, MC). No major inconsistencies in data extraction were found. Extraction sheets were prepared based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for observational studies.^33-35 Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool,³⁶ and observational studies were assessed for quality using the NOS.³⁵

Results

Of 897 records screened, 39 records were included for full analysis and review. Figure 1 shows a flowchart of the literature search and study selection. Studies of IVC were categorized according to whether they consisted of high or low doses of vitamin C. Higher doses were considered 5 g or more, whereas studies using only 1 g were considered low dose. No studies used intermediate doses between 1 and 5 g. While studies using higher dosages are more reflective of common clinical practice when using IVC for anticancer purposes, we included low-dose studies as well for their data on the safety of IVC alongside specific chemotherapy regimens.

Figure 1.

Literature flowchart.

High-Dose IVC

We included 1 RCT, 7 uncontrolled phase I/II trials, 6 observational studies, and 14 case reports wherein high-dose IVC was employed.

Randomized Controlled Trials

A 2014 pilot RCT investigated the use of high-dose IVC in chemonaive patients with stage III-IV ovarian cancer.³⁷ The dosing schedule for IVC consisted of gradual dose escalation up to a target of either 75 g or 100 g vitamin C per infusion, depending on peak plasma concentration of vitamin C per individual; the target concentration was between 20 and 23 nM (350-400 mg/dL). IVC was given twice weekly. A total of 27 women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV ovarian cancer, who had undergone debulking surgery and who were currently receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy, were randomized to receive high-dose IVC twice per week for 12 months, or chemotherapy alone. IVC was given alongside chemotherapy for the first 6 months and then continued for another 6 months following the completion of chemotherapy, for a total 12 months of treatment. The study showed that IVC did not increase the toxicity of chemotherapy; women who received IVC treatment reported fewer side effects/toxicities related to chemotherapy in almost all categories of toxicity, including neurotoxicity, bone marrow toxicity, infection, hepatobiliary/pancreatic toxicity, toxicities in the renal/genitourinary, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal systems, as well as dermatological. There was no difference in lymphatic or cardiac toxicities. Patients receiving IVC reported ≤50% of the average number of grade I and II adverse events per encounter (visit), compared to the control group. Finally, patients were followed for survival for 5 years. Those who received IVC had a nonsignificant trend toward improved overall survival as well as the median time to disease progression or relapse. Median time to disease progression or relapse was 8.75 months longer in the IVC group (25.5 vs 16.75 months). The authors suggest the reason for lack of statistically significant findings with respect to this outcome was the small sample size, as the study was not adequately powered to detect efficacy. There may be a higher risk of bias in reporting of chemotherapy-associated side effects, given their often subjective nature; however, there is likely lower risk of bias with respect to hard outcomes such as time to relapse.

Phase I/II and Uncontrolled Studies

We included 7 uncontrolled phase I/II studies assessing high-dose IVC, described in Table 1.^3,5,7,38-42 These studies evaluated the maximum blood concentrations of vitamin C that can be achieved through IVC dosing, adverse events, dose-limiting toxicities, and safety in combination with chemotherapy and included preliminary estimates of tumor response, survival, and QOL.

Table 1.

Description of Human Trials of High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C (HD-IVC) Use in Cancer Patients.

Reference	n	Population	Intervention	Concomitant Therapy	Outcomes	Adverse Events (AEs)
Randomized controlled trials
Ma 2014	27	Stage III-IV ovarian cancer who had undergone debulking sx	High-dose IVC 2×/wk × 6 mo with chemo, plus 6 mo postchemo; c/t chemo alone	Paclitaxel, carboplatin	↓ Grade 1-II adverse events (P<0.05) ↑ Time to relapse and overall survival (NS trend)	IVC patients reported 5-fold fewer adverse treatment effects (neurotoxicity, myelosupression, infection, hepatobiliary/ pancreatic toxicity, and toxicities of the renal, pulmonary, and gastrointestincal tract)
Phase I/II studies
Stephenson 2013; Stephenson 2007	17	Variety of solid tumors including breast, colorectal, pancreatic, liver, lung, skin	Escalate to 50, 70, 90, and 110 g/m² dose groups, 4 d/wk × 4 wk	None	No objective tumor response 13 PD, 3 SD, 1 withdrawal QOL stable for first 2 wk; ↑ at wk 3/4 C_max 49 mM AUC no difference b/w 70/90/110 g/m² dose groups (~220 mM)	DLTs: grade 4 hypernatremia (n = 3) and grade 3 hypokalemia (n = 2) Mild-moderate AE: most commonly nausea or mild headache; 1-2 incidents each of hypertension, insomnia, abnormal urine color, decreased appetite, fatigue, chills, and hyperglycemia
Welsh 2013	15	Stage IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma; of 15 enrolled, 11 initiated IVC and 9 completed 1 cycle	Escalate to achieve plasma level ≥350 mg/dL (20 mM) 50-125 g given 2×/wk in 4 wk cycles until PD or toxicity	Gemcitabine	Plasma vitamin C levels ranged from 20 to 25 mM at 1-h postinfusion ↑ Performance status (6/9 patients) Mean survival 13 ± 2 months Time to progression 26 ± 7 wk	Dose limiting criteria not reached AE attributable to drug combination: dry mouth (n = 6) and diarrhea (n = 4) Grade 3 toxicities: elevated GGT (n = 2) and hypokalemia (n = 1), attributable to the disease process Other toxicities attributable to gemcitabine (ie, hematological)
Monti 2012	14	Stage IV pancreatic cancer	3 dose groups: escalate to 50, 75, 100 g IVC 3 d/wk × 8 wk	Gemcitabine and erlotinib	Nine patients completed study: 7SD, 2 PD	No evidence of increased toxicity with addition of IVC. Transient mild nausea and light headedness d/t osmotic load during infusion
					Tumor mass ↓ 10% to 42% in 8 of 9 pt	Other AE attributable to chemo, most commonly grade 1-2 hematological (n = 12)
					Mean progression-free survival 89 d; OS 182 d
					Plasma ascorbate in patients receiving 100 g was b/w 25.3 and 31.9 mM
Hoffer 2008, Robitaille 2009	51	Solid tumors or hematological malignancy	3 doses/wk of 0.4, 0.6, 0.9, or 1.5 g/kg of ascorbic acid, for 2 weeks	No anticancer treatment 4 weeks prior to study	Physical function (FACT-G) ↓ in low-dose group (P < .01) but stable in the higher dose groups (≥0.6 g/kg)1.5 g/kg dose maintained plasma vitamin C >10 mM for ~6 hours↑ 6-hour urinary oxalate (81.3 mg/6 h; normal 10-60 mg), but not associated with AENo change in serum creatinine (eGFR)	No differences in AE b/w dose levels: nausea, headache, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, flushing/perspiration (n = 1-2 for each AE, grade 1-2 for all)
Mikirova 2007	11	9 cancer patients and 2 healthy volunteers	15, 25, and 50 g single doses	None	Plasma antioxidant capacity (TRAP) pre and post IVC ↑ 2-4 fold	NR
					After 15 g, plasma vitamin C was between 3.4 and 5.1 mM
Yeom 2007	39	Stage IV cancer patients	10 g IVC 2× in a 3-day interval + oral intake of 4 g daily × 1 wk	None	↑ Global health score from 36 ± 18 to 55 ± 16 post-IVC (P = .001)	None reported
					↑ Functional scale (P < .05)
					↓ Symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, and appetite loss) (P < .005)
Riordan 2005	24	Most with colorectal primary tumors (19/24) and mets (22/24)	Continuous daily infusions of 150, 300, 430, 570, or 710 mg/kg, which is ~10, 30, 40, or 50g, ×8 weeks	None	Mean plasma ascorbate levels 1.1 ± 0.9 mM (range = 0.28-3.8 mM); not related to dose	Serious: 1 kidney stone, 1 incidence of reversible hypokalemia
					No significant change in RBCs, WBCs, neutrophils, lymphocytes, platelets, BUN, creatinine, hematocrit	Nonserious: nausea (n = 11), dry skin and mouth (n = 7), edema (n = 7), fatigue (n = 6)
					Slight ↓ in uric acid during therapy

Abbreviations: b/w, between; CR, complete response; d, day; d/t, due to; FACT-G, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General questionnaire; NR, not reported; OS, overall survival; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; pt, patient(s); SD, stable disease; TRAP, total radical trapping antioxidant parameter; wk, week.

Pharmacokinetics

Four trials and 1 observational study showed that blood concentrations of approximately 20 to 25 mM vitamin C can be achieved by administering the equivalent of between 50 and 70 g IVC.^3-5,7,38 Higher doses appear capable of achieving higher levels, with the equivalent of ~140 g (70 g/m²) achieving 49 mM,³ and 100 g achieving 31.9 mM⁵; however, there seems little additional benefit from higher dosages with respect to maximum blood concentrations (C_max). Stephenson et al evaluated doses of 50, 70, 90, and 110 g/m² (approximately equal to 100, 140, 180, and 220 g for a 6-foot, 180-lb male) and found that the serum concentrations plateaued at 49 mM with the 140 g dose (70 g/m²); therefore, 70 g/m² was recommended for further investigation by future studies.³ In addition, Stephenson et al found that each of the 3 highest dose groups were able to maintain plasma vitamin C level between 10 and 20 mM for 5 to 6 hours. Vitamin C was eliminated by first-order kinetics, and the elimination half-life (t_1/2) was approximately 2 hours, with a range of between 1.7 and 2.5 hours among the different dose cohorts.³

Tumor response

Two studies assessed tumor response. Of these, one reported no objective tumor response among 17 patients with solid tumors not receiving chemotherapy or radiation, when IVC 100 to 220 g was given 4 days weekly over a period of 4 weeks.³ In this study, 13 patients had progressive disease (PD), 3 had stable disease (SD), and 1 withdrew from the study for reasons not described. The second study was of 8 weeks duration and used 50, 75, or 100 g IVC 3 times per week alongside gemcitabine and erlotinib in patients with stage IV, metastatic pancreatic cancer.⁵ This study showed preliminary effects on tumor response.⁵ Of the 9 patients who completed this study, 7 had SD and 2 had PD. Three patients died during the study, and when these were included in the count, 5 patients had PD. Assessment of computed tomography or positron emission tomography–computed tomography scans by a blinded radiologist showed a decrease in tumor size in 8 of 9 patients completing the trial; in these patients, tumor mass decreased between 10% and 42%.⁵ There was no evidence of increased toxicity from chemotherapy with the addition of IVC.⁵ There was some mild transient nausea and lightheadedness during the IVC infusion due to osmotic load; however, other reported adverse events were consistent with those expected from the chemotherapy regimen and are listed in Table 1.

Survival

Two trials reported survival metrics, both in patients with stage IV pancreatic cancer on gemcitabine with or without erlotinib.^5,7 Monti et al reported that mean progression-free survival was 89 days, and overall survival was 182 days among 14 patients receiving high-dose IVC (50, 75, or 100 g 3 times per week for 8 weeks).⁵ Welsh et al reported that of the 9 patients completing at least 1 cycle (4 weeks) of the chemotherapy, with IVC dosed between 50 and 125 g twice per week until progression, mean survival was 13 months, and time to progression was 26 weeks.⁷

Quality of life

Three trials assessed QOL measures, collectively suggesting a positive impact of IVC use on QOL.^3,38,42 Stephenson et al found that QOL as measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer (EORTC-QLQ-C30) questionnaire remained stable for the first 2 weeks among patients receiving IVC; at weeks 3 and 4, QOL seemed to improve for the small number of patients who completed the questionnaire at these time points.³ Hoffer et al evaluated the effects of various dosing regimens and found that those patients who received 0.6 g/kg (approximately 42 g for a 70-kg male) or more had stabilization of their physical function as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General questionnaire, whereas those patients receiving lower doses had significant deterioration in their physical function (P < .01).³⁸ Similarly, Yeom et al found that among stage IV cancer patients, administration of even 10 g IVC twice within a 3-day period resulted in significant improvements in global health score (P = .001), physical, role, emotional, and cognitive function (P < .05 for all), and improvements in the following symptoms: fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, and loss of appetite (P < .005 for all).⁴² These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the short duration and uncontrolled nature of the studies.

DLTs and adverse events

Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) reported by Stephenson et al were 3 incidents of grade 4 hypernatremia in 2 of 3 patients in the third dose cohort (90 g/m² or ~180 g for a 6-foot male) and 1 of 3 patients in the fourth dose cohort (110 g/m² or ~220 g for a 6-foot male), as well grade 3 hypokalemia in 2 of 3 patients in the third dose cohort (90 g/m² or ~180 g).³ No DLTs were reported by Welsh et al using dosages up to 125 g IVC twice weekly.⁷ Mild to moderate adverse events most commonly reported among other phase I trials included nausea and headache,^3,5,38 which may be due in part to the osmotic load. Other infrequent adverse events are listed in Table 1.

Three reports of 2 phase I trials assessed biochemistry and kidney function during IVC and found no sign of impaired kidney function or other abnormalities associated with high-dose IVC therapy.^38,40,43 Hoffer et al found that IVC was associated with a small increase in 6-hour urinary oxalate excretion (81.3 mg, normal = 10-60 mg), equivalent to excretion of less than 0.5% of a 100 g IVC dose as oxalic acid, but there was no incidence of related adverse events and no trend to increased serum creatinine.^38,43 Riordan et al found that IVC therapy was not associated with any significant changes in blood cell counts (CBC), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), or serum creatinine.⁴⁰ There was a small decrease in serum uric acid during IVC therapy. One incident of a kidney stone in a patient with a previous history of kidney stones and one incident of reversible hypokalemia in a patient with concurrent diarrhea were reported.⁴⁰

Risk of bias

Due to the uncontrolled nature of these trials, and the lack of a standardized tool for risk of bias assessment of such studies, we were unable to assess any particular risk of bias score for the phase I/II studies. Given the nature of the endpoints, there is likely to be a lower risk of bias for reports of pharmacokinetic parameters, survival and tumor response, and higher risk of bias in the reports on QOL and adverse events. It should be noted that efficacy data from these studies should be interpreted with caution due to their uncontrolled design, small sample size, and inherent risk of bias.

Observational Studies

We included 6 observational studies of high-dose IVC, described in Table 2.^{4,6,8,11,44,45} Two recent studies showed improvements in QOL and cancer and/or chemotherapy-related symptoms,^6,8 and one study showed an effect on inflammatory and tumor markers in particular C-reactive protein (CRP) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA),⁴ while 3 older studies reported a survival advantage associated with use of oral plus IV vitamin C therapy.^11,44,45

Table 2.

Description of Observational Studies of High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C (HD-IVC) Use in Cancer Patients.

Reference	n	Population	Intervention	Outcomes	AE
Prospective cohort
Takahashi 2012	60	Newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients	Escalate to 50 g IVC, then adjusted to achieve 350-400 mg/dL serum ascorbic acid immediately postinfusion; Administered 2×/wk × 4wk	↑ EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health score at 2 and 4wk c/t BL (S)↓ Fatigue, pain, insomnia, constipation↑ Physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning↑ CGI in 60% of patients at 4 wk	All AE mild (grade I), and no pt discontinued IVC d/t AE
Retrospective cohort
Mikirova 2012	45	Cancer of the prostate, breast, bladder, pancreatic, lung, thyroid, skin, Bcell lymphoma, many with mets	Escalate to 50 g 3×/wk, for median of 9 treatments (IQR = 5-18)	No objective tumor response↓ CRP while on IVC (76% patients)↓ CRP correlated w ↓ PSA↓ CEA, CA 27.29, CA 15.3 (NS)↓ IL-2, TNF-α after 6 treatments (NS)Plasma vitamin C ~18 mM after 50 g infusions	NR
Mikirova 2012	45		Subgroup (n = 11): cytokine analysis done after 6 treatments		NR
Vollbracht 2011	125	Stage IIa-IIb breast cancer: standard care N = 72; standard care + IVC N = 53	7.5 g IVC once per week × minimum of 4 wk	↓ Symptoms of disease and chemo SE: nausea, loss of appetite, fatigue, depression, sleep disorders, dizziness, and hemorrhagic diathesis (S)	None reported
Vollbracht 2011	125		7.5 g IVC once per week × minimum of 4 wk	Symptom intensity scores were almost 2-fold higher in the control group	None reported
Case–control study
Cameron & Pauling 1991	294+ 1532	Terminal cancer patients treated with IVC + controls	10-45 g IVC, most commonly 10 g, daily × 10 d, then 10 g/d oral indefinitely	Mean survival 343 days for vitamin C group vs 180 days for controls (1.9-fold increase)	NR
Cameron & Pauling 1978	100+ 1000	Terminal cancer patients treated with IVC + historic controls	10-45 g IVC, most commonly 10 g, daily × 10 d, then 10 g/d oral indefinitely	Mean survival: 300+ days longer survival for vitamin C group c/t controls (5.6-fold increase)Survival times >1 y from the date of untreatability observed for 22 of 100 vitamin C–treated patients	NR
Cameron & Pauling 1976	100+ 1000	Terminal cancer patients treated with IVC + historic controls	10-45 g IVC, most commonly 10 g, daily × 10 d, then 10 g/d oral indefinitely	Mean survival: 210 days for vitamin C group compared to 50 days for controls (~4.2-fold increase)	NR

Abbreviations: AE, adverse events; BL, baseline; CGI, clinical global impression; CRP, C-reactive protein; EORTC-QLQ-C30, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire–Cancer (QLQ-C30); IQR, interquartile range; IVC, intravenous vitamin C; NR, not reported; SE, side effects; tx, treatment.

Pharmacokinetics

A retrospective cohort studyby Mikirova et al reported that concentration of plasma vitamin C achieved through administration of high-dose IVC range (50 g infusion) was ~18 mM.⁴

Quality of life and side effects of chemotherapy

Takahashi et al reported on a prospective observational study (Japan) of 60 newly diagnosed patients with advanced cancer who received high-dose IVC.⁸ The largest subgroup by cancer type was lung cancer (n = 14), followed by breast (n = 8), stomach (n = 8), and colon (n = 6) cancers. The Riordan IVC protocol was used, wherein patients were started with ~15 g vitamin C per infusion for the first dose, followed by 25 g for the second dose and 50 g for the third dose. Thereafter, the dose was adjusted to achieve blood vitamin C concentrations between 350 and 400 mg/dL immediately after infusion. Infusions were given twice weekly for a total of 4 weeks. Oral vitamin C was supplemented at a dose of 2 to 4 g per day. A total of 34 patients (56.7%) received concomitant chemotherapy. After 4 weeks, there were significant improvements in overall QOL as measured by the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire, which improved from 44.6 ± 27.8 to 61.4 ± 24.3 (P < .001). There were also significant improvements in fatigue scores (from 42.4 ± 28.7 to 28.4 ± 25.7, P < .01), insomnia scores (31.1 ± 32.1 to 16.4 ± 23.7, P < .01), as well as pain scores (17.8 ± 25.7 to 10.0 ± 13.9, P < .05) and constipation (21.1 ± 31.3 to 11.7 ± 22.3, P < .05) when compared to baseline. The clinical global impression of change as assessed by patients’ oncologists was “minimally” to “much improved” in 60% of patients. IVC therapy was well tolerated and no patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Possible side effects reported were all mild (grade I) and included headache (n = 5), nausea (n = 5), angialgia (irritation at site of injection; n = 2), dry mouth (n = 1), tumor site pain (n = 1), and dysuria (n = 1).

Vollbracht et al conducted a retrospective cohort study (in Germany) of 125 early stage (IIa-IIb) breast cancer patients, of whom 53 were treated with 7.5 g IVC weekly for a minimum of 4 weeks in addition to standard therapies, compared to 72 patients who were treated with standard therapy alone.⁶ Chemotherapy regimens included epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (56%), cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil (20%), and fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (15.2%). There was a statistically and clinically significant reduction in severity of chemotherapy-related side effects in the IVC group. Patients in the control group had almost 2-fold higher symptom severity with respect to nausea, loss of appetite, fatigue, depression, sleep disorders, dizziness, and hemorrhagic diathesis. Each of these outcomes was significant compared to the control group (P < .05). The differences between groups were evident during concomitant chemotherapy and during the postchemotherapy phase. Patients who received IVC also had higher performance scores during chemotherapy (mean Karnofsky index of 80% compared to 71% in the control group, P < .001) as well as postchemotherapy (87% vs 78%, P < .001). No side effects related to IVC were observed.

Tumor markers

Mikirova et al conducted a retrospective cohort study assessing the impact of IVC on tumor and inflammatory markers.⁴ Among 45 patients attending the Riordan clinic, data on CRP, PSA, and other tumor and inflammatory markers were analyzed. The median number of IVC treatments was 9 (interquartile range = 5-18). Most patients (76%) had a reduction in CRP while on IVC; for those with under 10-day intervals between IVC treatments, this number increased to 95%. Among patients with elevated CRP at baseline (>10 mg/L), there was a mean reduction of 80%. In prostate cancer patients, lowered CRP correlated with reductions in PSA, suggesting an impact on disease activity. In addition, 53% of patients had reduction in CEA, CA 27.29, CA 15.3, but these changes were not significant. Among a subgroup (n = 11), there were also reductions in IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) that were noticeable after 6 treatments.

Survival

Cameron and Pauling reported findings from 3 retrospective cohort studies.^11,44,45 These studies included 294, 100, and 100 terminally ill cancer patients receiving vitamin C therapy, compared to 1532, 1000, and 1000 historic controls, respectively, who were identified from the hospital records of 3 district hospitals in Scotland over a 4.5-year period (1978-1982). Vitamin C therapy consisted of 10 to 45 g (most commonly 10 g) IVC for the first 10 days, followed by 10 g daily oral dosing given indefinitely thereafter.^10,11 The first study of 100 terminally ill cancer patients and 1000 controls (also terminally ill cancer patients) reported a 4.2-fold longer survival time associated with vitamin C therapy: mean survival was 210 days in the vitamin C group compared to 50 days in the control group.¹¹ Responding to concerns regarding an appropriate control group,⁴⁵ a second study was conducted using a matched design. This study reported a survival advantage of 300 days for vitamin C therapy compared to the control group.⁴⁵ Survival times greater than 1 year after the date of “untreatability” were observed for 22% (n = 22) of the vitamin C group, compared to 0.4% (n = 4) of the control group. The 22 patients in the vitamin C group had a mean survival of 2.4 years, and at the time of evaluation, 8 were still alive (mean survival of 3.5+ years), whereas no one had survived in the control group. Finally, the third study comparing records from 294 terminally ill cancer patients treated with vitamin C to 1826 matched controls from the same Scottish hospitals found that vitamin C–treated patients had an almost 2-fold increase in overall survival, 343 days compared with 180 days in the control patients.⁴⁴

Risk of bias

The cohort studies scored between 4 and 7 on an 8-point scale for risk of bias.^4,6,8 There was high risk of bias in the representativeness of the cases, as studies were based on cases that had self-selected to obtain IVC treatment; in 2 studies there was a lack of control group. However, 2 studies were multicenter studies,^6,8 increasing the probability of the cases being more representative of a wider demographic. One study was single center and lacked a control arm.⁴ The case–control studies, despite being older reports, had a relatively low risk of bias according to our assessment, scoring between 7 and 8 on an 8-point scale. All 3 reports were by Cameron and Pauling.^11,44,45 The first study lacked adequate definition of controls¹¹; however, subsequent studies had clearer definitions of the controls and used an independently conducted matching process.^44,45 Outcomes data were based on hospital records.

Case Reports

We included 14 case reports pertaining to 221 separate cases, described in Table 3.^2,10,46-56 One of these studies was a case-based review of 153 cases observed over 16 years of clinical practice, and primarily summarized safety data.⁵² Excluding this report, the remaining 13 case reports detailed the effectiveness of high-dose IVC in a population consisting of 68 patients with the following cancer types: colorectal (n = 10), breast (n = 8), bladder (n = 7), kidney (n = 7), lung (n = 8), lymphomas (n = 8), ovarian (n = 5), stomach (n = 5), pancreatic (n = 3), gallbladder (n = 2), brain (n = 1), melanoma (n = 1), and others (n = 3).

Table 3.

Case Reports of High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C (HD-IVC) Use in Cancer Patients.

Reference	Cancer, Stage	Dose	Outcome
Padayatty 2006	3 patients with renal cell carcinoma with mets, bladder cancer, and stage III B-cell lymphoma	15, 30, 65 g 2×/wk for first months, then variable (1-2×/wk or monthly) for several months	Unexpectedly long survival and objective tumor regression
			RCC with mets: declined conventional therapy: complete tumor regression with IVC at 1 y. Recurrence of second primary tumor at 6 y followed by death at 7 y
			Bladder cancer: local resection, declined chemo: health and without recurrence at 9 y
			Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: local radiation only: complete regression of tumor at 1 y, no recurrence at 10 y
Riordan 2004, Riordan 1998, Riordan 1996, Riordan 1990	7 patients with RCC (n = 2), CRC (n = 1), pancreatic (n = 1), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 1)	30-100 g 2×/wk (1 pt 15 g); most patients maintained less frequent IVC treatment after achieving remission	All cases had objective remission and lived long-term cancer free; surpassed their life expectancy; or died after d/c’ing IVC
			RCC #1: lived cancer free ×14 y and died of CHF at 84 y
			RCC #2: objective remission (CXR) at 4 y
			CRC (advanced): clear of mets and primary at 1.5 y (CT scan)
			5-FU and leucovorin concurrently; no SE except when missed dose of IVC (N/D, ST pain, stomatitis)
			Pancreatic: “surpassed life expectancy”; IVC achieved SD and died on d/c’ing IVC d/t saying saw no change
			Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma #1 (diffuse large B cell post sx for removal of 2 mets LN): remains cancer free at 2 y
			Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma #2 (recurrent after initial chemo): CT scan clear, “complete remission” per oncologist at 11 mo
			Breast cancer (w bone mets): 100 g × 5 d in hospital; d/c’d morphine, bone scan showed resolution of some skull mets at 3 mo
Drisko 2003	2 patients with stage IIIC ovarian adenocarcinoma; IVC alongside cytoreduction with sx, standard paclitaxel/carboplatin × 6 cycles	60 g 2×/wk; after cancer cleared, maintained at 3-4×/y	Case #1: Postchemo was negative for measurable disease (CT scan). Began IVC after first round of chemo; was disease free at 40 months and normal CA-125
Drisko 2003		60 g 2×/wk; after cancer cleared, maintained at 3-4×/y	Case #2: After initial sx and first round of chemo, disease found in pelvis (8 cm mass with local mets); declined further chemo, started IVC; patient well 3 y postdiagnosis, CA-125 normal, and physical exam normal
Jackson 2002	153 cases seen over 16 years of practice	15-115 g per dose; total 104, 432 g given over 16 y	Safety: No significant AE and no sign of serious kidney disease
De Oliveira 1998	1 patient with melanoma and mets to lung; Sx to remove primary tumor	50 g IVC 5 d/wk × 1 mo, then less frequently × 1 y. Oral nutritional supplements also given	At both 5 mo and 1 y, CT and X-ray showed that the lung was free of mets
Jackson 1995	1 patient with pancreatic cancer, blocked bile duct, and mets to regional LN. Sx only for removal of primary	57.5-115 g 3×/wk × 13wk	At 6 mo, abdominal CT scan showed no progression of tumor. Recurrence occurred when IVC treatments reduced to allow patient to travel. No chemo/radiation was given and pt had good QOL until death. Survival was 1 y from initial diagnosis
Campbell 1979	2 patients with advanced Hodgkin’s disease (with dyspnea at rest and/or pleural effusion), and 1 case of bronchial carcinoma (with dyspnea and atelectasis of the left lower lobe)	30 g IVC over 36 h	Case 1 developed symptoms of acute fever and pain in the tumor mass; symptoms resolved 2 d after d/c’ing IVC. Upon resolution over the next 48 h, low-dose IVC was gradually resumed, starting at 4 g/d and escalated to 10 g/d, and was well tolerated
		20 g IVC/d ×10 d	Case 2 developed acute SOB and symptoms of mediastinal compression; he was given emergency chemo which resulted in rapid symptom improvement. IVC was not reinstituted
		100 g IVC over 7 d	Case 3 developed SOB and acute mediastinal compression; he was treated with chemo that resulted in rapid improvement, followed by radiation therapy. IVC was not reinstituted
Campbell 1975, 1980, 1991	1 patient with histologically proven, disseminated reticulum cell sarcoma (lymphoma)	HD-IVC, dose NR	“Dramatic regression of . . . disease activity was induced by the continuous administration of large doses of ascorbic acid” with radiological documentation
			In 1980, occurrence of a papillary thyroid carcinoma is reported
			In 1991, patient is reported to be alive 17 years later
Cameron 1974	50 terminally ill cancer patients not responding to conventional therapy and >4 months since surgery or chemotherapy: lung (7), renal (4), bladder (6), brain (1), colorectal (9), gallbladder (2), stomach (5), breast (7), ovary (3), pancreatic (1), other (3)	5-45 g/d ascorbic acid for12-10 days (IV) + 10 g oral vitamin C daily	1 year survival: 16% (8 patients)Tumor response (n): no response 17; minimal response 10; growth retardation 11; cytostasis 3; tumor regression 5; tumor hemorrhage or necrosis 4Objective benefit: ↓ pain and need for pain meds in bone mets; ↓ ascites and pleural effusion; ↓ hematuria; ↓ hepatomegaly and jaundice; ↓ elevated ESR

Abbreviations: AE, adverse events; CRC, colorectal cancer; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; HD, high dose; IVC, intravenous vitamin C; LN, lymph nodes; mets, metastasis; QOL, quality of life; RCC, renal cell carcinoma; SOB, shortness of breath/dyspnea; sx, surgery.

Collectively, the case reports documented 1 or more of the following outcomes: (a) cancer remission and long-term cancer-free survival; (b) survival considerably beyond life expectancy; (c) initial disease stabilization but recurrence or death after IVC was decreased or stopped; (d) tumor stabilization and/or regression based on circulating tumor markers (eg, CA-125), CT scans, x-ray, bone scans, or other imaging techniques; and (e) improvements in pain related to bone metastasis and a reduction in the need for pain medication.^{2,10,46,48,49,51,55,57} The first published case series, by Cameron in 1974, documented a 16% survival rate at 1 year associated with use of IVC among a population of 50 terminally ill cancer patients not responding to conventional therapy.¹⁰

One early report of 3 cases described adverse reactions to high-dose IVC in 2 patients with advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma and 1 with bronchial carcinoma.⁵⁶ The reactions consisted of worsening of dyspnea, shortness of breath, and mediastinal compression in 2 cases and the incidence of acute fever and pain at the tumor site in 1 case. This appeared to be associated with administration of high doses of IVC without a gradual dose escalation period and may have been related to tumor necrosis in advanced disease. In the first 2 cases, symptoms were rapidly relieved by emergency chemotherapy, and in the third case, symptoms resided after 48 hours, after which IVC was reinstituted starting gradually at 4 g, gradually increasing to 10 g per day, which was well tolerated. None of the other case-based data reported any serious adverse reactions.

Low-Dose IVC

Low-dose IVC (1 g) has been studied for its immunological effects⁵⁸ in addition to as part of a chemotherapy regimen for multiple myeloma featuring arsenic trioxide as well as secondary drugs including bortezomib, melphalan, decitabine, and dexamethasone.^7,59-61 See Table 4.

Table 4.

Description of Human Trials of Low-Dose IVC in Patients With Multiple Myeloma (MM) or Leukemia.

Reference	n	Population	Intervention	Concomitant Therapy	Outcomes	Adverse Events
Randomized controlled trials
Dammacco 1992	51	MM not receiving other therapy and no prior chemo	1 g IV vitamin C ×7 d c/t cefodizime 2 g IV ×7 d	None	No change in neutrophil chemiluminescence or phagocytosis, or granulocyte chemotaxis in IVC group	NR
Phase I/II trials
Welch 2010 [conference abstract]	13	Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML)	1 g IVC following each administration of arsenic trioxide ×15 wk (d 1-5, then weekly)	Arsenic trioxide (dose escalated) and decitabine	Median OS was 207 d, and 4 patients remain alive with median f/u of 490 d	Toxicities attributable to chemotherapy
						DLT pneumonia/infection
						Grade 3-4 toxicities were infection, hypotension, hypoxia/pneumonia, anemia, neutropenia, QTc prolongation, pericardial and pleural effusion, hyperglycemia, hypokalemia
Berenson 2007	22	MM (relapsed or unresponsive to standard therapy)	1 g IVC on days 1, 4, 7, and 11 of a 21-d chemo cycle for max of 8 cycles	Arsenic trioxide and bortezomib	0 CR, PR 2, minor response 4, SD 9	Attributable to chemotherapy: grade 1-2: pneumonia, chest pain, abdominal pain, back pain, increased QT, asymptomatic arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, bacteremia, bortezomib intolerance, hyperkalemia, severe decrease in quality of life
					Median PFS 5 mo (95% CI 2-9)	Grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 1)
					12-month PFS 34% (13-55); 12-month OS 74%
Berenson 2006	65	MM (relapsed or unresponsive to standard therapy)	1 g IVC on days 1-4 of wk 1, 2×/wk of wk 2-5; 6 wk cycle	Melphalan and arsenic trioxide	Objective response in 31 of 65 patients (48%): 2 CR, 15 PR, 14 minor responses	Grade 3-4 toxicities attributable to chemo: hematological, cardiac, fever/chills, pain, and fatigue
					Median PFS 7 mo; OS 19 mo
					↓ Elevated serum creatinine
Abou-Jawde 2006	20	MM (relapsed or unresponsive to standard therapy)	1 g IVC on days of arsenic trioxide; 14-15 wk cycles	Arsenic trioxide and dexamethasone	30% response rate, with at least stable disease in 80% of patients. Median PFS 316 d in all patients and 584 d in those with a response	Well tolerated, with most adverse events being mild or moderate
Wu 2006	20	MM (relapsed or unresponsive to standard therapy)	1 g IVC on days 1-4 of wk 1, 2×/wk of wk 2-5; minimum 4 cycles	Arsenic trioxide and dexamethasone	PR 2, minor response 6	Common AE: grade 1-2 bacterial infections (n = 10), peripheral edema (n = 8), fatigue (n = 7), dyspnea (n = 6), reactivation of herpes zoster (n = 5), neuropathy (n = 5), neutropenia (n = 4), thrombocytopenia (n = 3), and malaise (n = 3)
					At the time of follow-up (median follow-up 9 mo), 11 patients were alive	Grade 3- 4 AE: bacterial infections (n = 6), neutropenia (n = 3), hepatic toxicity (n = 3), and thrombocytopenia (n = 2)
Borad 2005	10	Refractory MM	1 g IVC following each dose of arsenic trioxide (2×/wk)	Melphalan and arsenic trioxide	All 10 patients responded to therapy	Generally well tolerated, with minor treatment delays d/t QT interval prolongation, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia
					↓ Serum M-protein levels by 29% to 90%↓ Urine M-protein b/w 34% and 71%	Most common AE: fatigue (n = 7), bone marrow suppression (n = 4), leukopenia (n = 7), thrombocytopenia (n = 4), QT prolongation (n = 5), neuropathy (n = 4), gastrointestinal symptoms (n = 4), pulmonary and peripheral edema (n = 2), herpes zoster reactivation (n = 2), headache (n = 2), skin rash (n = 3)
Bahlis 2002	6	Stage IIIA relapsed/refractory myeloma	1 g IVC on each day of arsenic trioxide (25 d over 35 d period)	Arsenic trioxide	PR 2; SD 4Arsenic trioxide + 1 g/d IVC could be given for 25 days w/o DLTCo-administration of IVC did not alter arsenic PK, and ↑ vitamin C levels associated w ↓ GSH	Grade 3 hematological toxicity (leukopenia, n = 1)

Abbreviations: CDZ, cefodizime; CR, complete response; DLT, dose-limiting toxicity; IVC, intravenous vitamin C; GSH, glutathione; MM, multiple myeloma; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; PK, pharmacokinetics; PR, partial response; PD, progressive disease; SD, stable disease.

Randomized Controlled Trials

In one study, an RCT in 51 chemonaive patients with multiple myeloma, 2 g IV cefodizime (a cephalosporin antibiotic) was compared with 1 g IV vitamin C for effects on nonspecific immune function, with each being given daily for 7 days. In this study, cefodizime but not IVC resulted in significant increases in neutrophil activity and phagocytosis.⁵⁸

Phase I/II and uncontrolled studies

Seven studies assessed low-dose IVC for reducing toxicity of arsenic trioxide based chemotherapy regimens. Although arsenic trioxide is no longer commonly used, these studies provide additional information about the possible safety of IVC alongside this and the secondary drugs, such as bortezomib, melphalan, dicitabine, and dexamethasone. In these studies, 1 g intravenously administered vitamin C was given on the days of arsenic trioxide administration in order to improve tolerability. In general, the addition of vitamin C to this regimen appeared to be well tolerated, with most adverse events attributed to the chemotherapy regimen. The therapeutic effects of IVC were difficult to determine due to lack of a control group and simultaneous administration of multiple chemotherapy drugs; however, the authors commented that the addition of low-dose IVC to this regimen appeared to be well tolerated.^60-62

Interactions

Existing evidence suggests safety of IVC when given alongside most chemotherapy agents, with possible synergistic effects seen in some studies, such as those with gemcitabine and paclitaxel/carboplatin.^5,7,37 Ma et al evaluated high-dose IVC in ovarian cancer patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin and found that there was a reduction in chemotherapy-related side effects, as well as a trend toward longer time to relapse compared to chemotherapy alone (RCT).³⁷ Monti and Welsh evaluated high-dose IVC in combination with gemcitabine and/or erlotinib and found reductions in tumor mass and possible improvements in survival in stage IV pancreatic cancer patients, and no evidence of increased toxicity with the addition of vitamin C (phase I).^5,7 Vollbracht et al investigated 7.5 g IVC alongside standard therapies in early-stage breast cancer patients, where the standard therapies were epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (56%), cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil (20%), and fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (15%). In the study, IVC significantly reduced side effects without any evidence of increased toxicity compared to patients receiving standard therapies alone.⁶ One case report of a patient with advanced colorectal cancer reported complete remission with high-dose IVC therapy alongside 5-fluoruracil and leucovorin.⁴⁹ Trials of low-dose IVC suggest that it does not increase the toxicity of arsenic trioxide, melphalan, bortezomib, or dexamethasone.^59-61 Overall, there is a lack of evidence for any negative interactions; however, further evaluation in this area is needed.

Discussion

The results of our review suggest that there is limited, high-quality research on high-dose IVC. Though it suffers largely from bias and gaps in reporting, the existing literature suggests that high-dose IVC may be a safe and effective adjunctive therapy in the treatment of cancer. There are no data suggesting that high-dose IV Vitamin C can be used effectively as a stand-alone anticancer agent. Existing data coming from heterogeneous trial methodologies and populations precludes meta-analysis at this point. Preliminary data from 1 RCT indicate that the addition of IVC to standard chemotherapy for ovarian cancer may improve time to relapse as well as reduce the side effects of chemotherapy.³⁷ Data from phase I/II trials and observational studies are promising though not conclusive, suggesting improvements in QOL, reductions in the side effects of chemotherapy and/or disease-related symptoms, as well as possible improvements in survival.^5-8,11,44,45 These studies are not conclusive due to their methodological limitations, such as the uncontrolled nature of the trials, small sample size, or observational design. Although a weaker grade of evidence, case reports demonstrate several instances of cancer remission associated with high-dose IVC, supported by objective assessments.^2,46-50 To date, studies investigating the safety of IVC alongside standard chemotherapy regimens have yielded encouraging results, with no evidence of increased toxicity, and in some cases suggesting improved outcomes.^5-7,37 Existing evidence shows consistency between studies and across study designs regarding outcomes associated with IVC, including consistent documentation of improvements (or stabilization) of QOL, reduction in side effects and cancer-related symptoms, as well as early suggestions of a positive impact on survival and tumor response. We did not evaluate for publication bias, and there is a possibility that this may have inflated our findings of positive reports. Further investigation is warranted to better elucidate the effects of this therapy in controlled settings, given an apparent excellent safety profile, low cost, and potential for both anticancer activity and improving QOL.

Survival Time in Phase I/II Studies

Uncontrolled studies^5,7 provide some data that the addition of IVC to chemotherapy may enhance tumor response in advanced-stage cancer patients, specifically pancreatic cancer, and increase survival. The authors of one study noted that compared to other reports of stage IV pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine, preliminary results achieved with the addition of adjunctive IVC therapy were superior to gemcitabine alone, where median progression-free survival was 9 weeks, and overall survival was 6 months.^7,63 The IVC study results pertain to mean survival, rather than median survival, the outcomes reported (mean survival 13 months, and time to progression 26 weeks) are consistent with a better than expected survival time for this patient population. This is consistent with findings from the first RCT evaluating IVC in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, with a trend toward longer time to relapse. Based on these preliminary data, there is an urgent need for more rigorous, adequately powered evaluations to assess the effects of IVC on hard outcomes such as tumor response and particularly overall survival using randomization and ideally blinding in study design.

Symptom Management and Quality of Life

Results reported by the single RCT, cohort studies, as well as early data from phase I trials suggest that IVC may have a beneficial effect in maintaining or improving QOL,^3,8 maintaining physical function,^38,42 and reducing symptoms associated with chemotherapy or disease progression.^6,8,37 Although these outcomes are important in themselves, improving patients’ tolerance to treatment may also help maximize the anticancer effects of chemotherapy. Patients who tolerate chemotherapy may be more likely to continue with the recommended number of cycles and may have fewer dose reductions and treatment delays. Similarly, increased tolerability and reduced toxicity of chemotherapy may allow patients to substantially surpass the expected maximum number of ongoing chemotherapy treatments that they can safely tolerate, again potentially allowing patients to receive greater benefit from the anticancer effects of chemotherapy.

The single RCT evaluating both side effects and survival indicates 2-fold less chemotherapy related side effects as well as a trend toward longer time to relapse in advanced stage ovarian cancer patients. Although positive findings need to be replicated, it does suggest that the reduction in side effects seen with IVC therapy may not be attributable to a reduction in the effectiveness of chemotherapy. This lack of negative interaction is consistent with in vivo data.^64-66

Mechanism of Action

The primary mechanism of high-dose IVC appears to be as a prodrug for the formation of hydrogen peroxide.⁷ In extracellular fluid, vitamin C as ascorbate dissociates into the ascorbate radical (AscH^.−), effectively reducing iron to the ferrous form according the reaction: AscH⁻ + Fe³⁺ → Fe²⁺ + AscH^.− + H⁺.¹⁵ The ferrous iron from this complex reacts with oxygen, producing the superoxide anion (O2^.−) that then reacts with hydrogen to form hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂).¹⁵ According to Fenton chemistry, transition metals such as iron or copper function as efficient electron carriers, accepting and transferring electrons between other substances. Having received an electron from ascorbate, iron in the ferrous form (Fe²⁺) reacts with hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) to yield the highly reactive hydroxyl radical (OH^.) in the classic Fenton reaction: Fe²⁺ + H₂O₂ → Fe³⁺ + OH^· + OH⁻.¹⁵

According to Levine, the downstream targets of reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated from H₂O₂ are diverse, and the precise type of damage effected differs by cancer cell and tissue type.¹⁵ This feature may in part explain the broad activity of IVC across many cancer types.²² In laboratory models, high concentrations of vitamin C have consistently been shown to generate extracellular H₂O₂ in several cell lines, and diverse downstream targets associated with ROS production,^22,67 including cell cycle arrest (G₀/G₁)²² and/or inhibition of cell growth and division,⁶⁸ caspase-independent autophagy mediated by beclin-1 and LC3 II,⁶⁹ apoptosis via induction of apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF),⁷⁰ induction of oxidative DNA damage,⁷¹ apoptosis mediated by Bax protein signaling, release of cytochrome C from the mitochondria, activation of caspase 9 and caspase 3, and cleavage of poly[ADP-ribose] polymerase.⁷²

Laboratory studies have shown that high concentrations of vitamin C induce cytotoxicity and apoptosis in prostate cancer,⁷³ pancreatic cancer,²⁴ lung cancer,⁷⁴ and colorectal cancer cells⁷⁵; suppress hypoxia inducible factor (HIF)^76,77; can reactivate p53⁷⁸; induce caspase-independent death^24,69; and have been shown to suppress tumor growth and prolong survival in xenograft models.^21,24,79 Vitamin C has also been shown to sensitize cancer cells to chemotherapy such as gemcitabine, resulting in a synergistic cytotoxic response.⁸⁰ Of note, vitamin C’s selective cytotoxic activity appears to be influenced by tumor expression of sodium-dependent vitamin C transporter 2 (SVCT-2); in human breast cancer cells, expression of SVCT-2 resulted in attainment of higher intracellular vitamin C concentrations and greater ROS damage leading to caspase-independent autophagy.⁶⁹ SVCT-2 expression appears to sensitize cells to autophagic damage and may serve as a future biomarker in identifying those breast cancer patients most likely to benefit from IVC therapy.

In addition to ROS generation with consequent cytotoxic effects, and chemosensitization, vitamin C has been shown to inhibit angiogenesis and decrease inflammation through suppression of COX-2 and NF-κB.^81-84 A study in melanoma cells showed that vitamin C suppressed VEGF RNA expression and transcription, likely through regulation (inhibition) of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 expression and mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) signaling.⁸³ MAPKs are an important signaling molecule in the production of VEGF.⁸³ Another study showed similar results, with vitamin C suppressing proliferation of human melanoma cells via the downregulation of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-II), followed by activation of p38 MAPK and the inhibition of COX-2 expression.⁸⁵ Another study assessed the effects of high-dose vitamin C injections in mice carrying sarcoma xenografts: not only did the survival rate increase by 20% in the vitamin C group, compared to the controls, but there was a significant reduction in the expression of 3 angiogenesis-related genes, bFGF, VEGF, and MMP2.⁸⁶ Several preclinical studies demonstrate the ability of vitamin C to inhibit TNF-α induced activation of NF-κB in cancer cells.^81,82,87

The reason why some patients appear to respond favorably to IVC therapy, such as those documented in case reports, while others have not is unclear. SVCT-2 expression has been suggested as a possible biomarker for cellular vitamin C uptake and responsiveness to therapy.⁶⁹ There may be other interindividual variations in vitamin C metabolism, including factors that affect maximal intracellular vitamin C concentrations, that have not yet been identified, as well as differential susceptibility to vitamin C among tumor subtypes. Tumor cell catalase expression is one factor that has been identified as mediating vitamin C resistance, and silencing of catalase expression has been shown to reverse vitamin C resistance in BT-20 breast cancer cells.⁸⁸ In addition, genetic variations in vitamin C transporters has been shown to modify risk of certain cancers,^89-91 and it is possible that such variations may also be influential in determining an individual’s response to IVC therapy.

Safety

When precautions are taken, IVC appears to have a relatively good safety profile. Adverse effects reported in the studies we included were largely attributable to chemotherapy; however, the more commonly reported side effects attributable to IVC include transient nausea due to osmotic load, headache, lightheadedness, and dry mouth.^3,5,7,40 According to Riordan, IV fluid osmolality of less than 1200 mOsm is generally well tolerated.⁹² Less commonly reported side effects may include grade I-II fatigue, diarrhea, insomnia, hypertension, decreased appetite, chills (likely due to cold temperature infusion), and hyperglycemia.^3,5,7,38,40 High-dose IVC has also been shown to falsely elevate glucose on blood testing.⁹³ DLTs included electrolyte imbalances, including hypernatremia and hypokalemia. Many dosing protocols combine high-dose IVC with calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, and potassium chloride to offset these shifts.^3,94 High-dose IVC is contraindicated in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency due to risk of hemolysis; therefore, red blood cell G6PD screening is required.⁴⁹ Patients with brain metastasis, rapidly growing tumors, or a heavy tumor load may be at increased risk of tumor necrosis, based on an early report in the literature of tumor necrosis accompanied by acute fever, dyspnea, and mediastinal compression following IVC therapy that was given without gradually escalated doses.⁵⁶ A graduated dosing schedule is now generally recommended for all patients, with 10 to 15 g used as a starting dose, and increased to 25 g or more if well tolerated.^23,92 High-dose IVC is contraindicated in patients with renal insufficiency or on hemodialysis, as well as forms of iron overload due to risk of worsening these conditions.⁹² Some concern has been raised with respect to risk of kidney stone formation in patients with a history of previous kidney stones, due to vitamin C increasing urinary oxalate excretion^38,43; however, only one incident of kidney stones was reported among the studies included here.⁴⁰ Because magnesium has been shown to help inhibit oxalate stone formation in recurrent stone formers,^95,96 magnesium is often added to the IVC formula.⁹²

Interactions

Among the studies included here, IVC was examined alongside several chemotherapy drugs. Studies showed that IVC in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin⁹⁷ as well as gemcitabine and erlotinib^5,7 may improve time to relapse, survival, and tumor mass reductions compared to chemotherapy alone. One of these studies also demonstrated a large decrease in chemotherapy-related side effects,⁹⁷ demonstrating that while there appears to be no negative impact on efficacy based on relapse rates, there may well be a protective effect on normal tissue from the use of IVC. One study of IVC alongside epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil showed no evidence of increased toxicity and decreases in chemotherapy-associated side effects; however, effects on survival or tumor mass were not assessed.⁶ Data from one case report showed complete remission with high-dose IVC therapy alongside 5-fluoruracil and leucovorin. Although preliminary, available data suggest that IVC therapy may be safe when used alongside these drugs.⁴⁹ IVC also does not appear to increase the toxicity of arsenic trioxide, melphalan, bortezomib, or dexamethasone, although effects on survival are not known.^59-61 Overall, the documentation is suggestive of positive interactions between IVC and other cancer agents, although details of coadministration are varied and sometimes unclear.

Intravenously administered vitamin C has a relatively short half-life, approximately 2 hours in cancer patients given varying doses.³ It has been suggested that where evidence on interactions between natural substances and chemotherapy drugs are unknown, an appropriate dosing protocol may be the spacing of both therapies 5 half-lives apart.⁹⁸ Since 5 half-lives is the accepted length of time for a substance to be eliminated from the body, this would minimize the risk of direct interactions during the time when chemotherapy is exerting its biological effects. In the absence of clinical data, it may be necessary to carefully examine preclinical data in order to establish the existence of additive effects, interference, or no interaction between vitamin C and chemotherapeutic agents. Although not exhaustive, high concentrations of vitamin C havebeen shown to have additive effects in combinationwith the following chemotherapy agents: cisplatin,^12,99-103cyclophosphamide,¹⁰⁴ doxorubicin,^104-107 etoposide,¹⁰⁸ fluorouracil,^12,14,100 gemcitamine,^80,109 irinotecan,¹⁴ paclitaxel,^99,110,111 tamoxifen,¹¹² vincristine,^111,113,114 and FOLFIRI¹⁴ and FOLFOX^14,65 regimens. Conversely, IVC may interfere with the effects of bortezomib^115,116 and methotrexate¹⁰⁰ based on in vitro data.

There is a report of oral vitamin C increasing prothrombin time in a patient who was stable on warfarin therapy.¹¹⁷ However, a subsequent study involving 19 patients with escalating doses from 3 to 10 g per day for 7 days concluded that vitamin C had no impact on the pharmacodynamic actions of warfarin.¹¹⁸ There is also a single report of possible resistance to warfarin; however, this was associated with low-dose oral vitamin C in a patient who was reportedly also taking several other self-prescribed, over-the-counter supplements, and has not been reported to be a special risk of IV administration.¹¹⁹

Dosing protocols varied among the studies included in our review. In addition to vitamin C, the inclusion of calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, and potassium chloride in the IV formula may improve tolerability and reduce potential electrolyte imbalances as well as risk of kidney stones. Dosing schedules vary from weekly up to 4 times weekly^3,6; however 2 to 3 times weekly appears to be most common among the studies reviewed here including among studies showing antitumor effects.^5,7,8,97 A test dose of IVC is given as the first treatment, 10 to 15 g, and if well tolerated a medium dose of 25 to 30 g is often given next, with the third dose in the range of 50 g or more.^3,4,8,92 According to Riordan, this protocol should be followed for at least a year for antitumor effects, although studies have shown preliminary antitumor effects (time to relapse, tumor size, response rate) even after 6 months and 8 weeks of treatment.^7,97 This is an area needing further study as well as prudent clinical judgment. Certainly case-based data support the long-term use of IVC, with many patients continuing less frequent but still regular treatments for several years in their efforts to maintain remission.

Limitations

The primary limitation of our review is related to the quality of the evidence, with much of the evidence on IVC consisting of uncontrolled studies and case reports. Assessments of risk of bias of all studies were relatively high due to design and reporting, most importantly small sample size and lack of use of an appropriate control group. This limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding effectiveness, including the magnitude of the effect if any, optimal dosing schedule, and in comparison with other therapies. On the other hand, controlled studies consisted of 2 RCTs, 1 cohort study, and 3 case–control studies, and the outcomes reported by these studies were consistent with reports of uncontrolled studies.^{6,11,44,45,58,97}

Strengths

To our knowledge, this review is the first systematic review of the literature examining the use of intravenously administered vitamin C therapy. Our review is broad in scope, and we have drawn on data from case reports, phase I trials, uncontrolled studies, as well as more rigorous evidence from RCTs. This is a critical first step in advancing an emerging field of research. We report not only on effectiveness in relation to tumor response and survival but also evaluate QOL, symptom scales, and tolerability in combination with standard therapies. There is a surprising amount of data available in these areas despite the inherent limitations of funding and conducting this type of research, as well as several ongoing trials assessing IVC in refractory non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00626444); in combination with gemcitabine for pancreatic cancer (NCT01654861); and in combination with irinotecan for colorectal cancer (NCT01550510). There is also currently a multicenter, prospective cohort study ongoing at the Ottawa Integrative Cancer Centre and the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine examining QOL and survival parameters, which will further add to the body of evidence on IVC.

In conclusion, high-dose IVC is a promising investigational therapy. Insufficient evidence exists to draw conclusions, though the literature does suggest IVC has a good safety profile as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of cancer. High-quality evidence with large sample sizes and rigorous follow-up is lacking. Preliminary evidence suggests that IVC may have the potential to improve tumor response and survival time, as well as improve QOL and side effects of chemotherapy or cancer-related symptoms; however, there is an urgent need for rigorous and well-controlled evaluations of IVC as an adjunctive treatment for cancer before definite conclusions can be drawn.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the clinical expertise and contributions in reviewing the systematic review protocol provided by Eric Marsden, ND; Gurdev Parmar, ND, FABNO; and Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO.

Authors’ Note

The funding agency had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Some of the authors (DS, HF, GF, LK, LW) work at clinics that provide intravenous vitamin C thus a perceived conflict of interest may be inferred.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded through the generosity of a private, anonymous donor.

References

Padayatty

Sun

Chen

Espey

Drisko

Levine

. Vitamin C: intravenous use by complementary and alternative medicine practitioners and adverse effects. PLoS One. 2010;5:e11414.

Padayatty

Riordan

Hewitt

Katz

Hoffer

Levine

. Intravenously administered vitamin C as cancer therapy: three cases. CMAJ. 2006;174:937-942.

Stephenson

Levin

Spector

Lis

. Phase I clinical trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of high-dose intravenous ascorbic acid in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;72:139-146.

Mikirova

Casciari

Rogers

Taylor

. Effect of high-dose intravenous vitamin C on inflammation in cancer patients. J Transl Med. 2012;10:189.

Monti

Mitchell

Bazzan

. Phase I evaluation of intravenous ascorbic acid in combination with gemcitabine and erlotinib in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. PLoS One. 2012;7:e29794.

Vollbracht

Schneider

Leendert

Weiss

Auerbach

Beuth

. Intravenous vitamin C administration improves quality of life in breast cancer patients during chemo-/radiotherapy and aftercare: results of a retrospective, multicentre, epidemiological cohort study in Germany. In Vivo. 2011;25:983-990.

Welsh

Wagner

van’t Erve

. Pharmacological ascorbate with gemcitabine for the control of metastatic and node-positive pancreatic cancer (PACMAN): results from a phase I clinical trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;71:765-775.

Takahashi

Mizuno

Yanagisawa

. High-dose intravenous vitamin C improves quality of life in cancer patients. Personalized Medicine Universe. 2012;2(1):49-53.

Cameron

Pauling

. The orthomolecular treatment of cancer. I. The role of ascorbic acid in host resistance. Chem Biol Interact. 1974;9:273-283.

10.

Cameron

Campbell

. The orthomolecular treatment of cancer. II. Clinical trial of high-dose ascorbic acid supplements in advanced human cancer. Chem Biol Interact. 1974;9:285-315.

11.

Cameron

Pauling

. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1976;73:3685-3689.

12.

Abdel-Latif

Raouf

Sabra

Kelleher

Reynolds

. Vitamin C enhances chemosensitization of esophageal cancer cells in vitro. J Chemother. 2005;17:539-549.

13.

Nagy

Mucsi

Molnar

Varga

Thurzo

. Chemosensitizing effect of vitamin C in combination with 5-fluorouracil in vitro. In Vivo. 2003;17:289-292.

14.

Fromberg

Gutsch

Schulze

. Ascorbate exerts anti-proliferative effects through cell cycle inhibition and sensitizes tumor cells towards cytostatic drugs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;67:1157-1166.

15.

Levine

Padayatty

Espey

. Vitamin C: a concentration-function approach yields pharmacology and therapeutic discoveries. Adv Nutr. 2011;2:78-88.

16.

Chen

Espey

Sun

. Ascorbate in pharmacologic concentrations selectively generates ascorbate radical and hydrogen peroxide in extracellular fluid in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:8749-8754.

17.

Padayatty

Sun

Wang

. Vitamin C pharmacokinetics: implications for oral and intravenous use. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:533-537.

18.

Putchala

Ramani

Sherlin

Premkumar

Natesan

. Ascorbic acid and its pro-oxidant activity as a therapy for tumours of oral cavity—a systematic review. Arch Oral Biol. 2013;58:563-574.

19.

Chen

Espey

Krishna

. Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells: action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:13604-13609.

20.

Deubzer

Mayer

Kuci

. H₂O₂-mediated cytotoxicity of pharmacologic ascorbate concentrations to neuroblastoma cells: potential role of lactate and ferritin. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2010;25:767-774.

21.

Chen

Espey

Sun

. Pharmacologic doses of ascorbate act as a prooxidant and decrease growth of aggressive tumor xenografts in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:11105-11109.

22.

Fromberg

Gutsch

Schulze

. Ascorbate exerts anti-proliferative effects through cell cycle inhibition and sensitizes tumor cells towards cytostatic drugs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;67:1157-1166.

23.

Riordan

Meng

Jackson

. Intravenous ascorbate as a tumor cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agent. Med Hypotheses. 1995;44:207-213.

24.

Martin

Levine

. Mechanisms of ascorbate-induced cytotoxicity in pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:509-520.

25.

Corpe

Eck

Wang

Al-Hasani

Levine

. Intestinal dehydroascorbic acid (DHA) transport mediated by the facilitative sugar transporters, GLUT2 and GLUT8. J Biol Chem. 2013;288:9092-9101.

26.

Vera

Rivas

Zhang

Farber

Golde

. Human HL-60 myeloid leukemia cells transport dehydroascorbic acid via the glucose transporters and accumulate reduced ascorbic acid. Blood. 1994;84:1628-1634.

27.

Carcamo

Golde

. Vitamin C enters mitochondria via facilitative glucose transporter 1 (Glut1) and confers mitochondrial protection against oxidative injury. FASEB J. 2005;19:1657-1667.

28.

Astuya

Caprile

Castro

. Vitamin C uptake and recycling among normal and tumor cells from the central nervous system. J Neurosci Res. 2005;79:146-156.

29.

Agus

Gambhir

Pardridge

. Vitamin C crosses the blood-brain barrier in the oxidized form through the glucose transporters. J Clin Invest. 1997;100:2842-2848.

30.

Salani

Marini

Rio

. Metformin impairs glucose consumption and survival in Calu-1 cells by direct inhibition of hexokinase-II. Sci Rep. 2013;3:2070.

31.

Szablewski

. Expression of glucose transporters in cancers. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1835:164-169.

32.

Fritz

Kennedy

Fergusson

. Vitamin A and retinoid derivatives for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta analysis. PLoS One. 2011;6:e21107.

33.

Altman

Schulz

Moher

. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-694.

34.

Gagnier

Boon

Rochon

Moher

Barnes

Bombardier

. Recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1134-1149.

35.

Wells

Shea

O’Connell

. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. Accessed September 24, 2010.

36.

Higgins

Altman

Gotzsche

. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

37.

Chapman

Levine

Polireddy

Drisko

Chen

. High-dose parenteral ascorbate enhanced chemosensitivity of ovarian cancer and reduced toxicity of chemotherapy. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:222ra218.

38.

Hoffer

Levine

Assouline

. Phase I clinical trial of i.v. ascorbic acid in advanced malignancy. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1969-1974.

39.

Mikirova

Jackson

Riordan

. The effect of high dose IV vitamin C on plasma antioxidant capacity and level of oxidative stress in cancer patients and healthy subjects. J Orthomol Med. 2007;22:153-160.

40.

Riordan

Casciari

Gonzalez

. A pilot clinical study of continuous intravenous ascorbate in terminal cancer patients. P R Health Sci J. 2005;24:269-276.

41.

Stephenson

Levin

Lis

. Phase 1 trial of high-dose intravenous vitamin C treatment for patients with cancer. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2007;107:212-213.

42.

Yeom

Jung

Song

. Changes of terminal cancer patients’ health-related quality of life after high dose vitamin C administration. J Korean Med Sci. 2007;22:7-11.

43.

Robitaille

Mamer

Miller

Jr . Oxalic acid excretion after intravenous ascorbic acid administration. Metabolism. 2009;58:263-269.

44.

Cameron

Campbell

Innovation

. quality control: an “unpublishable” clinical trial of supplemental ascorbate in incurable cancer. Med Hypotheses. 1991;36:185-189.

45.

Cameron

Pauling

. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: reevaluation of prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978;75:4538-4542.

46.

Drisko

Chapman

Hunter

. The use of antioxidants with first-line chemotherapy in two cases of ovarian cancer. J Am Coll Nutr. 2003;22:118-123.

47.

Riordan

Jackson

Riordan

Schultz

. High-dose intravenous vitamin C in the treatment of a patient with renal cell carcinoma of the kidney. J Orthomol Med. 1998;13:72-73.

48.

Riordan

Jackson

Schultz

. Case study: high-dose intravenous vitamin C in the treatment of a patient with adenocarcinoma of the kidney. J Orthomol Med. 1990;5:5-7.

49.

Riordan

Jackson

. Intravenous vitamin C as a chemotherapy agent: a report on clinical cases. P R Health Sci J. 2004;23:115-118.

50.

Riordan

Jackson

Riordan

. Intravenous vitamin C in a terminal cancer patient. J Orthomol Med. 1996;11:80-82.

51.

De Oliveira

JLG

. A nutritious cocktail for the treatment of melanoma: a case report. J Orthomol Med. 1998;13:176-178.

52.

Jackson

Riordan

Bramhall

Neathery

. Sixteen-year history with high dose intravenous vitamin C treatment for various types of cancer and other diseases. J Orthomol Med. 2002;17:117-119.

53.

Cameron

Campbell

Jack

. The orthomolecular treatment of cancer. III. Reticulum cell sarcoma: double complete regression induced by high-dose ascorbic acid therapy. Chem Biol Interact. 1975;11:387-393.

54.

Campbell

. Development of a papillary thyroid carcinoma in a patient while on high dosage ascorbic acid therapy. Chem Biol Interact. 1980;30:305-308.

55.

Campbell

Jack

Cameron

. Reticulum cell sarcoma: two complete “spontaneous” regressions, in response to high-dose ascorbic acid therapy. A report on subsequent progress. Oncology. 1991;48:495-497.

56.

Campbell

Jack

. Acute reactions to mega ascorbic acid therapy in malignant disease. Scott Med J. 1979;24:151-153.

57.

Jackson

Riordan

Hunninghake

Riordan

. High dose intravenous vitamin C and long time survival of a patient with cancer of head of the pancreas. J Orthomol Med. 1995;10:87-88.

58.

Dammacco

Benvestito

. Effects of cefodizime on non-specific immune functions in patients with multiple myeloma. Infection. 1992;20(suppl 1):S64-S66.

59.

Berenson

Matous

Swift

Mapes

Morrison

Yeh

. A phase I/II study of arsenic trioxide/bortezomib/ascorbic acid combination therapy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:1762-1768.

60.

Abou-Jawde

Reed

Kelly

. Efficacy and safety results with the combination therapy of arsenic trioxide, dexamethasone, and ascorbic acid in multiple myeloma patients: a phase 2 trial. Med Oncol. 2006;23:263-272.

61.

Berenson

Boccia

Siegel

. Efficacy and safety of melphalan, arsenic trioxide and ascorbic acid combination therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a prospective, multicentre, phase II, single-arm study. Br J Haematol. 2006;135:174-183.

62.

Welch

Klco

Gao

Hassan

Vij

. A phase I dose-escalation study of combination decitabine, arsenic trioxide and ascorbic acid in patients with MDS and AML. Paper presented at: Blood Conference: 52nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology, ASH 2010; Orlando, FL. Conference Publication: 116(21), 2010.

63.

Burris

3rd Moore

Andersen

. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2403-2413.

64.

Park

Davis

Lee

. Ascorbic acid alleviates toxicity of paclitaxel without interfering with the anticancer efficacy in mice. Nutr Res. 2012;32:873-883.

65.

Kang

Kim

Lee

. Vitamin C increases the apoptosis via up-regulation p53 during cisplatin treatment in human colon cancer cells. BMB Rep. 2011;44:211-216.

66.

Espey

Chen

Chalmers

. Pharmacologic ascorbate synergizes with gemcitabine in preclinical models of pancreatic cancer. Free Radic Biol Med. 2011;50:1610-1619.

67.

Ranzato

Biffo

Burlando

. Selective ascorbate toxicity in malignant mesothelioma: a redox Trojan mechanism. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2011;44:108-117.

68.

Maramag

Menon

Balaji

Reddy

Laxmanan

. Effect of vitamin C on prostate cancer cells in vitro: effect on cell number, viability, and DNA synthesis. Prostate. 1997;32:188-195.

69.

Hong

Lee

Moon

. SVCT-2 in breast cancer acts as an indicator for L-ascorbate treatment. Oncogene. 2013;32:1508-1517.

70.

Hong

Jin

Hahm

. Ascorbate (vitamin C) induces cell death through the apoptosis-inducing factor in human breast cancer cells. Oncol Rep. 2007;18:811-815.

71.

Bhat

Azmi

Hanif

Hadi

. Ascorbic acid mobilizes endogenous copper in human peripheral lymphocytes leading to oxidative DNA breakage: a putative mechanism for anticancer properties. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2006;38:2074-2081.

72.

Park

Han

Park

. L-Ascorbic acid induces apoptosis in acute myeloid leukemia cells via hydrogen peroxide-mediated mechanisms. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2004;36:2180-2195.

73.

Chen

Chalmers

. Pharmacological ascorbate induces cytotoxicity in prostate cancer cells through ATP depletion and induction of autophagy. Anticancer Drugs. 2012;23:437-444.

74.

Vuyyuri

Rinkinen

Worden

Shim

Lee

Davis

. Ascorbic acid and a cytostatic inhibitor of glycolysis synergistically induce apoptosis in non-small cell lung cancer cells. PLoS One. 2013;8:e67081.

75.

Kim

Kang

Lee

. Vitamin C induces apoptosis in human colon cancer cell line, HCT-8 via the modulation of calcium influx in endoplasmic reticulum and the dissociation of bad from 14-3-3beta. Immune Netw. 2012;12:189-195.

76.

Knowles

Raval

Harris

Ratcliffe

. Effect of ascorbate on the activity of hypoxia-inducible factor in cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2003;63:1764-1768.

77.

Kuiper

Molenaar

Dachs

Currie

Sykes

Vissers

. Low ascorbate levels are associated with increased hypoxia-inducible factor-1 activity and an aggressive tumor phenotype in endometrial cancer. Cancer Res. 2010;70:5749-5758.

78.

Kim

Lee

Chang

. Enhanced antitumor activity of vitamin C via p53 in cancer cells. Free Radic Biol Med. 2012;53:1607-1615.

79.

Pollard

Levine

Eidelman

Pollard

. Pharmacological ascorbic acid suppresses syngeneic tumor growth and metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer. In Vivo. 2010;24:249-255.

80.

Espey

Chen

Chalmers

. Pharmacologic ascorbate synergizes with gemcitabine in preclinical models of pancreatic cancer. Free Radic Biol Med. 2011;50:1610-1619.

81.

Bowie

O’Neill

. Vitamin C inhibits NF-kappa B activation by TNF via the activation of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase. J Immunol. 2000;165:7180-7188.

82.

Carcamo

Pedraza

Borquez-Ojeda

Golde

. Vitamin C suppresses TNF alpha-induced NF kappa B activation by inhibiting I kappa B alpha phosphorylation. Biochemistry. 2002;41:12995-13002.

83.

Kim

Kong

. Vitamin C down-regulates VEGF production in B16F10 murine melanoma cells via the suppression of p42/44 MAPK activation. J Cell Biochem. 2011;112:894-901.

84.

Mikirova

Casciari

Riordan

. Ascorbate inhibition of angiogenesis in aortic rings ex vivo and subcutaneous Matrigel plugs in vivo. J Angiogenes Res. 2010;2:2.

85.

Lee

Kang

Jung da

. Vitamin C suppresses proliferation of the human melanoma cell SK-MEL-2 through the inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression and the modulation of insulin-like growth factor II (IGF-II) production. J Cell Physiol. 2008;216:180-188.

86.

Yeom

Lee

Park

. High dose concentration administration of ascorbic acid inhibits tumor growth in BALB/C mice implanted with sarcoma 180 cancer cells via the restriction of angiogenesis. J Transl Med. 2009;7:70.

87.

Son

Rhee

Pyo

. Vitamin C blocks TNF-alpha-induced NF-kappaB activation and ICAM-1 expression in human neuroblastoma cells. Arch Pharm Res. 2004;27:1073-1079.

88.

Klingelhoeffer

Kammerer

Koospal

. Natural resistance to ascorbic acid induced oxidative stress is mainly mediated by catalase activity in human cancer cells and catalase-silencing sensitizes to oxidative stress. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2012;12:61.

89.

Chen

Marsit

Christensen

. Genetic variation in the vitamin C transporter, SLC23A2, modifies the risk of HPV16-associated head and neck cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30:977-981.

90.

Erichsen

Peters

Eck

. Genetic variation in sodium-dependent vitamin C transporters SLC23A1 and SLC23A2 and risk of advanced colorectal adenoma. Nutr Cancer. 2008;60:652-659.

91.

Wright

Andreotti

Lissowska

. Genetic variation in sodium-dependent ascorbic acid transporters and risk of gastric cancer in Poland. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:1824-1830.

92.

Riordan

Hunninghake

Riordan

. Intravenous ascorbic acid: protocol for its application and use. P R Health Sci J. 2003;22:287-290.

93.

Jackson

Hunninghake

Krier

Kirby

Hyland

. Special report: false positive finger stick blood glucose readings after high-dose intravenous vitamin C. J Orthomol Med. 2006;21:188-190.

94.

Anderson

. Intravenous ascorbate and standard therapies in oncology; the state of the science, application and practice of intravenous ascorbate with standard oncologic therapies. Paper presented at: Conference of the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OncANP); Phoenix, AZ; February 2013.

95.

Jaipakdee

Prasongwatana

Premgamone

. The effects of potassium and magnesium supplementations on urinary risk factors of renal stone patients. J Med Assoc Thai. 2004;87:255-263.

96.

Ettinger

Pak

Citron

Thomas

Adams-Huet

Vangessel

. Potassium-magnesium citrate is an effective prophylaxis against recurrent calcium oxalate nephrolithiasis. J Urol. 1997;158:2069-2073.

97.

Sullivan

Chen

Chapman

Levine

Drisko

. Prospective randomized phase I/IIa pilot trial to assess safety and benefit administering high-dose intravenous ascorbate in combination with chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced stage III or Stage IV ovarian cancer. Conference abstract of the Society of Integrative Oncology; Cleveland, OH; November 2011.

98.

Seely

Stempak

Baruchel

. A strategy for controlling potential interactions between natural health products and chemotherapy: a review in pediatric oncology. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2007;29:32-47.

99.

Kurbacher

Wagner

Kolster

Andreotti

Krebs

Bruckner

. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) improves the antineoplastic activity of doxorubicin, cisplatin, and paclitaxel in human breast carcinoma cells in vitro. Cancer Lett. 1996;103:183-189.

100.

Prasad

Sinha

Ramanujam

Sakamoto

. Sodium ascorbate potentiates the growth inhibitory effect of certain agents on neuroblastoma cells in culture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979;76:829-832.

101.

Prasad

Giri

Arjun

. Use of subtherapeutical dose of cisplatin and vitamin C against murine Dalton’s lymphoma. Pol J Pharmacol Pharm. 1992;44:383-391.

102.

Reddy

Khanna

Singh

. Vitamin C augments chemotherapeutic response of cervical carcinoma HeLa cells by stabilizing P53. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2001;282:409-415.

103.

Sarna

Bhola

. Chemo-immunotherapeutical studies on Dalton’s lymphoma in mice using cisplatin and ascorbic acid: synergistic antitumor effect in vivo and in vitro. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 1993;41:327-333.

104.

Taper

de Gerlache

Lans

Roberfroid

. Non-toxic potentiation of cancer chemotherapy by combined C and K3 vitamin pre-treatment. Int J Cancer. 1987;40:575-579.

105.

Casciari

Riordan

Schmidt

Meng

Jackson

Riordan

. Cytotoxicity of ascorbate, lipoic acid, and other antioxidants in hollow fibre in vitro tumours. Br J Cancer. 2001;84:1544-1550.

106.

Marian

Matkovics

. Potentiation of the biological activities of daunomycin and adriamycin by ascorbic acid and dimethylsulfoxide. Experientia. 1982;38:573-574.

107.

Wells

Rocque

Meyer

Charamella

Dimitrov

. Ascorbic acid and cell survival of adriamycin resistant and sensitive MCF-7 breast tumor cells. Free Radic Biol Med. 1995;18:699-708.

108.

Verrax

Calderon

. Pharmacologic concentrations of ascorbate are achieved by parenteral administration and exhibit antitumoral effects. Free Radic Biol Med. 2009;47:32-40.

109.

Martinotti

Ranzato

Burlando

. In vitro screening of synergistic ascorbate-drug combinations for the treatment of malignant mesothelioma. Toxicol In Vitro. 2011;25:1568-1574.

110.

D’Souza

Wang

Rockwell

Torchilin

. Surface modification of pharmaceutical nanocarriers with ascorbate residues improves their tumor-cell association and killing and the cytotoxic action of encapsulated paclitaxel in vitro. Pharm Res. 2008;25:2567-2572.

111.

Pathak

Singh

Khanna

Reddy

Prasad

Kochupillai

. Potentiation of the effect of paclitaxel and carboplatin by antioxidant mixture on human lung cancer h520 cells. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002;21:416-421.

112.

Prasad

Hernandez

Edwards-Prasad

Nelson

Borus

Robinson

. Modification of the effect of tamoxifen, cis-platin, DTIC, and interferon-alpha 2b on human melanoma cells in culture by a mixture of vitamins. Nutr Cancer. 1994;22:233-245.

113.

Chiang

Song

Yang

Chao

. Ascorbic acid increases drug accumulation and reverses vincristine resistance of human non-small-cell lung-cancer cells. Biochem J. 1994;301(pt 3):759-764.

114.

Song

Yang

Chiang

Chao

. Potentiation of growth inhibition due to vincristine by ascorbic acid in a resistant human non-small cell lung cancer cell line. Eur J Pharmacol. 1995;292:119-125.

115.

Bannerman

Jones

. Preclinical evaluation of the antitumor activity of bortezomib in combination with vitamin C or with epigallocatechin gallate, a component of green tea. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;68:1145-1154.

116.

Perrone

Hideshima

Ikeda

. Ascorbic acid inhibits antitumor activity of bortezomib in vivo. Leukemia. 2009;23:1679-1686.

117.

Rosenthal

. Interaction of ascorbic acid and warfarin. JAMA. 1971;215:1671.

118.

Feetam

Leach

Meynell

. Lack of a clinically important interaction between warfarin and ascorbic acid. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1975;31:544-547.

119.

Sattar

Willman

Kolluri

. Possible warfarin resistance due to interaction with ascorbic acid: case report and literature review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013;70:782-786.

Intravenous Vitamin C and Cancer

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Search Strategy

Inclusion Criteria

Record Screening and Selection

Data Extraction

Results

High-Dose IVC

Randomized Controlled Trials

Phase I/II and Uncontrolled Studies

Pharmacokinetics

Tumor response

Survival

Quality of life

DLTs and adverse events

Risk of bias

Observational Studies

Pharmacokinetics

Quality of life and side effects of chemotherapy

Tumor markers

Survival

Risk of bias

Case Reports

Low-Dose IVC

Randomized Controlled Trials

Phase I/II and uncontrolled studies

Interactions

Discussion

Survival Time in Phase I/II Studies

Symptom Management and Quality of Life

Mechanism of Action

Safety

Interactions

Limitations

Strengths

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

Authors’ Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References