Viscum album L. extracts in breast and gynaecological cancers: a systematic review of clinical and preclinical research

Breast and gynaecological cancers (i.e. ovarian, endometrial, cervical, vaginal, vulval, and fallopian cancers) account for a significant amount of morbidity and mortality in women. In Europe an estimated 429,900 cases were diagnosed as breast cancer in 2006 (13.5% of all cancer cases) and 131,900 died from it, despite substantially improved treatment options (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, hormonal and targeted therapies) [1]. Of female cancer survivors more than half had suffered from breast or gynaecological cancer [2].

40% to 80% of these patients use complementary therapies additionally to well-established treatments [3‐8]. This includes a variety of medicinal plants, but also acupuncture, psychosocial support, yoga, art therapies and others. These are supportive measures to control symptoms, improve quality of life, boost the immune system, and possibly prolong life. Sufficient evaluation is often lacking, however, of the extent to which these therapeutic goals are achieved, as well as of issues relating to safety and mode of action. Medicinal plants in particular have a long history in the treatment of cancer and other conditions connected with tumours, and also play a major role in the development of new drugs today. Over 60% of currently used anti-cancer agents originally derive from natural sources such as plants, marine organisms and micro-organisms [9].

Across Europe, Viscum album L. extracts (VAE or European mistletoe, not to be confused with the Phoradendron species or "American mistletoe") are among the most common herbal extracts applied in cancer treatment [3, 7, 8, 10]. Viscum album is a hemi-parasitic shrub and contains a variety of biologically active compounds. Mistletoe lectins (ML I, II and III) have been most thoroughly investigated. MLs consist of two polypeptide chains: a carbohydrate-binding B-chain that can bind on cell surface receptors, which enables the protein to enter the cell [11‐13]; and the catalytic A-chain which can subsequently inhibit protein synthesis, due to its ribosome-inactivating properties, by removing an adenine residue from the 28S RNA of the 60S subunit of the ribosome [11]. Other pharmacologically relevant VAE compounds are viscotoxins and other low molecular proteins, VisalbCBA (Viscum album chitin-binding agglutinin) [14], oligo- and polysaccharids [15, 16], flavonoids [17], vesicles [18], triterpene acids [19], and others [20, 21]. Whole VAE as well as several of the compounds are cytotoxic and the MLs in particular have strong apoptosis-inducing effects [22‐24]. MLs also display cytotoxic effects on multidrug-resistant cancer cells (e.g. MDR+ colon cancer cells [25]) and enhance cytotoxicity of anticancer drugs [26, 27]. In mononuclear cells VAE also possess DNA-stabilizing properties. VAE and its compounds stimulate the immune system (in vivo and in vitro activation of monocytes/macrophages, granulocytes, natural killer (NK) cells, T-cells, dendritic cells, induction of a variety of cytokines such as IL-1, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, GM-CSF, TNF-α, IFN-γ (overview see [20, 21]). The cytotoxicity of human natural and lymphokine-activated killer cells, for instance, can be markedly enhanced in vitro by VAE rhamnogalacturonans, which bridge these killer cells with NK-sensitive or insensitive tumour cells [28, 29]. Furthermore, VAE seem to interfere with tumoural angiogenesis [30, 31]. Injected into tumour-bearing animals, VAE and several of their compounds (MLs, a 5 kDa protein not specified further, protein complexes isolated by Vester and colleagues, oligosaccharids) display growth-inhibiting and tumour-reducing effects [20, 21]. Despite extensive experimental analyses of their biological properties, many questions regarding the precise mode of action of VAE still remain.

For clinical application VAE are made from mistletoes grown on different host trees [Host trees of VAE: Fir (Abies, A); maple (Acer, Ac); almond tree (Amygdalus, Am); birch (Betula, B); whitethorn (Crataegus, C); ash tree (Fraxinus, F); appletree (Malus, M); pine (Pinus, P); poplar (Populus, Po); oak (Quercus, Qu); willow (Salix, S); lime (Tilia, T), elm (Ulmus, U)], either by aqueous extraction, partly combined with fermentation, or by pressing procedures. Depending on host tree, harvesting time and extraction procedure, VAE vary in regard to their active compounds and biological properties. Different commercial VAE preparations are available, and a recombinant ML (rML) drug is currently being developed and tested in clinical trials [32, 33].

Clinical effects of VAE in cancer have been investigated in a variety of studies and assessed in systematic reviews [34‐39]. These reviews, however, had inconsistent results, they are outdated, incomplete or concentrate on partial aspects. No review has yet assessed clinical and preclinical effects specifically and comprehensively for breast and gynaecological cancer, although there is widespread usage in these patients [3, 7]. Our primary aim was therefore to assess the potential therapeutic effectiveness of VAE, and their potential biological effects on breast and gynaecological cancer in clinical and preclinical studies.

A variety of clinical studies and experiments have investigated the potential therapeutic effects of VAE and its compounds in breast and gynecological cancer, and predominantly reported positive effects. Nevertheless they have to be interpreted with caution and within their context.

The strongest and most consistent results from VAE in clinical studies concern QoL and improved tolerability of conventional treatment. QoL questionnaires included mostly well established and validated QoL instruments and one on psychosomatic self-regulation. The latter is a 16 item QoL instrument that measures competence and autonomy, in terms of the ability to actively adapt to stressful life situations and to restore well-being. [136] This tool has so far been exclusively used in studies focusing on complementary cancer treatments. Improvement was seen especially in relation to self-regulation, fatigue, sleep, nausea/vomiting, appetite, diarrhoea, energy, ability to work, enjoyment of life, depression, anxiety, pain, and general physical, emotional, and functional well-being (for more details see Kienle GS, Kiene H: Influence of mistletoe treatment on quality of life in cancer patients. A systematic review of controlled clinical studies. Submitted). Regarding the side effects of conventional oncology treatments, reduced hematopoetic damage (i.e. leukopenia) and immuno-suppression was reported by some, but not by all studies. Similar, less chemotherapy-related events were observed in some but not in all studies. Validity of this evidence is quite good. 15 RCTs are available, four of them double-blinded (three of them showing a positive result) and one with an active control treatment. 5 RCTs reported following ICH-GCP guidelines and three of them comprised more than 200 patients each. Questions remain regarding observation or reporting bias, which is of major importance in relation to subjectively assessed outcomes such as QoL and subjective symptoms. Treatment should therefore be blinded; but blinded subcutaneous VAE application can easily be correctly identified by doctors and patients [55, 137], due to its local reactions and mild flu-like symptoms. In the four blinded trials reviewed here, a considerable degree of unblinding was detected by asking patients and physicians in one study [55]; and can be presumed in two other of these trials where substantially more VAE-treated patients reported local reactions than control patients [54, 57]. Other RCTs did not blind treatment application, as blinding is unreliable. Therefore questions will remain in "blinded" as well as in open trials even though in general cancer or non-cancer trials could not detect relevant improvements of QoL or disease symptoms due to suggestive administration of inert substances [138‐140]. Nevertheless, the frequency, magnitude, duration and conditions of QoL or symptomatic improvement in the course of VAE treatment should be clarified in more detail. Especially relevant might be the further elucidation of possible effects on cancer-related fatigue (see also [141]), which is one of the most disabling conditions in cancer patients, with only few therapeutic options for influencing it effectively [142‐144]. Regarding simple pre-post assessments of QoL in single-arm studies, it is probably unnecessary to state that they are generally not appropriate for judging influences on QoL, since it is affected by many factors.

Concerning survival (Table 3), some of the RCTs show a statistically significant benefit while others show a statistical trend or no difference. Most of the non-RCTs (which included larger patient numbers) show a major impact. The validity of the studies is limited because of their small sample size (median only 52 participants per RCT), and because 8 of the 9 RCTs were imbedded in the same (large) epidemiological cohort study. This study was started in the 1970s, before modern standards of data quality control (ICH-GCP, GEP) were established, and it therefore does not fulfil modern standards in this respect. The 9^th RCT had enrolled more patients but was conducted even earlier, and suffers from a major attrition rate due to protocol violation [62]; the subsequent analysis followed the "as treated" instead of the "intention-to-treat" principle [145]. Hence bias cannot be excluded. None of the survival studies was blinded, but survival is generally not easily affected by observer bias or suggestive effects [138‐140]. Seen altogether, although results were consistent, questions regarding survival remain and validity of evidence is moderate at best. An independent, GCP-conform trial with sufficient power would be desirable to further evaluate potential survival benefit.

Regarding tumour behaviour, evidence from RCTs is scanty; most benefits were shown in non-randomized studies. In single-arm studies of patients with no concomitant conventional cancer treatment, high-dose or local application of whole VAE led to substantial remission of tumour or malignant effusion. This was also observed in animal studies: local application resulted in tumour-growth inhibition and increased survival. However, this application and dosage is not standard and cannot be recommended widely due to potential risks of high dose or local application. With ordinary VAE application, schedule and dosage, spectacular tumour remissions tend to be the exception [20, 36]. No tumour remission was observed after application of rMLs. Remission in CIN cannot be distinguished from spontaneous remission rates, which are frequent in this indication.

Apart from the discussed issues, the following validity aspects have to be considered: An attrition rate above 10% was present in 10 RCTs. In 5 of these RCTs [49‐51, 53], patients were excluded before baseline assessment. Here the patients were provisionally enrolled into the matching and pairwise randomization procedure; subsequently they were asked for informed consent, and were excluded from the study if they declined, together with their matched twin. Even though the risk of bias with this procedure is small, as the complete randomization unit (patient pair) is excluded, the preferred conservative quality assessment in this review assessed these studies as not having excluded a drop-out bias. Of the remaining 5 trials, one had protocol violations in about 20% of patients as discussed above [62], and one trial used an aggressive chemotherapy that inevitably had to be halted in several patients [63]. Three trials did not report details.

To reduce publication bias we also included unpublished studies and conducted a thorough literature search with extensive expert consultations. One unpublished RCT (Lektinol in breast cancer by Schwiersch et al.) could not be included as it was not released by the manufacturer. Beyond this, we cannot rule out the existence of unpublished and unknown RCTs, but we presume that no well-conducted, large-size and valid trials escaped our attention. – Regarding preclinical studies achieving completeness is nearly impossible. These experiments are usually explorative, for instance when plant extracts are chemically analysed for active compounds or for cytotoxic effects; in general only relevant results are published, but not results of non-relevant or non-working models or unstable chemicals. (Even in the reviewed experiments, often not all but only the noteworthy results were presented in detail.)

Regarding funding, 27 of 28 controlled studies published since 2000 reported their funding source: 11 studies received funding from the pharmaceutical industry alone, 16 studies (all by Grossarth et al.) had both industry and public funding. There was no difference of results depending on funding source.

Regarding non-RCTs, bias by self-selecting the treatment is usually present in raw data. In particular, patients who choose complementary treatments differ substantially from patients not choosing them [70, 146]. It is therefore indispensable to conduct careful adjustment of baseline imbalances or matching [147‐149]. This has been done to a varying degree in most studies except in one without any adjustment [64], and in another which only adjusted for the main outcome parameter but not for the other reported results [69]. Without any adjustment, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the applied treatment. When conducted and analysed carefully, non-RCTs can provide valuable information regarding external validity and effectiveness, as they can investigate treatment effectiveness under routine conditions without distortion by the artificial and selective conditions of an RCT's experimental situation [150].

In preclinical studies, VAE show substantial cytotoxic effects in cells originating from breast and gynaecological cancer, and display tumour-growth inhibition in animal studies. Cytotoxicity, especially of the MLs (which bind on human breast cancer cells [151]), may be the cause of tumour reduction after local, intratumoural application of VAE. If systemically applied, the cytotoxicity of the MLs is of less relevance, as it is inhibited by serum glycoproteins [152] and by anti-ML antibodies [153] which are produced after a few weeks of VAE application. Therapeutic effects of the MLs were inconsistent and not very impressive in the reviewed experiments. However, in other tumour types, MLs have also shown substantial growth-inhibiting effects (e.g. [154‐157]). Interestingly, in two experiments, the application of VAE-activated macrophages in mice not directly treated with VAE also showed tumour-growth inhibiting effects, while the application of non-activated macrophages had no effects [121]. Similarly in melanoma, the application of VAE-activated splenocytes inhibited metastasis [158, 159].

In general, the predictive reliability of the preclinical studies for clinical application is fairly limited in most instances. Clinical cancer disease is insufficiently mimicked by animal models, with major differences regarding age, general condition, co-morbidity, invasiveness, metastases, antigenicity, immune system etc. The results of preclinical screening, especially for treatment of solid tumours, have therefore been largely disappointing. The models currently regarded as best for cytotoxic substances use patient-derived tumours that grow subcutaneously or orthotopically in nude mice, as in several cases reviewed here. Immuno-active substances may however still be insufficiently assessed in immune-deficient animals, as the main components of the immune system are missing (nude mice, for instance, cannot generate mature T-lymphocytes). Nevertheless, these preclinical experiments can provide important additional information for detecting the possible anti-cancer effects of medicinal plants, their active compounds, their mode of action and potential risks [20, 160‐162].

Preclinical and clinical studies investigating the influence of VAE and its isolated compounds on breast or gynaecological cancer suggest a benefit, with the strongest evidence in relation to QoL and tolerability of conventional anti-cancer treatments. Regarding survival, evidence is less conclusive; most of the clinical studies had a very small sample size (RCTs) and were embedded in the same large cohort study; therefore an independent trial would be needed. Tumour-growth inhibition has been insufficiently assessed in prospective clinical trials. Tumour regression seems not to have been connected with regular low-dose subcutaneous VAE treatment, but with high dose and local application. The latter has not yet been thoroughly assessed and is not generally recommended.