BACKGROUND: Vitamin C at high concentrations is toxic to cancer cells in vitro. Early clinical studies of vitamin C in patients with terminal cancer suggested clinical benefit, but 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials showed none. However, these studies used different routes of administration. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether plasma vitamin C concentrations vary substantially with the route of administration. DESIGN: Dose concentration studies and pharmacokinetic modeling. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: 17 healthy hospitalized volunteers. MEASUREMENTS: Vitamin C plasma and urine concentrations were measured after administration of oral and intravenous doses at a dose range of 0.015 to 1.25 g, and plasma concentrations were calculated for a dose range of 1 to 100 g. RESULTS: Peak plasma vitamin C concentrations were higher after administration of intravenous doses than after administration of oral doses (P < 0.001), and the difference increased according to dose. Vitamin C at a dose of 1.25 g administered orally produced mean (+/-sd) peak plasma concentrations of 134.8 +/- 20.6 micromol/L compared with 885 +/- 201.2 micromol/L for intravenous administration. For the maximum tolerated oral dose of 3 g every 4 hours, pharmacokinetic modeling predicted peak plasma vitamin C concentrations of 220 micromol/L and 13 400 micromol/L for a 50-g intravenous dose. Peak predicted urine concentrations of vitamin C from intravenous administration were 140-fold higher than those from maximum oral doses. LIMITATIONS: Patient data are not available to confirm pharmacokinetic modeling at high doses and in patients with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Oral vitamin C produces plasma concentrations that are tightly controlled. Only intravenous administration of vitamin C produces high plasma and urine concentrations that might have antitumor activity. Because efficacy of vitamin C treatment cannot be judged from clinical trials that use only oral dosing, the role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should be reevaluated.
BACKGROUND:Vitamin C at high concentrations is toxic to cancer cells in vitro. Early clinical studies of vitamin C in patients with terminal cancer suggested clinical benefit, but 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials showed none. However, these studies used different routes of administration. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether plasma vitamin C concentrations vary substantially with the route of administration. DESIGN: Dose concentration studies and pharmacokinetic modeling. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: 17 healthy hospitalized volunteers. MEASUREMENTS: Vitamin C plasma and urine concentrations were measured after administration of oral and intravenous doses at a dose range of 0.015 to 1.25 g, and plasma concentrations were calculated for a dose range of 1 to 100 g. RESULTS: Peak plasma vitamin C concentrations were higher after administration of intravenous doses than after administration of oral doses (P < 0.001), and the difference increased according to dose. Vitamin C at a dose of 1.25 g administered orally produced mean (+/-sd) peak plasma concentrations of 134.8 +/- 20.6 micromol/L compared with 885 +/- 201.2 micromol/L for intravenous administration. For the maximum tolerated oral dose of 3 g every 4 hours, pharmacokinetic modeling predicted peak plasma vitamin C concentrations of 220 micromol/L and 13 400 micromol/L for a 50-g intravenous dose. Peak predicted urine concentrations of vitamin C from intravenous administration were 140-fold higher than those from maximum oral doses. LIMITATIONS: Patient data are not available to confirm pharmacokinetic modeling at high doses and in patients with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Oral vitamin C produces plasma concentrations that are tightly controlled. Only intravenous administration of vitamin C produces high plasma and urine concentrations that might have antitumor activity. Because efficacy of vitamin C treatment cannot be judged from clinical trials that use only oral dosing, the role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should be reevaluated.
Authors: Qi Chen; Michael Graham Espey; Murali C Krishna; James B Mitchell; Christopher P Corpe; Garry R Buettner; Emily Shacter; Mark Levine Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-09-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J L Welsh; B A Wagner; T J van't Erve; P S Zehr; D J Berg; T R Halfdanarson; N S Yee; K L Bodeker; J Du; L J Roberts; J Drisko; M Levine; G R Buettner; J J Cullen Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Brianne R O'Leary; Frederick K Houwen; Chase L Johnson; Bryan G Allen; James J Mezhir; Daniel J Berg; Joseph J Cullen; Douglas R Spitz Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Gervasio A Lamas; Christine Goertz; Robin Boineau; Daniel B Mark; Theodore Rozema; Richard L Nahin; Lauren Lindblad; Eldrin F Lewis; Jeanne Drisko; Kerry L Lee Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 56.272