Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2003 95(21):1572-1573; doi:10.1093/jnci/95.21.1572
© 2003 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wang, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Wang, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2003 Oxford University Press

NEWS

Whatever Happened To ... ? Looking Back 10 Years

Linda Wang

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

This is part of an occasional series that recalls some of the stories reported 10 years ago in the News section of the Journal.

This September, results of a phase III study of the shark cartilage extract AE-941 (Neovastat) suggested no benefit of the product on overall survival of patients with renal cell cancer. The findings come as a disappointment to researchers in a field plagued by negative publicity.

Shark cartilage gained widespread attention in 1993 when the television news program 60 Minutes broadcast a story on shark cartilage as a promising treatment for cancer. The centerpiece was a Cuban study that reported that 3 of 29 patients with cancer responded to shark cartilage treatments. In the Aug. 4, 1993 . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Controversial Treatment

Following Farmers


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?