A drug mix tested in people with late stage cancer
Original title: Neuroimmune treatment of advanced solid tumors: 3-year survival after angiotensin 1-7, pineal indoles, and cannabinoids.
How far along is this research?
- Lab cells
- Animals
- Review
- Tested in people
This was tested in people. That is the most reliable kind of research we share.
It was tried in people, but without a fair side by side comparison, so it is far from normal care.
The short version
More people who took an added drug called angiotensin 1-7 were still alive after three years.
What was studied. Doctors treated 100 patients who had advanced solid tumors that no longer responded to standard cancer care. These patients were expected to live less than six months. They took angiotensin 1-7 along with pineal indoles and cannabinoids. Their results were compared with 212 patients treated in earlier years who took the pineal indoles and cannabinoids without angiotensin 1-7. People with glioblastoma: The fastest-growing type of glioma (grade 4). Treatment usually starts soon after diagnosis: surgery first, then radiation and chemotherapy. See the glossary were given cannabigerol instead of cannabidiol.
What they found. In the group that took the full mix, the cancer was kept under control in 67 of 100 patients. Tumors got smaller in 23% of them. In the comparison group, the cancer was kept under control in 111 of 212 patients, and tumors got smaller in 8%. After three years, 37% of the full mix group were alive, compared with 19% of the comparison group.
What this means, and what it doesn't
What it could mean: This is an early signal that adding angiotensin 1-7 to this mix might help some people whose cancer has stopped responding to treatment. It is a starting point for more research. If you are curious about any of these products, talk to your cancer team first. Some of them can affect other treatments.
What it doesn't mean: This does not mean the mix is proven. It is not a cure and it is not a promise. Everyone in the main group got the treatment, so there was no fair side by side test. The comparison group was treated in different years, which makes the two groups hard to compare. Results like these often look weaker once a proper trial is done. This is not standard care, and a doctor cannot offer it as a normal treatment today.
Source: PubMed, August 4, 2026 · Read the original
This plain-language summary was written by AI and published automatically after passing our automatic safety checks. How we write.