Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129; doi:10.3390/ph13060129 www.mdpi.com/journal/pharmaceuticals
Article
Wheatgrass Juice Administration and Immune
Measures during Adjuvant Chemotherapy in
Colon Cancer Patients: Preliminary Results
Adva Avisar 1, Miri Cohen 2, Rina Katz 3, Talia Shentzer Kutiel 4,
Anat Aharon 5 and Gil Bar-Sela 6,7,*
1 The Graduate Studies Authority, University of Haifa, Haifa 31000, Israel; advah7@gmail.com
2 School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Haifa 31000, Israel; mcohen2@univ.haifa.ac.il
3 Clinical Immunology and Tissue Typing Lab, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa 31000, Israel;
r_katz@rambam.health.gov.il
4 Division of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 31000, Israel;
T_SHENTZER@rambam.health.gov.il
5 Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv 6423906, Israel;
a_aharon@yahoo.com
6 Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 31000, Israel
7 Cancer Center, Emek Medical Center, 21 Yitzhak Rabin Blvd., Afula 1834111, Israel
* Correspondence: gil_ba@clalit.org.il; Tel.: +972-4-6495723; Fax: +972-4-8135805
Received: 04 May 2020; Accepted: 19 June 2020; Published: 23 June 2020
Abstract: Adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended in high-risk stage II–III colorectal cancer (CC).
We examine the effect of daily wheatgrass juice (WGJ) intake in addition to chemotherapy on
immune parameters, including IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, and white blood cells (WBCs) among CC
patients. In a controlled prospective trial, 100 stage II–III CC patients were enrolled. According to
patient preference, they were divided into two subgroups, control group and intervention group,
50 patients each, all of whom received the same standard postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy,
plus consumption of 60 cc WGJ daily in the intervention group. Blood samples were collected at
baseline (T0) and upon treatment termination, 5–6 months later (T1). Cytokine concentrations
were assessed using ELISA kits. Anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 concentrations were
significantly higher in the WGJ group than in the control group at T1. The decline in WBC counts
between T0 and T1 was significantly lower in the WGJ group. No significant differences were
observed in IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12 concentrations between the study groups. The higher levels of IL-
10 and the attenuating of WBC decline during chemotherapy may constitute preliminary evidence
of the beneficial effects of WGJ on immune parameters, when given as a supplement to standard
care. In light of these preliminary results, WGJ supports immunological parameters during
adjuvant chemotherapy. Nevertheless, future studies are needed in order to translate those results
to clinical recommendations for cancer survivors.
Keywords: colon cancer (CC); adjuvant chemotherapy; wheatgrass; immune measures
1. Introduction
Colorectal cancer (CC) is the third most common type of cancer, accounting for 10% of all
cancer cases. It is the second most prevalent type in terms of the number of individuals living with
cancer five years after diagnosis, worldwide [1]. Six months of adjuvant chemotherapy with
5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (5-FU/LV) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin is the current worldwide
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 2 of 15
standard of care for patients with high risk stage II or III colon cancer following curative surgery [2].
The high incidence of CC cancer patients and the increased rate of survivors raise an urgent need
for studies involving nutritional interventions aimed at the immune system’s functions and
alleviating chemotherapy’s adverse effects.
Cytokines are a diverse group of intracellular messengers. They orchestrate and regulate the
human immune and inflammatory responses and maintain a proper balance among the various
immune cell types [3,4]. Some cytokines are usually considered as pro-inflammatory (e.g., IL-6,
IL-8), and others are generally considered as anti-inflammatory (e.g., IL-10). In healthy conditions,
inflammatory processes are self-limiting and self-resolving [5]. However, unsuccessful resolution
may lead to chronic, self-promoting inflammation, characterized by excessive tissue damage [6].
Thus, although the cytokine mediated response is essential, exaggerated production of pro-
inflammatory cytokines and chronic inflammation is associated with progression and mortality
among cancer patients [4,7]. The anti-inflammatory cytokines are a series of immune-regulatory
molecules that control the pro-inflammatory cytokine response. Thus, they limit sustained or
excessive inflammatory reactions [8,9].
Leukopenia, a low white blood cell (WBC) count, is commonly caused by chemotherapy [10].
In particular, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia are the most frequently observed dose-limiting
toxicities associated with chemotherapy use among cancer patients [11]. Two studies suggested
inverse correlation between pro-inflammatory cytokines and WBC counts during chemotherapy. It
has been reported that pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 levels rise in patients with chemotherapy-
induced myelosuppression [12]. Similarly, another study reported that IL-6 and TNF-α increased
almost at the same time that the numbers of neutrophils decreased after chemotherapy infusion [13].
Consistent with the current study hypothesis, WGJ intake may lower systemic inflammation, and
the change (Δ) in WBC count during chemotherapy was expected to be milder in the WGJ
intervention group.
A wide range of health benefits have been attributed to wheatgrass, the young grass of the
common wheat plant, Triticum aestivum. Its components include chlorophyll, flavonoids, and a
number of vitamins (C, E, A), minerals, amino acids, and vital enzymes [14,15]. Forms of
wheatgrass include fresh juice, frozen juice (used in the present study), tablets, and powders, with
compositions varying according to their production processes, as well as to the growing conditions
of the wheatgrass [16].
Laboratory in vitro studies, mostly using the fermented wheat germ extract, have
demonstrated anticancer potential: antiproliferative effects were observed in different cancer cell
lines [15,17,18]. Further in vitro studies have identified apoptosis as a possible mechanism [19–22].
In animal experiments, wheatgrass demonstrated benefits in cancer prevention and as an adjunct to
cancer treatment, as well as benefits to immunological activity and oxidative stress [16]. Clinical
trials show that wheatgrass may induce synergistic benefits to chemotherapy and may attenuate
chemotherapy-related side effects [16]. For example, in a study with colon cancer patients, after six-
month supplementation of fermented wheat germ extract to anticancer treatments, lower
recurrences of metastatic disease and mortality were reported in the intervention group [23]. Frozen
WGJ was used in a previous clinical study, together with adjuvant chemotherapy given to breast
cancer patients [24]. In this matched pairs study, patients received WGJ daily during
adriamycin-based adjuvant chemotherapy, while matched patients received only chemotherapy.
The most important effect observed was a reduction in neutropenic fever events and in neutropenic
infections [24]. However, there is only a limited number of intervention studies with wheatgrass
among cancer patients, and most of these are small.
Overall, possible associations between WGJ consumption and improved immune and
inflammatory measures may imply beneficial effects of wheatgrass on the disease course, although
there is a lack of established empirical knowledge concerning the subject. Therefore, the current
study aimed to examine the possible effects of daily WGJ intake on immune measures: pro- and
anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and IL-12 and WBC change (Δ) during chemotherapy.
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 3 of 15
2. Results
Baseline demographics, disease stage, chemotherapy regimen, background diseases, and
anticoagulants drugs were balanced across the study population. Consequently, there were no
significant differences between the two groups regarding the background variables (Table 1).
Patients’ mean age was 63.2 years for the WGJ intervention group and 60.8 years for the control
group. Respectively, 72% and 60% in the WGJ group and the control group were males. For both
groups, the mean number of years of education was 14, the majority of the participants were
currently married or living with a partner, and around 30% continued to work at baseline (T0).
Most participants reported themselves as current or past cigarette smokers, and about 40% reported
moderate or high physical activity (moderate physical activity included 40 min walking three times
a week). In both groups, the vast majority of patients was diagnosed with stage III CC, the most
frequent chemotherapy protocol was capecitabine and oxaliplatin, and the average number of
background diseases was slightly above 1.
Table 1. Background characteristics of the participants by group.
Variable Intervention
(n = 50)
Control
(n = 50) p
Age (years), M (SD) 63.2 (10.2) 60.8 (10.4)
t
=
−1.16
0.25
Gender, N (%) a
Male 36 (72.0) 30 (60.0) χ2 = 1.60 0.21
Female 14 (28.0) 20 (40.0)
M (SD) Education (years), 14.3 (4.9) 14.0 (3.8)
t
=
−0.34
0.74
Familial status, N (%)
Married/cohabiting 40 (80) 37 (74.0) χ2 = 3.38 0.34
Not married/cohabiting 10 (20.0) 13 (26.0)
Employed, N (%) 13 (26.5) 16 (35.5) χ2 = 8.23 0.22
Smoking, N (%)
Current 6 (13.0) 12 (25.5) χ2 = 2.44 0.30
Past 19 (41.3) 18 (38.3)
Never 21 (45.7) 17 (36.2)
Physical activity, N (%)
Low 24 (54.5) 24 (61.5) χ2 = 0.53 0.77
Medium 15 (34.1) 12 (30.8)
High 5 (11.4) 3 (7.7)
Disease stage, N (%)
Stage II 10 (20.0) 3 (6.0) χ2 = 4.35 0.11
Stage III 40 (80.0) 47 (94.0)
Chemotherapy regimen, N (%)
Xeloda (Capecitabine) 11 (22.0) 3 (6.0) χ2 = 6.21 0.10
Xelox (Capecitabine, Oxaliplatin) 35 (70.0) 42 (84.0)
Folfox (5-fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) 4 (8.0) 4 (8.0)
Number of background diseases, N (SD) 1.04 (1.16) 1.10 (1.23)
t
=
−0.25 0.80
Anticoagulant treatment, N (%) 12 (24.0) 14 (28.0) χ2 = 0.21 0.65
M = mean, SD = standard deviation, p = p Value, a percentages are calculated from the total
respondents for each item.
As part of the follow-up during the study, participants were asked regarding coping with
chemotherapy, how well they were handling daily WGJ consumption, and whether any difficulties
had arisen. Thus, follow-up of patients in the WGJ intervention group was maintained throughout
the study, allowing for assessing the persistence of juice consumption and for responding to
questions. Patients demonstrated good adherence to daily juice intake (60 cc) during the study
period. In general, patients viewed WGJ consumption as an integral part of treatment, along with
the medication routine. Hence, consumption was usually continuous during the treatment period
(according to patients’ reports, adherence to daily 60 cc WGJ intake was estimated to be over 90%).
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 4 of 15
In a few cases (n = 4), a few days of pause in WGJ consumption were reported due to increased
nausea, cold sensitivity, etc., following the chemotherapy infusion. However, after several days’
break, the intake was resumed. In two other cases, a break in consumption for several days due to a
temporary departure from the country and the resumption of intake upon return was reported.
Similar mean concentrations of cytokines IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12 at T0 and T1 were found in both
study groups, with no statistically significant differences (Table 2). In contrast, there was a
significant difference between the groups in the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 concentration; it
was significantly higher in the WGJ intervention group compared to the control group at T1.
Moreover, a significantly higher monocyte count was observed in the WGJ intervention group at T1
(Table 2). However, no significant differences were observed in the remaining WBC subpopulations
between study groups at T1. In addition, the difference or change (Δ) between T0 and T1 in WBC
counts was also tested and compared between the groups (differences were calculated using
subtraction of WBC counts at T0 from WBC counts at T1) (Table 2). The data indicated that the
mean difference of total WBC counts was significantly greater in the control group, compared with
the intervention group (p < 0.05). Similarly, there was a trend (p = 0.07) for a greater mean difference
of neutrophil counts in the control group. Hence, the decrease in total WBC and neutrophil counts
during chemotherapy was less in the intervention group, with similar mean differences of
lymphocyte and monocyte counts in both groups.
Table 3 presents the results of four multivariate models conducted to predict the blood
concentrations (pg/mL) of the four pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. A linear mixed effect
regression model (LMM) was used. The predictor variables included group variable, time, and
interaction of time with the group variable, as mentioned earlier. The relevant background
variables for each of the outcome variables were included as well. The group variable had a
significant positive effect on IL-10; the WGJ intervention group was associated with a higher IL-10
blood concentration. Time had no effect on the cytokine concentration, and the group variable had
no effect on IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12 concentrations.
Table 4 presents the results of four LMM models conducted to predict total WBC, neutrophils,
lymphocytes, and monocytes (K/µL). The analysis showed that time had a significant negative
effect on total WBC, neutrophils, and lymphocytes (but not on monocytes) counts. Trends (p = 0.07)
were observed for statistically significant interactions of time with the group variable in both
models that predicted total WBC and neutrophil counts, indicating a milder decline in these counts
during chemotherapy in the WGJ intervention group. These interactions reveal that the change in
WBC counts from baseline throughout chemotherapy and the change in neutrophils in particular
were different between the study groups. In addition, the group variable had a significant positive
effect on lymphocyte and monocyte counts: the WGJ intervention group was associated with higher
counts of lymphocytes and monocytes during chemotherapy.
Clinical Outcomes
The study was not planned to show differences in clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, the main
outcomes are reported (Table 5). Diarrhea was observed in both study groups without significant
difference (63% did not have diarrhea; 18% reported diarrhea grade I–II and 19% grade III). No
significant difference in occurrence of diarrhea grade ≥III during the chemotherapy treatment
period was observed with the addition of daily WGJ consumption (16% WGJ group and 22% in the
control, p = 0.47). Grade ≥II nausea and vomiting was less reported in the WGJ group; three patients
(6%) compared to eight (16%) in the control arm (0.12). The number of hospitalizations during the
treatment period was reported for 25% of the patients, without significant difference of occurrence
between the control and WGJ groups (22% in the WGJ and 28% in the control). Two patients died
during the treatment period due to intolerable toxicity (one in each group). Median follow-up time
was 22 months for both groups.
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 5 of 15
Table 2. Means (SD) of cytokine concentrations a white blood cell (WBC) concentrations b and differences c in WBC concentrations, by group at each assessment time.
Intervention n = (50) Control n = (50)
M SD CI M SD CI t (df) p
IL-6
Baseline (T0) 21.16 8.51 18.98, 23.64 19 9.63 16.45, 21.92 −1.17 (95) 0.25
Post intervention (T1) 21.35 8.33 18.90, 24.07 20.12 9.25 16.88, 23.67 −0.56 (62) 0.58
IL-8
Baseline (T0) 21.93 14.06 18.07, 25.90 17.59 13.56 13.84, 21.28 −1.55 (95) 0.13
Post intervention (T1) 16.33 11.79 13.07, 20.21 16.08 13.53 11.25, 21.77 −0.08 (62) 0.94
IL-10
Baseline (T0) 4.62 2.66 3.89, 5.41 4.42 4.34 3.41, 5.84 −0.28 (95) 0.78
Post intervention (T1) 5.14 2.55 4.33, 5.93 3.8 2.18 2.95, 4.59 −2.19 (62) 0.03
IL-12
Baseline (T0) 26.51 15.2 22.16, 30.77 23.66 13.19 20.29, 27.86 −0.98 (95) 0.33
Post intervention (T1) 22.57 12.71 18.67, 26.91 23.45 15.33 18.24, 29.24 0.25 (63) 0.8
WBCs
Baseline (T0) 6.77 1.56 6.34, 7.22 6.92 2 6.38, 7.52 0.42 (92) 0.67
Post intervention (T1) 6.2 2.07 5.54, 6.99 5.61 1.71 5.01, 6.20 −1.27 (65) 0.21
Neutrophils
Baseline (T0) 3.78 1.28 3.42, 4.17 4.26 1.37 3.89, 4.68 1.76 (91) 0.08
Post intervention (T1) 3.29 1.68 2.80, 3.87 3.09 1.3 2.68, 3.57 −0.56 (65) 0.58
Lymphocytes
Baseline (T0) 2.01 0.74 1.80, 2.20 1.87 0.94 1.62, 2.15 −0.75 (89) 0.46
Post intervention (T1) 1.76 0.69 1.54, 1.98 1.61 0.75 1.36, 1.86 −0.86 (64) 0.4
Monocytes
Baseline (T0) 0.68 0.23 0.61, 0.74 0.6 0.22 0.54, 0.67 −1.60 (89) 0.11
Post intervention (T1) 0.88 0.38 0.76, 1.01 0.71 0.26 0.63, 0.80 −2.15 (64) 0.04
WBC difference a −0.48 2.26 −1.25, 0.32 −1.48 1.63 −2.08, −0.91 −2.04 (63) 0.046
Neutrophil difference −0.38 1.86 −0.97, 0.23 −1.13 1.38 −1.62, −0.65 −1.82 (63) 0.07
Lymphocytes difference −0.26 0.54 −0.46, 0.10 −0.42 0.49 −0.60, −0.24 −1.17 (59) 0.25
Monocytes difference 0.17 0.37 0.05, 0.31 0.09 0.24 0.00, 0.18 −1.00 (59) 0.32
M = mean, SD = standard deviation, CI = confidence interval, p = p Value, a Units of cytokine concentrations: pg/mL, b Units of WBC cell concentrations: K/uL,
C changes (Δ) in WBC between baseline (T0) and treatment termination (T1).
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 6 of 15
Table 3. Linear mixed effect regression (LMM) models for predicting cytokine concentrations (pg/mL).
IL-6 (n = 90) IL-8 (n = 90) IL-10 (n = 97) IL-12 (n = 87)
B SE 95% CI p B SE 95% CI p B SE 95% CI p B SE 95% CI p
Time a −0.03 2.04 −4.10, 4.05 0.99 4.22 3.43 −2.60, 11.05 0.22 0.64 0.62 −0.61, 1.88 0.31 2.68 3.82 −4.92, 10.28 0.49
Group b 1.63 2.41 −3.19, 6.46 0.50 0.95 3.53 −6.13, 8.03 0.79 1.28 0.63 0.02, 2.55 0.046 1.28 3.83 −6.39, 8.95 0.74
Time*Group c −0.40 2.64 −5.67, 4.87 0.88 1.58 4.43 −7.24, 10.41 0.72 −1.17 0.83 −2.84, 0.51 0.17 0.96 5.04 −9.07, 11.00 0.85
Education (years) 0.34 0.19 −0.04, 0.71 0.08 0.70 0.25 0.21, 1.19 0.01 - - - - 0.43 0.24 −0.05, 0.90 0.08
Gender - - - - 2.37 2.34 −2.28, 7.02 0.31 0.55 0.57 −0.60, 1.69 0.34 - - - -
Smoking
- - - - - - - - - - - - 8.26 2.79 2.70, 13.82 0.00
Background
Diseases - - - - −2.81 1.03 −4.85, −0.77 0.01 - - - - - - - -
Abbreviations: B = Estimate of fixed effect, SE = standard error, p = p-Value, C = confidence interval, a Time = T0, b Group = WGJ intervention group,
c the interaction between time and group variables.
Table 4. LMM models for predicting WBC concentrations (K/uL).
WBC (n = 91) Neutrophils (n = 96) Lymphocytes (n = 91) Monocytes (n = 96)
B SE 95% CI p B SE 95% CI p B SE 95% CI p B SE 95% CI p
Time a 1.43 0.37 0.68, 2.18 0.00 1.17 0.29 0.60, 1.74 0.00 0.36 0.09 0.17, 0.54 0.00 −0.10 0.06 −0.21, 0.02 0.1
Group b 0.83 0.51 −0.19, 1.84 0.11 0.24 0.37 −0.49, 0.97 0.52 0.33 0.16 0.01, 0.66 0.04 0.20 0.08 0.04, 0.35 0.02
Time*Group
c
−0.97
0.51
−1.99, 0.06
0.07
−0.72
0.40
−1.51, 0.07
0.07
−0.08
0.13
−0.34, 0.17
0.51
−0.10
0.08
−0.26, 0.05
0.2
Smoking 1.08 0.47 0.15, 2.01 0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Employment - - - - - - - - −0.12 0.17 −0.45, 0.22 0.49 - - - -
Gender - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.10 0.05 0.01, 0.19 0.03
Disease Stage - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.19 0.06 0.07, 0.32 0
B = Estimate of fixed effect, SE = standard error, p = p-value, CI = confidence interval, a Time = T0, b Group = WGJ intervention group,
c the interaction between time and group variables.
Table 5. Clinical parameters summary.
Variable Intervention (n = 50) Control (n = 50) p
Diarrhea grade I–II, N (%) 9 (18%) 9 (18%)
Diarrhea grade ≥III, N (%) 8 (16%) 11 (22%) 0.47
Nausea and vomiting grade ≥II, N (%) 3 (6%) 8 (16%) 0.12
Number of hospitalizations during treatment, N (%) 11 (22%) 14 (28%) 0.64
Number of patients with relapse, N (%) 14 (28%) 9 (18%) 0.24
Overall survival 3rd year, N (%) 47 (94%) 42 (84%) 0.14
p = p-value.
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 7 of 15
With a median follow-up of 24 months, the number of patients with recurrent disease was 23,
with 14 in the WGJ group compared with 9 in the control group (p = 0.24). Eleven patients had died
at the time of analysis, three in the WGJ group (one due to toxicity and two due to metastatic
disease) and eight in the control group (one due to toxicity, one from multiple organ dysfunction,
five due to metastatic disease and one after four years from unknown causes).
Overall survival (OS) in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year was 96%, 87%, and 84%, respectively, in the
control group and 98%, 96%, and 96%, respectively, in the WGJ group (p = 0.14). There was no
statistically significant difference in all clinical parameters. Although the OS result favored
wheatgrass supplementation, this may also have partly related to a higher percentage of control
patients with Stage III CC (94% versus 80%) at baseline.
3. Discussion
Only a limited number of intervention studies with wheatgrass were conducted among cancer
patients previously [23–27]. The relationship between wheatgrass consumption and inflammation
measures has not been studied at all, to the best of our knowledge. The current study indicates for
the first time that anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 concentration was higher in the WGJ
intervention group compared with the control group at the end of the chemotherapy period.
Further, the decrease in WBC and neutrophil counts during the chemotherapy treatment period
was attenuated with WGJ consumption.
Oncology treatment, chemotherapy, and cancer surgery may induce and enhance
inflammation [28,29]. In turn, increased levels of inflammation and pro-inflammatory cytokines
may enhance disease symptoms, including pain, cognitive dysfunction, dyspnea, fatigue, and
depression [30,31]. Chronic inflammation can promote all stages of tumorigenesis, including DNA
damage, limitless replication, sustained angiogenesis, and metastasis [32]. Accordingly, studies
indicate that pro-inflammatory cytokines may induce angiogenesis and metastasis and promote
tumor growth [33]. In contrast, there are studies which imply that high levels of anti-inflammatory
cytokines may have a protective effect against cancer development [34,35]. However, these
relationships are not yet established. In the current study, we considered the associations between
WGJ intake and certain pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines.
According to a few intervention studies, a number of dietary supplements and herbs may
affect levels of cytokines involved in inflammation among cancer patients [36,37]. For example, it
was found that omega-3 can promote the release of IL-10 [37]. These results resemble the findings of
the current study, which indicate higher levels of IL-10 in the WGJ intervention group. However,
other studies have not demonstrated similar results [38–40]. Overall, most prior studies were
conducted with small samples, and short intervention periods [36,37,41–43].
Evidence of wheatgrass anti-inflammatory properties was obtained from one animal study and
from two small human intervention studies that demonstrated alleviation of inflammatory disease
symptoms [44–46]. Wheatgrass has been shown to alleviate the symptoms of atopic dermatitis in a
mice animal model [46]; and two intervention studies demonstrated symptom relief following
consumption of wheatgrass in patients with arthritis and ulcerative colitis (inflammatory bowel
disease) [44,45]. The findings of the current research are supported by these studies, and may also
offer a mechanism for explaining the results described above: higher concentrations of anti-
inflammatory cytokine IL-10 due to wheatgrass intake may explain, at least partially, the
mechanism underlying alleviation of these inflammatory disease symptoms [44–46].
The findings of the present study can also be explained on the basis of the high content of anti-
inflammatory components in wheatgrass. Hence, the increased concentration of anti-inflammatory
cytokines IL-10 found in the WGJ intervention group can be elucidated by the high content of
chlorophyll, flavonoids, and superoxide dismutase in wheatgrass [47]. Chlorophyll, which
constitutes one of the major components of wheatgrass, may contribute to the treatment of various
inflammation-related diseases, such as dengue [48], cholangiocarcinoma [49], allergic rhinitis [50],
and acne vulgaris [51]. Further, it is conceivable that wheatgrass may also reduce oxidative stress
induced by inflammation. This is due to a high antioxidant content, as well as antioxidant effects,
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 8 of 15
that were verified in prior studies [27,47,52]. Overall, wheatgrass intake may contribute to
decreased inflammation as well as decreased oxidative stress induced by inflammation.
Some clues toward trends of decreased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the WGJ
intervention group can be found in the current study. For instance, a steeper decrease in the pro-
inflammatory cytokine IL-8 concentration during treatment occurred in the intervention group
compared with the control group (Table 2). Moreover, the insignificant results regarding the
inflammatory cytokines may be explained due to limited sample size and high dispersion: a wide
range of cytokine levels. In addition, it can be hypothesized that the significant difference in the
anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10, along with the non-significant differences in the inflammatory
cytokines, are related to the regulatory role of IL-10. These results may indicate that the role of IL-10
is reflected through inflammation reduction in the long term rather than in the short term.
Although the chemotherapy protocols that are used in the adjuvant chemotherapy treatment
for CC patients rarely brought about severe neutropenia or leucopenia, those side-effects are the
most frequently observed dose-limiting toxicities associated with chemotherapy [11]. Severe
neutropenia (<0.5 K/uL) is the main risk factor for infections [11]. Therefore, it is important to
consider therapies that may provide support for the immune system and specifically for WBC
counts during chemotherapy. WGJ may have such potential. In the current study, the interactions
of time with the group variable reveal that the change in WBC counts from baseline throughout
chemotherapy, and the change in neutrophils in particular, was different between the study groups.
Thus, although the WBC counts decreased in both groups during therapy, the current study
suggests that the decrease in WBC and neutrophils was milder in the intervention group.
Intervention studies of the effects of different medicinal plants on cancer patients during
chemotherapy have demonstrated higher WBC counts in the intervention groups, similar to the
current study [53–55]. Several animal and human studies specifically conducted with wheatgrass
also imply a beneficial effect of wheatgrass on WBC counts or adverse effects associated with WBC
decline [56,57]. A reduction in neutropenic fever events and in neutropenic infections due to intake
of wheatgrass was reported among breast cancer patients [24] and pediatric patients [25]. In
conclusion, the findings of the current as well as previous studies suggest that wheatgrass may
benefit WBC count or the adverse effects associated with a low count.
Higher lymphocyte counts in the intervention group were also found in the current study.
Prior studies in medicinal plants (mainly used in traditional Chinese medicine) have also
demonstrated higher counts of lymphocytes of different types in the intervention group among
cancer patients [53,55,58,59], although results are inconclusive [39]. It can be assumed that a
beneficial effect of WGJ on lymphocyte counts, observed in the current study, may decrease
lymphopenia among patients. Previous studies have revealed that severe lymphopenia (<0.5 K/uL)
due to chemotherapy and radiation therapy was associated with lower survival and disease
progression in various cancers [60,61], including postoperative colorectal cancer patients [62], and
during adjuvant chemotherapy [63], similar to patients included in the present study.
The present study also indicates higher counts of monocytes (phagocytes cells that protect the
body against infection) in the intervention group. Monocyte counts increased during chemotherapy
in both groups, with a steeper increase in the intervention group. IL-10, which regulates and
restrains the inflammatory process, is usually secreted by immune cells, particularly monocytes
[64]. Therefore, the fact that the monocyte counts were higher in the intervention group is
consistent with higher concentrations of IL-10 in this group at T1.
A possible elucidation for the higher monocyte and lymphocyte counts, milder decline in
WBC, and a higher concentration of IL-10 observed in the WGJ intervention group emerges from a
study examining the effect of oligosaccharides isolated from wheatgrass on human peripheral
blood mononuclear cells [65]. According to this study, wheatgrass-derived oligosaccharides have
immunity-modulating properties; it was found that they activated various immune cells, including
T cells, NK cells, and monocytes. In particular, they directly modulated monocytes through Toll-
like receptor 2 (TLR-2). In addition, upregulated secretions of Th1 cytokines in human peripheral
blood mononuclear cells were also observed in the presence of the oligosaccharides [65]. Hence, this
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 9 of 15
in vitro study revealed a beneficial effect of wheatgrass upon the immune system in line with the
results of the present study.
In summary, differences were observed in all WBC subpopulations examined between the two
study groups. Both current and prior studies suggest that wheatgrass has the potential to serve as a
supportive therapy during chemotherapy, with a protective effect from leucopenia and the adverse
effects associated with it.
As mentioned earlier, the study was not planned to show differences in clinical outcomes.
However, several chemotherapy side-effects were reported. Numerically, fewer patients in the WGJ
group had nausea and vomiting or severe diarrhea. Nevertheless, with respect to hospitalizations
during treatment, no significant differences were found between the groups. The chemotherapy
protocol based on 5-FU and oxaliplatin used for colon cancer usually does not cause severe
neutropenia. Although relief from hematologic side effects (decreased WBC counts) was
demonstrated in the present study, it was not translated to clinical outcomes.
The results of the current study may indicate a survival benefit for patients in the WGJ group;
this is in line with the beneficial effect of WGJ on immune functions demonstrated in this study.
However, this benefit was not significant (p = 0.14). Based on the difference in survival after 24
months of follow-up seen in the current study, the number of patients needed to be treated is 268 in
order to reach significance. This study is under-powered to reach any conclusion regarding survival
benefits of WGJ during the chemotherapy period. It may also logically hypothesize that the most
significant effect of WGJ on disease course and survival is during juice intake, and not necessarily a
considerable period of time after cessation of consumption. Therefore, in order to answer the
question of survival advantage, a larger study with a longer period of WGJ consumption is needed.
4. Methods
4.1. Patients and Procedure
One hundred patients were recruited consecutively between 6 March 2014 and 11 July 2017.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the
ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All participants signed an
informed consent form for inclusion prior to their participation. The study was approved on 9
December 2013, by the Institutional Review Board of Rambam Health Care Campus (RHCC) in
Haifa, Israel (approval no. 0153-13) (NIH number NCT01991080). The present study is part of a
larger research project conducted with regard to WGJ consumption in relation to extracellular
vesicles (EVs) and psychological variables. The inclusion criteria were as follows: patients aged 18+,
diagnosed with CC stages II–III toward adjuvant chemotherapy following curative surgery.
Exclusion criteria were: patients with an infectious disease (hepatitis B), or with difficulty
understanding the Hebrew language. However, the number of patients discharged due to these
causes was low (n = 5). The selection of suitable candidates for the study was conducted through
the hospital’s computerized system. Letters were sent to suitable candidates to inform them of
research being conducted in the Division of Oncology at RHCC. A week later, the patients were
telephoned to suggest participation in the study, as well as to provide information and explanation
regarding the study and to answer questions. Response rate was 70.5%.
Patients who were interested in consuming WGJ were admitted to the WGJ intervention
group. Patients who preferred not to consume WGJ were asked to donate blood samples for the
purpose of the study, and those who agreed were entered into the control group. The
chemotherapy period lasted for 5–6 months for all patients who did not stop treatment due to
toxicity (the dropout rate was 5%, and 25% of patients did not complete the chemotherapy
treatment period). The period of WGJ intake was identical to the chemotherapy period for the
relevant group. Consistent follow-up with all patients was maintained throughout the study period
(control and intervention groups). Monitoring and communication with participants were
conducted equally for both groups. The follow-up was usually maintained via a personal frontal
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 10 of 15
conversation when patients arrived at RHCC to receive chemotherapy treatment or to visit the
attending physician, once every two to three weeks. If this was not possible, a telephone call was
made instead. During these follow-up conversations, it was possible to monitor patients’ well-
being, coping with chemotherapy, difficulties that arose, and adherence to WGJ intake.
4.2. Study Intervention
In the current study, we used pure natural WGJ without any processing or additives, supplied
by a single agriculturist. The grass was grown on unified compost, consisting entirely of organic
manure. Wheat seeds were germinated on trays that contain the compost throughout the year.
There was an automatic constant irrigation during the growth. Harvest took place whenever the
wheat sprouts reached a length of about 15–20 cm (when their nutritional values are at peak). The
content of nutritional components of the wheatgrass grown in this method does not change
throughout the year (although the sugar content is slightly higher on sunny days compared to
cloudy days). Squeezing was always cold press-done by a special slow rpm juicer. As a result, the
grass, as well as the juice, stays cool throughout the process, and nutritional values are preserved.
Moreover, squeezing was carried out immediately before freezing in order to maintain these
nutritional values. Each patient in the intervention group received a monthly supply of frozen WGJ,
divided into daily rations of 60 cc, during the chemotherapy treatment period (5–6 months). The
juice was kept in a freezer, and the participants were asked to drink one dose every morning on an
empty stomach.
4.3. Blood Samples
Blood samples were obtained from each patient before the first chemotherapy cycle (baseline,
T0) and after completion of the chemotherapy treatment 5–6 months later (post intervention, T1).
Briefly, 15 mL of peripheral venous blood were drawn from study participants into
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) tubes; plasma was obtained after two centrifugations (15
min, 1500 g) within an hour of collection and frozen at −80 °C. Samples were used to assess
pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine concentrations using appropriate kits (Human ELISA MAX
Deluxe, BioLegend, San Diego, CA, USA).
4.4. Cytokines Assessment
For cytokine quantification, the following kits were used: Human IL-6 ELISA MAX Deluxe,
BioLegend, San Diego, CA, USA. cat # 430505; Human IL-8 ELISA MAX Deluxe, BioLegend, San
Diego CA, USA. cat # 431505; Human IL-10 ELISA MAX Deluxe, BioLegend, San Diego, CA, USA.
cat # 430605; Human IL-12 p70 ELISA MAX Deluxe, BioLegend, San Diego, CA, USA. cat # 431705
(https://www.biolegend.com/Files/Images/media_assets/pro_detail/datasheets/430504_V02.pdf).
Evaluation of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12) was performed
according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, a day prior to the experiment, the plates were
coated with a primary (Capture) antibody (100 µL; dilution, 1:200) and incubated overnight at 4 °C.
On the experiment day, washing was performed four times (and performed later, after each step),
and the plates were blocked. Standard and samples (100 µL) were added in duplicates to the wells
containing capture antibodies and incubated for two hours with gentle shaking (the samples were
not diluted). Biotinylated detection antibody (100 µL; dilution, 1:200) was then added to the wells.
After 60 min of incubation, avidin–HRP (horseradish peroxidase) complex was added. Thirty
minutes later, the substrate (tetramethylbenzidine substrate solution) was added, and the plates
were incubated in the dark. At this point, a blue dye was formed, which was proportional to the
concentrations of each of the cytokines in the blood samples. The reaction was stopped by adding
100 µL of acid solution to each well, and the plates were read at 450 nm.
Clinical data at T0 and WBC data at T0 and T1 were collected from the patient’s medical
record, as these are routine tests for patients receiving this chemotherapy regimen. Apart from total
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 11 of 15
WBC, subpopulations of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes were also collected and studied.
Demographic data were collected using a self-report demographic questionnaire.
4.5. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 23) software for Windows. The chi
square test and the independent t test were used to determine the difference between patients’
demographic and clinical characteristics in both groups. Differences between the study groups
regarding the immune variables at T0 and T1 were calculated using the independent t tests. In
order to test these differences while adjusting for background variables, a linear mixed effect
regression (LMM) was used.
The main advantage of LMM lies in the fact that the analysis includes the data of all study
participants, including patients who had not completed chemotherapy (according to intention to
treat approach). From the clinical and demographic variables, only those variables that were
correlated significantly with the outcome variables were entered into the LMM models and
adjusted for. They were entered to the models as covariates together with the group variable, the
time variable, and the interactions between time and group. The group variable examined whether
the intervention had an effect on the immune variables, compared with the control group; the time
variable examined whether time had an effect on the immune variables; and the interaction
between time and group tested whether the change over time in the immune variables differed
between the two groups. The background variables were added to the models in order to adjust for
their effect on the relationships between group and time variables and the immune variables.
Background variables that were significantly associated with the outcome variables (immune
measures) were: education (for IL-6); gender, education, background diseases (for IL-8); gender (for
IL-10); education, smoking (for IL-12); smoking (for WBC); employment (for lymphocytes); gender,
disease stage (for monocytes). No significant associations between neutrophils and background
variables were found.
p Values of 0.05 were considered statistically significant. However, a statistical significance
level of p < 0.1 was presented as well. This is due to the difficulty of reaching statistical significance
when the dependent variable is biological, similar to previous studies [66,53].
The estimated sample size was calculated according to Cohen’s equation; in a regression model
with six independent variables, in order to achieve a medium effect size, at a significance level of
0.05, and a statistical power of 0.80, a sample of 100 participants was required [67].
5. Study Limitations
The main limitation of this study is the non-random allocation into intervention and control
groups, based on self-selection. This could result in patient-related bias (volunteer bias). However,
no statistically significant differences were found in baseline demographic and clinical
characteristics between the study groups. Moreover, the baseline characteristics that were
significantly associated with the outcome variables (immune measures) were added to the LMM
regression models in order to adjust for their effect on the relationships between WGJ intervention,
time, and the immune outcome variables. Further, the same characteristics that motivated patients
in the study sample to choose WGJ consumption most likely resemble the characteristics that would
motivate patients in the general population to consume WGJ (e.g., tendency toward healthy diet,
health habits). It is therefore plausible to assume that the findings of the current study would apply
to the general population of CC patients, despite self-selection. In addition, although the study was
controlled, a placebo effect was not tested.
6. Conclusions
This is a preliminary study devised to examine the possible effects of WGJ on the immune
system. Our findings in relation to the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10, as well as WBC counts
during chemotherapy, constitute preliminary evidence highlighting the beneficial effects of WGJ on
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 12 of 15
immune parameters, when given as a supplement to standard care. There is preliminary evidence,
both from the current and previous studies, that wheatgrass has the potential to mitigate a number
of different chemotherapy-induced damages. Moreover, wheatgrass constitutes no adverse effects
comparable to chemical drugs. Hence, it has a potential to be used as a cheap, non-toxic supplement
to standard chemotherapy. The present study, therefore, contributes to the creation of evidence-
based recommendations for the use of WGJ among CC patients during chemotherapy.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Adva Avisar, G.B.-S. and M.C.; Methodology, Adva Avisar, M.C.
and G.B.-S.; Software, Adva Avisar, M.C.; Validation, Adva Avisar, M.C., R.K., T.S.K. and G.B.-S.; Formal
analysis, Adva Avisar and M.C.; Investigation, Adva Avisar, R.K., T.S.K. and Anat Aharon; Resources, G.B.-S.,
Anat Aharon; Data curation, Adva Avisar. Writing—original draft preparation, Adva Avisar; Writing—review
& editing, M.C. and G.B.-S. Visualization, Adva Avisar, M.C., R.K., T.S.K. and G.B.-S.; Supervision, G.B.-S.,
M.C.; Project administration, G.B.-S., M.C.; Funding acquisition, G.B.-S. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to express their appreciation and gratitude to Arka Stamper, who
contributed the wheatgrass juice for the purpose of this study and made it possible.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
1. Karanikas, M.; Esebidis, A. Increasing incidence of colon cancer in patients < 50 years old: A new entity?
Ann. Transl. Med. 2016, 4, 164.
2. Taieb, J.; André, T.; Auclin, E. Refining adjuvant therapy for non-metastatic colon cancer, new standards
and perspectives. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2019, 75, 1–11.
3. Morris, R.; Kershaw, N.J.; Babon, J.J. The molecular details of cytokine signaling via the JAK/STAT
pathway. Protein Sci. 2018, 27, 1984–2009.
4. Holdsworth, S.R.; Can, P.Y. Cytokines: Names and numbers you should care about. Clin. J. Am. Soc.
Nephrol. 2015, 10, 2243–2254.
5. Arita, M. Mediator lipidomics in acute inflammation and resolution. J. Biochem. 2012, 152, 313–319.
6. Kadl, A.; Leitinger, N. The role of endothelial cells in the resolution of acute inflammation. Antioxid. Redox
Signal. 2005, 7, 1744–1754.
7. Tuomisto, A.E.; Mäkinen, M.J.; Väyrynen, J.P. Systemic inflammation in colorectal cancer: Underlying
factors, effects, and prognostic significance. World J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 25, 4383–4404.
8. Opal, S.M.; DePalo, V.A. Anti-inflammatory cytokines. Chest 2000, 117, 1162–1172.
9. Sultani, M.; Stringer, A.M.; Bowen, J.M.; Gibson, R.J. Anti-Inflammatory Cytokines: Important
immunoregulatory factors contributing to chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal mucositis. Chemother.
Res. Pract. 2012, 2012, 1–11.
10. Oun, R.; Moussa, Y.E.; Wheate, N.J. The side effects of platinum-based chemotherapy drugs: A review for
chemists. Dalt. Trans. 2018, 47, 6645–6653.
11. Weissinger, F.; Heinz, W.J. Prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia. Memo Mag. Eur. Med. Oncol.
2012, 5, 30–34.
12. Chen, Y.M.; Whang-Peng, J.; Liu, J.M.; Kuo, B.I.T.; Wang, S.Y.; Tsai, C.M.; Perng, R.P. Serum cytokine
level fluctuations in chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 1996, 26, 18–23.
13. Sato, M.; Kasai, C.; Takeuchi, S.; Takemura, M.; Shimokawa, K.; Noma, A. Changes in serum cytokine
levels in patients with malignant bone and soft tissue tumors in the course of chemotherapy. Jpn. J. Cancer
Chemother 1992, 19, 1449–1452. (In Japanese)
14. Lai, C.N. Chlorophyll: The Active factor in wheat sprout extract inhibiting the metabolic activation of
carcinogens In Vitro. Nutr. Cancer 1979, 1, 19–21.
15. Gore, R.D.; Palaskar, S.J.; Bartake, A.R. Wheatgrass: Green blood can help to fight cancer. J. Clin. Diagn.
Res. 2017, 11, ZC40–ZC42.
16. Bar-Sela, G.; Cohen, M.; Ben-Arye, E.; Epelbaum, R. The medical use of wheatgrass: Review of the gap
between basic and clinical applications. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 2015, 15, 1.
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 13 of 15
17. Rajoria, A.; Mehta, A.; Mehta, P.; Ahirwal, L.; Shukla, S.; Bajpai, V.K. Evaluation of antiproliferative and
hepatoprotective effects of wheat grass (Triticum aestivum). Acta Biol. Hung. 2017, 68, 150–161.
18. Shakya, G.; Balasubramanian, S.; Hoda, M.; Rajagopalan, R. Inhibition of metastasis and angiogenesis in
Hep-2 cells by wheatgrass extract–an in vitro and in silico approach. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 2018, 28, 205–
218.
19. Illmer, C.; Madlener, S.; Horvath, Z.; Saiko, P.; Losert, A.; Herbacek, I.; Grusch, M.; Krupitza, G.; Fritzer-
Szekeres, M.; Szekeres, T. Immunologic and biochemical effects of the fermented wheat germ extract
avemar. Exp. Biol. Med. 2005, 230, 144–149.
20. Lee, S.N.; Park, H.; Lee, K.E. Cytotoxic activities of fermented wheat germ extract on human gastric
carcinoma cells by induction of apoptosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 4254–4254.
21. Saiko, P.; Ozsvar-Kozma, M.; Graser, G.; Lackner, A.; Grusch, M.; Madlener, S.; Krupitza, G.; Jaeger, W.;
Hidvegi, M.; Agarwal, R.P.; et al. Avemar, a nontoxic fermented wheat germ extract, attenuates the
growth of sensitive and 5-FdUrd/Ara-C cross-resistant H9 human lymphoma cells through induction of
apoptosis. Oncol. Rep. 2009, 21, 787–791.
22. Judson, P.L.; Al Sawah, E.; Marchion, D.C.; Xiong, Y.; Bicaku, E.; Zgheib, N.B.; Chon, H.S.; Stickles, X.B.;
Hakam, A.; Wenham, R.M.; et al. Characterizing the efficacy of fermented wheat germ extract against
ovarian cancer and defining the genomic basis of its activity. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2012, 22, 960–967.
23. Jakab, F.; Shoenfeld, Y.; Balogh, Á.; Nichelatti, M.; Hoffmann, A.; Kahán, Z.; Lapis, K.; Mayer, Á.; Sápy,
P.; Szentpétery, F.; et al. A medical nutriment has supportive value in the treatment of colorectal cancer.
Br. J. Cancer 2003, 89, 465–469.
24. Bar-Sela, G.; Tsalic, M.; Fried, G.; Goldberg, H. Wheat grass juice may improve hematological toxicity
related to chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: A pilot study. Nutr. Cancer 2007, 58, 43–48.
25. Garami, M.; Schuler, D.; Babosa, M.; Borgulya, G.; Hauser, P.; Müller, J.; Paksy, A.; Szabó, E.; Hidvégi, M.;
Fekete, G. Fermented wheat germ extract reduces chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in pediatric
cancer patients. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 2004, 26, 631–635.
26. Demidov, L.V.; Manziuk, L.V.; Kharkevitch, G.Y.; Pirogova, N.A.; Artamonova, E.V. Adjuvant fermented
wheat germ extract (AvemarTM) nutraceutical improves survival of high-risk skin melanoma patients: A
randomized, pilot, phase II clinical study with a 7-year follow-up. Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 2008, 23,
477–482.
27. Sukkar, S.G.; Cella, F.; Rovera, G.M.; Nichelatti, M.; Ragni, G.; Chiavenna, G.; Giannoni, A.; Ronzani, G.;
Ferrari, C. A multicentric prospective open trial on the quality of life and oxidative stress in patients
affected by advanced head and neck cancer treated with a new benzoquinone-rich product derived from
fermented wheat germ (Avemar). Med. J. Nutr. Metab. 2008, 1, 37–42.
28. Forget, P.; Simonet, O.; De Kock, M. Cancer surgery induces inflammation, immunosuppression and neo-
angiogenesis, but is it influenced by analgesics? F1000Research 2013, 2, 102.
29. Vyas, D.; Laput, G.; Vyas, A.K. Chemotherapy-enhanced inflammation may lead to the failure of therapy
and metastasis. Onco. Targets. Ther. 2014, 7, 1015–1023.
30. Seruga, B.; Zhang, H.; Bernstein, L.J.; Tannock, I.F. Cytokines and their relationship to the symptoms and
outcome of cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2008, 8, 887–899.
31. Laird, B.J.; McMillan, D.C.; Fayers, P.; Fearon, K.; Kaasa, S.; Fallon, M.T.; Klepstad, P. The systemic
inflammatory response and its relationship to pain and other symptoms in advanced cancer. Oncologist
2013, 18, 1050–1055.
32. Kamp, D.W.; Shacter, E.; Weitzman, S.A. Chronic inflammation and cancer: The role of the mitochondria.
Oncology 2011, 25, 400–410, 413.
33. Atretkhany, K.N.; Drutskaya, M.S. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells and proinflammatory cytokines as
targets for cancer therapy. Biochem. Biokhimiia 2016, 81, 1274–1283.
34. Petersen, A.M.W.; Pedersen, B.K. The role of IL-6 in mediating the anti-inflammatory effects of exercise.
Proc. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2006, 57, 43–51.
35. Salvioli, S.; Capri, M.; Bucci, L.; Lanni, C.; Racchi, M.; Uberti, D.; Memo, M.; Mari, D.; Govoni, S.;
Franceschi, C. Why do centenarians escape or postpone cancer? The role of IGF-1, inflammation and p53.
Proc. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2009, 58, 1909–1917.
36. Nakamura, K.; Kariyazono, H.; Komokata, T.; Hamada, N.; Sakata, R.; Yamada, K. Influence of
preoperative administration of ω-3 fatty acid-enriched supplement on inflammatory and immune
responses in patients undergoing major surgery for cancer. Nutrition 2005, 21, 639–649.
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 14 of 15
37. Wang, D.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Li, W.; Sun, X.; Xing, Y.; Suo, J. Effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty
acids on postoperative inflammatory reaction and clinical efficacy. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi
2015, 18, 651–655.
38. Lee, J.J. A phase II study of an herbal decoction that includes astragali radix for cancer-associated
anorexia in patients with advanced cancer. Integr. Cancer Ther. 2010, 9, 24–31.
39. Kim, K.C.; Yook, J.H.; Eisenbraun, J.; Kim, B.S.; Huber, R. Quality of life, immunomodulation and safety
of adjuvant mistletoe treatment in patients with gastric carcinoma-a randomized, controlled pilot study.
BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2012, 12, 172.
40. Paixão, E.M.D.S.; Oliveira, A.C.D.M.; Pizato, N.; Muniz-Junqueira, M.I.; Magalhães, K.G.; Nakano, E.Y.;
Ito, M.K. The effects of EPA and DHA enriched fish oil on nutritional and immunological markers of
treatment naïve breast cancer patients: A randomized double-blind controlled trial. Nutr. J. 2017, 16, 71.
41. Gianotti, L.; Braga, M.; Fortis, C.; Soldini, L.; Vignali, A.; Colombo, S.; Radaelli, G.; Di Carlo, V. A
prospective, randomized clinical trial on perioperative feeding with an arginine-, omega-3 fatty acid-, and
RNA-enriched enteral diet: Effect on host response and nutritional status. J. Parenter. Enter. Nutr. 1999, 23,
314–320.
42. Chen, X.; Hu, Z.P.; Yang, X.X.; Huang, M.; Gao, Y.; Tang, W.; Chan, S.Y.; Dai, X.; Ye, J.; Ho, P.C.L.; et al.
Monitoring of immune responses to a herbal immuno-modulator in patients with advanced colorectal
cancer. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2006, 6, 499–508.
43. Ostadrahimi, A.; Ziaei, J.E.; Esfahani, A.; Jafarabadi, M.A.; Movassaghpourakbari, A.; Farrin, N. Effect of
beta glucan on white blood cell counts and serum levels of IL-4 and IL-12 in women with breast cancer
undergoing chemotherapy: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Asian Pac. J.
Cancer Prev. 2014, 15, 5733–5739.
44. Ben-Arye, E.; Goldin, E.; Wengrower, D.; Stamper, A.; Kohn, R.; Berry, E. Wheat grass juice in the
treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Scand. J.
Gastroenterol. 2002, 37, 444–449.
45. Bálint, G.; Apáthy, Á.; Gaál, M.; Telekes, A.; Resetár, Á.; Blazsó, G.; Falkay, G.; Szende, B.; Paksy, A.;
Ehrenfeld, M.; et al. Effect of Avemar®—A fermented wheat germ extract—On rheumatoid arthritis.
Preliminary data. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2006, 24, 325–328.
46. Lee, J.H.; Ki, H.H.; Kim, D.K.; Lee, Y.M. Triticum aestivum sprout extract attenuates 2,4-
dinitrochlorobenzene-induced atopic dermatitis-like skin lesions in mice and the expression of
chemokines in human keratinocytes. Mol. Med. Rep. 2018, 18, 3461–3468.
47. Parit, S.B.; Dawkar, V.V.; Tanpure, R.S.; Pai, S.R.; Chougale, A.D. Nutritional quality and antioxidant
activity of wheatgrass (triticum aestivum) unwrap by proteome profiling and DPPH and FRAP assays. J.
Food Sci. 2018, 83, 2127–2139.
48. Azizullah, A.; Rehman, Z.U.; Ali, I.; Murad, W.; Muhammad, N.; Ullah, W.; Häder, D.P. Chlorophyll
derivatives can be an efficient weapon in the fight against dengue. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 113, 4321–4326.
49. Wu, Z.M.; Wang, L.; Zhu, W.; Gao, Y.H.; Wu, H.M.; Wang, M.; Hu, T.S.; Yan, Y.J.; Chen, Z.L. Preparation
of a chlorophyll derivative and investigation of its photodynamic activities against cholangiocarcinoma.
Biomed. Pharmacother. 2017, 92, 285–292.
50. Fujiwara, T.; Nishida, N.; Nota, J.; Kitani, T.; Aoishi, K.; Takahashi, H.; Sugahara, T.; Hato, N. Efficacy of
chlorophyll c2 for seasonal allergic rhinitis: Single-center double-blind randomized control trial. Eur.
Arch. Oto Rhino Laryngol. 2016, 273, 4289–4294.
51. Song, B.H.; Lee, D.H.; Kim, B.C.; Ku, S.H.; Park, E.J.; Kwon, I.H.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, K.J. Photodynamic
therapy using chlorophyll-a in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A randomized, single-blind, split-face
study. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2014, 71, 764–771.
52. Shyam, R.; Singh, S.N.; Vats, P.; Singh, V.K.; Bajaj, R.; Singh, S.B.; Banerjee, P.K. Wheat grass
supplementation decreases oxidative stress in healthy subjects: A comparative study with Spirulina. J.
Altern. Complement. Med. 2007, 13, 789–791.
53. Zhuang, S.R.; Chiu, H.F.; Chen, S.L.; Tsai, J.H.; Lee, M.Y.; Lee, H.S.; Shen, Y.C.; Yan, Y.Y.; Shane, G.T.;
Wang, C.K. Effects of a Chinese medical herbs complex on cellular immunity and toxicity-related
conditions of breast cancer patients. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 107, 712–718.
54. Loo, W.T.Y.; Jin, L.; Chow, L.W.C.; Cheung, M.N.B.; Wang, M. Rhodiola algida improves chemotherapy-
induced oral mucositis in breast cancer patients. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 2010, 19, S91–S100.
Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 129 15 of 15
55. Wang, L.; Xu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, M.; Yan, G.; Hou, A.; Deng, H.; Wu, J.; Zhao, X.; Xiang, Y.; et al.
Clinical observation of Shuanghuang Shengbai Granule (双黄升白颗粒) on prevention and treatment of
myelosuppression caused by chemotherapy in cancer patients. Chin. J. Integr. Med. 2017, 23, 105–109.
56. Sethi, J.; Yadav, M.; Dahiya, K.; Sood, S.; Singh, V.; Bhattacharya, S.B. Antioxidant effect of triticum
aestivium (wheat grass) in high-fat diet-induced oxidative stress in rabbits. Methods Find. Exp. Clin.
Pharmacol. 2010, 32, 233–235.
57. Bagwe, S.M.; Kale, P.P.; Bhatt, L.K.; Prabhavalkar, K.S. Herbal approach in the treatment of pancytopenia.
J. Complement. Integr. Med. 2017, 14, doi:10.1515/jcim-2016-0053.
58. Yang, Y.; Xu, Y. Clinical randomized double-blinded controlled study on Quxie Capsule in reducing
post-operational relapse and metastasis of colorectal cancer. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi 2007, 27,
879–882.
59. Chan, K.K.; Yao, T.J.; Jones, B.; Zhao, J.F.; Ma, F.K.; Leung, C.Y.; Lau, S.K.; Yip, M.W.; Ngan, H.Y. The use
of Chinese herbal medicine to improve quality of life in women undergoing chemotherapy for ovarian
cancer: A double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial with immunological monitoring. Ann. Oncol.
2011, 22, 2241–2249.
60. Grossman, S.A.; Ellsworth, S.; Campian, J.; Wild, A.T.; Herman, J.M.; Laheru, D.; Brock, M.;
Balmanoukian, A.; Ye, X. Survival in patients with severe lymphopenia following treatment with
radiation and chemotherapy for newly diagnosed solid tumors. JNCCN J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2015,
13, 1225–1231.
61. Mendez, J.S.; Govindan, A.; Leong, J.; Gao, F.; Huang, J.; Campian, J.L. Association between treatment-
related lymphopenia and overall survival in elderly patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J.
Neurooncol. 2016, 127, 329–335.
62. Kozak, M.M.; Von Eyben, R.; Pai, J.S.; Anderson, E.M.; Welton, M.L.; Shelton, A.A.; Kin, C.; Koong, A.C.;
Chang, D.T. The prognostic significance of pretreatment hematologic parameters in patients undergoing
resection for colorectal cancer. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. Cancer Clin. Trials 2017, 40, 405–412.
63. Chu-Yuan, H.; Jing, P.; Yi-Sheng, W.; He-Ping, P.; Hui, Y.; Chu-Xiong, Z.; Guo-Jian, L.; Guo-Qiang, W.
The impact of chemotherapy-associated neutrophil/ lymphocyte counts on prognosis of adjuvant
chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 2013, 13, 177.
64. Lalani, I.; Bhol, K.; Ahmed, A.R. Interleukin-10: Biology, role in inflammation and autoimmunity. Ann.
Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1997, 79, 469–484.
65. Tsai, C.C.; Lin, C.R.; Tsai, H.Y.; Chen, C.J.; Li, W.T.; Yu, H.M.; Ke, Y.Y.; Hsieh, W.Y.; Chang, C.Y.; Wu,
C.Y.; et al. The immunologically active oligosaccharides isolated from wheatgrass modulate monocytes
via toll-like receptor2 signaling. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288, 17689–17697.
66. Kanter, M.H.; Poole, G.; Garratty, G. Misinterpretation and misapplication of p values in antibody
identification: The lack of value of a p value. Transfusion 1997, 37, 816–822.
67. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences; Lawrence Earlbaum Associates: Hillside, NJ,
USA, 1988; pp. 278–280, ISBN: 0805802835.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
