• Back to Speak-with-Survivors

     

  • Records of Kay Bevan ...(Updated 10/8/01), email address: char@dakotacom.net
  • June, 1992, first diagnosed ovarian cancer metastasized throughout abdominal cavity and one lymph node, stage III-C, CA125=118.9 before surgery (note: CA125 was used as the cancer marker, it was usually tested about one week before the release of result)
  • July, 1992 to May, 1994, surgery and 3 courses of chemotherapy, CA125=28.5 in May, 1994
  • 6/8/94, CA125=130.1 (after chemotherapy)
  • 6/24/94, CA125=97.8
  • 7/12/94, started self treatment with shark cartilage, average dosage 60.2 g/d.
  • 9/15/94, CA125=113.0
  • 11/2/94, CA125=226.0
  • 11/7/94, shark cartilage dosage increased to 90 g/d.
  • 12/7/94, CA125=45.2
  • 1/4/95, CA125=50.9
  • 2/15/95, CA125=76.2
  • mid 3/95, CA125=68.1
  • 3/20/95 to 3/25/95, MRI scan revealed 4-cm tumor in brain, later operated found to be benign, Shark cartilage temporarily stopped, and was replaced with bovine cartilage.
  • 4/11/95, CA125=25.1
  • 5/16/95, CA125=23.6
  • mid 5/95 to mid 6/95, weight=132 lb, a loss of 25 lb from normal 157 lb.
  • 6/13/95, CA125=13.1
  • 7/11/95, CA125=11.3, felt ill and vomiting in past weeks.
  • 9/8/95, CA125=27.5, weight=122 lb, a loss of 10 lb from June.
  • 9/12/95, gallbladder surgery to remove stones, no malignancy found.
  • 10/31/95, CA125=145.7, weight=113 lb in mid November.
  • mid 11/95, started hypnotherapy, appetite increased.
  • 12/5/95, CA125=188.5
  • 1/2/96, CA125=236.2,
  • 1/9/96, resumed shark cartilage in addition to bovine cartilage, also started pancreatic enzymes, feeling better and eating more, weight slowly increased to 120 lb.
  • 3/7/96, CA125=95.6
  • 4/31/96, CA125=70.5, average dosage of shark cartilage=72.7 g/d, weight increased to 140 lb in May, 1996.
  • 7/1/96, CA125=46.1, average shark cartilage dosage decreased to 59.6 g/d after this date.
  • 8/20/96, CA125=49.9, continued shark cartilage at 55 g/d, stopped bovine cartilage starting Oct/96.
  • 10/20/96, CA125=72.9, shark cartilage increased to 104 g/d after this date.
  • 12/3/96, CA125=37.2, shark cartilage decreased to 93 g/d after this date.
  • 1/15/97, CA125=12.4, weight=150 lb, shark cartilage dosage decreased to 70 g/d after this date.
  • 2/7/97, CA125=35.5, shark cartilage dosage decreased to 66 g/d after this date.
  • 3/18/97, CA125=27.1, shark cartilage dosage maintained at 68 g/d after this date.
  • 4/29/97, CA125=30.6
  • 6/3/97, CA125=22.0
  • 7/15/97, CA125=23.0, shark cartilage dosage decreased to 60 g/d.
  • 9/16/97, CA125=35.9, shark cartilage dosage increased to 66.0 g/d after this date.
  • 11/18/97, CA125=35.7, shark cartilage dosage between 62.4 and 72.8, maintained average of 70 g/d after this date.
  • 1/13/98, CA125=27.1, started eating a few apricot kernels daily after this date.
  • 4/7/98, CA125=18.7
  • 5/26/98, CA125=2.5
  • September, 1998, CA125=5.0
  • October, 2001, living active life and answering questions from new cancer patients, after publishing the book "Learning To Love My Cancer, A Survivor's Extraordinary Story" in August, 1999.

    Comment from Stanley Cua: This is a case that indicated the dose-depedent property of shark cartilage therapy. As a research scientist, I am interested in finding the answers to the following questions:

  • This case indicated dose-dependency within the range of CA125 between 0 and 300, what is the upper limit of the CA125 for the dose-dependent property to be valid for this patient? Is the limit also depended on individual patient? Is this dose-dependency of shark cartilage therapy also true in other types of cancer?
  • Bovine cartilage didn't seem to be effective for this patient, was it because the dosage was not high enough? Will bovine cartilage be effective for other patients? Will bovine cartilage be effective for other types of cancer?
  • Can this yo-yo type of control continue indefinitely, or is there possibility that the cancer cells become resistant to the anti-angiogenesis property of shark cartilage? Is there possibility that the shark cartilage works due to some other biochemical pathways of controlling the cancer growth other than anti-angiogenesis. This later question is more theoretical than practical just for my curiosity.

    I hope I can find more long-term survivors who were saved by shark cartilage and with a complete records such as this one to provide the new patients more information on the efficacy of shark cartilage therapy.

  • Back to Speak-with-Survivors