Abstract
Background/Aim: Drug repurposing offers a pathway to identify accessible, low-toxicity cancer therapies. Ivermectin and mebendazole demonstrate multi-target anticancer activity in preclinical models. This study evaluates real-world patient-reported outcomes, safety, and adherence in patients with cancer using this combination.
Patients and Methods: We analyzed a prospective observational cohort of 197 patients with cancer prescribed ivermectin and mebendazole off-label via a U.S. telemedicine platform. Participants received compounded capsules (25 mg ivermectin, 250 mg mebendazole). Data were collected through standardized digital surveys at baseline and 6-month follow-up. A total of 122 participants (61.9%) completed follow-up. Primary outcomes included self-reported cancer status, adherence, and adverse events. Confidence intervals were calculated using the Wilson method, with dose-stratified analyses using Chi-square tests.
Results: The cohort had a mean age of 67 years with balanced sex distribution and diverse malignancies, most commonly prostate (27.9%) and breast (18.3%). Median time since diagnosis was 1.2 years, with 37.1% reporting active progression at baseline. At six months, adherence was high, with 86.9% completing the initial prescription and 66.4% remaining on therapy. The Clinical Benefit Ratio (CBR) was 84.4% (95% confidence interval=77.0-89.8%). At follow-up, 48.4% of participants reported tumor regression or no evidence of disease (32.8% NED; 15.6% regression), while 36.1% reported stable disease and 15.6% reported progression. Side effects, reported by 25.4%, were dose-dependent and predominantly mild and primarily gastrointestinal, with 93.6% continuing therapy after adjustment. Concurrent therapies reported included chemotherapy (27.9%), radiation (21.3%), surgery (19.7%), supplements (49.2%), and dietary modification (37.7%).
Conclusion: In this prospective real-world cohort of patients with cancer, ivermectin and mebendazole were associated with high rates of self-reported clinical benefit and favorable tolerability. These findings are hypothesis-generating and support the need for randomized controlled trials.
Introduction
Cancer remains one of the leading causes of death globally, with conventional treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and targeted agents frequently limited by significant toxicity, high cost, development of resistance, and variable long-term efficacy (1). In this context, drug repurposing has gained substantial attention as a strategy to rapidly identify effective and affordable therapeutic options using medications with good patient tolerance and well-established safety profiles (2). This approach offers a practical pathway to accelerate the development of new cancer therapies or accompaniments of therapies while leveraging decades of existing safety data.
Ivermectin and mebendazole are two widely used antiparasitic agents that have demonstrated highly promising anti-cancer activity in preclinical models. Ivermectin has exhibited exceptional multi-target efficacy, inhibiting cancer cell proliferation, metastasis, and angiogenesis by targeting key pathways including PAK1, Wnt/β-catenin, and mitochondrial function (3). It has been shown to exert over 14 distinct anti-cancer effects across more than 12 cancer types and has demonstrated excellent safety in patients with cancer (including those actively undergoing chemotherapy) (4). Ivermectin and mebendazole selectively target cancer stem cells — the critical subpopulation responsible for tumor recurrence and therapy resistance (4). A recent 2025 review has further characterized ivermectin’s favorable physicochemical profile, including high lipophilicity and strong ability to modulate multiple oncogenic signaling pathways such as Wnt/β-catenin, PI3K/Akt/mTOR, and STAT3 across a wide range of malignancies (5). Additionally, ivermectin has anti-Spike protein properties, and thus may be particularly advantaged in the current pandemic era where both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination have been associated with more aggressive and rapidly developing malignancies (6). Similarly, mebendazole has demonstrated robust anticancer effects primarily through microtubule disruption, leading to effective cell cycle arrest, potent induction of apoptosis, and significant inhibition of tumor growth and vascularization (7). Both ivermectin and mebendazole exhibit excellent tissue penetration (8). These highly complementary mechanisms suggest that the combination of ivermectin and mebendazole holds considerable therapeutic potential and may offer meaningful advantages over either agent used alone.
Despite compelling preclinical data and documented safe use in patients with cancer (4), robust clinical evidence evaluating the ivermectin–mebendazole combination in oncology remains limited. The present prospective clinical program evaluation was therefore conducted to assess real-world self-reported cancer outcomes, medication adherence, tolerability, and patient experience among individuals prescribed a compounded ivermectin–mebendazole formulation through a telemedicine platform.
Patients and Methods
Study design. This evaluation utilized a prospective observational cohort design, with analyses conducted retrospectively on prospectively collected data from a two-wave clinical program evaluation utilizing standardized digital surveys to assess real-world, self-reported cancer outcomes, medication adherence, and tolerability of ivermectin and mebendazole. The analysis focused on a cohort of adult patients with confirmed cancer diagnoses who had been prescribed a compounded combination of ivermectin and mebendazole as part of their routine clinical care. The baseline assessment (Survey 1) was administered from August to September 2025, with a longitudinal follow-up occurring between January and March 2026, representing an approximate 6-month interval (range=4-7 months). The overall study design, clinical workflow, and two-wave data collection framework are illustrated in Figure 1.
Flow diagram of the two-wave prospective clinical program evaluation, including clinical workflow, enrollment, and longitudinal follow-up.
Participants and recruitment. The sample included adults (≥18 years) with confirmed cancer diagnoses who received off-label prescriptions for the ivermectin-mebendazole protocol from licensed U.S. healthcare providers affiliated with The Wellness Company (TWC) telemedicine platform. The clinical workflow required each individual to complete a medical intake form and undergo a consultation with a licensed provider to determine eligibility prior to the issuance of the prescription. All medications were dispensed by a licensed U.S. pharmacy following provider approval. As part of an internal assessment of clinical services and product outcomes, eligible patients were invited by TWC via email to voluntarily participate in the surveys. A total of 197 participants completed the baseline evaluation, and 122 (61.9%) provided follow-up data at six months.
Medication use. Participants received compounded oral capsules containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole per capsule. The initial prescription typically provided 90 capsules. Dosing and schedule were individualized by the prescribing provider and patient, most commonly one or two tablets per day. Many participants followed cyclic regimens and reordered the medication as desired.
Data collection. Data were collected using structured electronic questionnaires hosted on a secure survey platform assuring confidentiality and anonymity. The baseline survey captured demographics, socioeconomic information, cancer type, disease status at enrollment, and prior or concurrent conventional treatments. It also documented comorbidities, lifestyle factors, and the use of concurrent supplements or dietary interventions. The follow-up survey assessed longitudinal outcomes, including self-reported changes in cancer status, medication adherence, dosing frequency, and the incidence and management of side effects. All responses were self-reported by participants.
Outcome measures. The primary outcome herein was self-reported cancer status at follow-up, categorized as no current evidence of disease (NED), regressed, stayed about the same (stable disease), or spread or progressed (responses of “spread” and “spread or progressed” were combined into a single progression category for analysis). The Clinical Benefit Ratio (CBR) was defined a priori as the proportion of participants with NED, regression, or stable disease. Secondary outcomes included completion of the initial 90-capsule prescription, re-order frequency, ongoing medication use, and incidence/severity of side effects.
Statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the demographic and clinical characteristics of the cohort, with categorical variables reported as frequencies and percentages while continuous variables are presented as means and medians. The primary analysis focused on the CBR and the proportion of participants reporting the strongest positive outcomes, specifically regression or NED. To account for the precision of these self-reported proportions within the 122-subject follow-up cohort, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Wilson score method. Exploratory dose-stratified comparisons for outcomes and safety were performed using Chi-square statistics. To assess for potential responder bias, aggregate clinical profiles of the follow-up cohort were compared against the baseline population using Chi-square statistics to evaluate for significant differences in standard-of-care therapy utilization. All data cleaning and quantitative evaluations were performed using Python (version 3.12.3; Python Software Foundation, Beaverton, OR, USA) utilizing the pandas library (pandas development team, open-source) and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).
Results
A total of 197 individuals completed the baseline survey. Of these, 122 participants completed the 6-month follow-up survey, yielding a 61.9% response fraction.
Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Baseline demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the study population are presented in Table I. The cohort was predominantly older adults, with a mean age of 67 years and a median age of 68 years at baseline. Most participants were between 60 and 79 years old. Sex distribution was nearly even, 52.3% male and 47.7% female. Anthropometric assessments revealed a mean body weight of 76.6 kg [standard deviation (SD)=18.8; range=45.5-181.8 kg) and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 25.7 kg/m2 (SD=5.2; range=16.5-54.4 kg/m2). Approximately 45.7% (n=90) of the cohort fell within the normal weight range (BMI=18.5-24.9), while 34.0% (n=67) were classified as overweight, 17.3% (n=34) as obese, and 3.0% (n=6) as underweight. The cohort was predominantly White. Education levels were relatively high, with over 50% of participants holding a college or graduate degree. Annual household income distribution reflected a middle-to-upper socioeconomic profile, with the $100,000 to $250,000 bracket being the most represented. Aside from that, 19.3% reported household incomes under $50,000. Regarding COVID-19 vaccination status, 195 of the 197 baseline participants provided data on the number of vaccine doses received. A majority of the cohort, 122 participants (62.6%), reported being unvaccinated (0 doses). Among those who had received at least one dose, 33 (16.9%) reported having received two doses, and 22 (11.3%) had received three or more doses. Collectively, 73 participants (37.4%) reported being vaccinated with one or more doses. Smoking history was also assessed at baseline. A significant majority of the cohort, 142 participants (72.1%), reported having never smoked. Among those with a history of tobacco use, 52 (26.4%) were identified as former smokers, while only three (1.5%) reported being current smokers at the time of enrollment.
Baseline demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.
Baseline cancer profile and prior treatments. Baseline cancer characteristics and prior or concurrent treatments among participants are summarized in Table II. At baseline, 73 of 197 participants (37.1%) reported active or progressive spread, while 124 (62.9%) reported that their cancer was stable or not currently spreading at the time of the survey. The cohort represented a broad spectrum of clinical timelines. The median duration since initial cancer diagnosis was 1.2 years. Nearly half of participants (47.7%, n=94) were within their first year of diagnosis, while approximately one in five (20.8%, n=41) had been managing their disease for more than five years. The most reported cancer types included prostate cancer in 55 participants (27.9%), breast cancer in 36 (18.3%), lung cancer in 17 (8.6%), colon cancer in 10 (5.1%), liver cancer in five (2.5%), and other sites in 74 (37.6%), which included skin, kidney, oropharyngeal, and miscellaneous malignancies. Most participants had already undergone conventional cancer therapies. The most common treatments reported were surgery in 83 participants (42.1%), chemotherapy in 62 (31.5%), radiation therapy in 57 (28.9%), immunotherapy in 34 (17.3%), hormone therapy in 29 (14.7%), targeted therapy in 17 (8.6%), and clinical trial participation in seven (3.6%). Additional other treatments were reported by 76 participants (38.6%). These baseline characteristics – including cancer type distribution, disease status, and duration since diagnosis – are further visualized in Figure 2.
Baseline cancer characteristics and prior treatments.
Baseline cancer characteristics (N=197).
Ivermectin & mebendazole usage, adherence, and dosing. Of the 122 follow-up respondents, 106 (86.9%; 95%CI=79.8-91.8%) reported completing the full initial 90-capsule prescription. Among all follow-up participants (n=122), the most common average daily dose was 1 capsule per day. The distribution of average daily dosing was as follows: one capsule per day in 54 participants (44.3%), two capsules per day in 34 (27.9%), three capsules per day in 14 (11.5%), and four capsules per day in 15 (12.3%). Other or variable dosing was reported by five participants (4.1%). At the time of follow-up, 81 participants (66.4%; 95%CI=57.6-74.2%) reported they were still taking Ivermectin & Mebendazole.
Safety and tolerability. Side effects were reported by 31 of 122 follow-up participants (25.4%; 95%CI=18.5-33.8%). Among participants who experienced side effects, the most frequently reported adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms (n=12, 38.7%), fatigue or weakness (n=10, 32.3%), dizziness (n=7, 22.6%), skin reactions (n=4, 12.9%), neurological symptoms (n=4, 12.9%), headache (n=3, 9.7%), loss of appetite (n=3, 9.7%), and muscle or joint aches (n=3, 9.7%). Among those who had side effects (n=31), 15 (48.4%) reported no change to their regimen, 14 (45.2%) temporarily reduced or paused treatment, and two (6.5%) discontinued therapy.
Additional treatments and lifestyle modifications. Participants frequently combined ivermectin and mebendazole with other interventions. At follow-up, the most common adjuncts were other cancer-related supplements (n=60, 49.2%), dietary changes (n=46, 37.7%), chemotherapy (n=34, 27.9%), radiation (n=26, 21.3%), and surgery (n=24, 19.7%). Intermittent or prolonged fasting, ketogenic or low-sugar diets, hyperbaric oxygen, red-light therapy, and specific supplements (e.g., vitamin D, turmeric, berberine, mushrooms) were commonly reported in free-text fields.
Dosing patterns, adherence rates, safety outcomes, and concurrent treatment use among 6-month follow-up respondents are visually summarized in Figure 3.
Follow-up dosing distribution, adherence, safety outcomes, and concurrent treatments at six months in patients receiving ivermectin and mebendazole (n=122).
Cancer outcomes at 6-month follow-up. Self-reported cancer outcomes at 6-month follow-up are summarized in Table III and illustrated in Figure 4. Self-reported cancer status at follow-up was no current evidence of disease in 40 participants (32.8%; 95%CI=25.1-41.5%), regressed in 19 (15.6%; 95%CI=10.2-23.0%), stayed about the same (stable disease) in 44 (36.1%; 95%CI=28.1-44.9%), and spread or progressed in 19 (15.6%; 95%CI=10.2-23.0%). The CBR was 84.4% (103 of 122; 95%CI=77.0-89.8%). The combined fraction of strongest positive outcomes (no current evidence of disease or regression) was 48.4% (59 of 122; 95%CI=39.7-57.1%).
Self-reported cancer outcomes at 6-month follow-up.
Self-reported cancer outcomes and clinical benefit ratio at 6-month follow-up.
Dose–response analysis of outcomes and safety. An exploratory dose–response analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between average daily capsule intake and clinical outcomes. Follow-up participants were stratified into groups based on reported average daily dosing (1-4 capsules per day). Dose-stratified cancer outcomes and safety profiles are presented in Table IV.
Dose–response analysis of cancer outcomes and safety at 6-month follow-up.
No significant dose-response association was observed for cancer outcomes (p=0.91), while a significant association was observed for side effects (p=0.0014). The proportion of participants achieving the strongest positive outcomes (no current evidence of disease or regression) remained consistent across dosing groups, ranging from 46.7% to 50.0%. Similarly, the CBR remained high across all dose levels, with the highest observed in the 2-capsule group (91.2%). These findings suggest that clinical benefit was maintained across a range of dosing strategies without a clear dose-response gradient for efficacy.
In contrast, a statistically significant association was observed between dosing level and the incidence of self-reported side effects (χ2=15.60, p=0.0014). The highest risk of side effects was reported in the 2-capsule group (47.1%), while lower risks were observed at other dosing levels.
Representativeness of the follow-up cohort. To evaluate whether the 122 participants who completed the 6-month follow-up survey (61.9% response rate) were representative of the full baseline cohort (N=197), we compared utilization of major standard-of-care cancer therapies as objective markers of disease severity and clinical profile (Table V).
Comparison of baseline and follow-up cohort characteristics. p-values calculated via Chi-square analysis comparing the prevalence of major standard-of-care therapies between the baseline and follow-up cohorts.
Prior or concurrent chemotherapy use was reported by 27.9% (34/122) of follow-up respondents versus 31.5% (62/197) in the full baseline cohort (χ2=0.31, p=0.58). Radiation therapy utilization was 21.3% (26/122) versus 28.9% (57/197) at baseline (χ2=1.90, p=0.17). Neither difference was statistically significant.
Discussion
This prospective observational cohort evaluation provides the first real-world, therapeutic signal for the combination of ivermectin and mebendazole in cancer patients with diverse malignancies. At 6-month follow-up, the CBR reached 84.4% (95%CI=77.0-89.8%), with 48.4% of participants reporting the strongest positive outcomes—no current evidence of disease (32.8%) or tumor regression (15.6%). Disease stability was maintained in an additional 36.1%, while progression was reported by only 15.6%. These favorable outcomes were consistent across dose levels (p=0.91), accompanied by high adherence (86.9% completed the initial 90-capsule course; 66.4% remained on therapy) and a favorable safety profile (25.4% mild side effects, 93.6% continued after minor adjustments). The results align with the multi-target preclinical mechanisms of both agents (3-5, 7) and indicate that meaningful clinical benefit may be achieved in a heterogeneous real-world population that includes individuals receiving concurrent chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, and integrative approaches. These findings are visually summarized in Figure 5.
Graphical abstract. Integrated overview of study design, patient characteristics, treatment protocol, and 6-month self-reported clinical outcomes following ivermectin and mebendazole therapy in patients with cancer.
The exceptionally high, self-reported CBR of 84.4% observed at the 6-month follow-up in this diverse real-world cohort is striking and underscores the potential clinical importance of the ivermectin and mebendazole combination. This level of disease control (no evidence of disease, regression, or stability) substantially exceeds typical clinical benefit and disease control rates reported with standard chemotherapy in advanced or pretreated solid tumors. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the most represented malignancy in our cohort, metronomic chemotherapy regimens have demonstrated mean clinical benefit fractions of approximately 56.8% (9). Similarly, in metastatic breast cancer, conventional chemotherapy typically achieves clinical benefit fraction of 50-60% in the first-line setting, with notably lower proportions in subsequent lines or heavily pretreated patients (10). Disease control percents with later-line chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer are frequently below 60%.
Although surgery and radiation therapy provide essential local control and can be curative in early-stage disease, they offer limited systemic benefit in metastatic settings and are not directly quantified using CBR metrics. Achieving a high CBR with mild side effects in 25.4% of participants and strong adherence demonstrates the value of well-tolerated repurposed agents, especially in an older population (mean age, 67 years) that frequently combines integrative approaches with conventional care. These hypothesis-generating findings support the urgent need for randomized controlled trials to establish the role of this combination relative to or in conjunction with established therapies.
Our findings build upon a growing body of promising clinical evidence suggesting meaningful anticancer potential for repurposed antiparasitic agents in humans. An observational study in Ecuador reported notable self-reported clinical benefits and quality-of-life improvements among patients with cancer using ivermectin (11). More compellingly, a small randomized controlled trial showed that the addition of mebendazole to bevacizumab plus FOLFOX4 in metastatic colorectal cancer dramatically improved objective response rate (65% versus 10%) and nearly tripled median progression-free survival (9.25 versus 3 months) (12). A 2025 case series reported complete or near-complete remission in three patients with stage IV cancers (breast, prostate, and melanoma) who self-administered fenbendazole, achieving dramatic tumor regression and long-lasting remission sustained for up to three years without chemotherapy (13). Early-phase trials combining ivermectin with immunotherapy have further demonstrated good tolerability and preliminary signals of clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients (14). The present prospective observational cohort therefore represents the largest and most structured real-world evaluation of the specific ivermectin-mebendazole combination published to date.
The high clinical benefit observed in our cohort is firmly grounded in extensive preclinical evidence demonstrating highly complementary multi-target anticancer mechanisms of ivermectin and mebendazole. Ivermectin exerts at least 14 distinct anti-tumor effects, including potent inhibition of PAK1 kinase, disruption of Wnt/β-catenin, PI3K/Akt/mTOR, and STAT3 signaling, induction of mitochondrial dysfunction, and selective eradication of cancer stem cells (3, 5, 15-18). Mebendazole primarily destabilizes microtubules leading to G2/M cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, inhibition of angiogenesis, and disruption of glucose uptake (7, 19-21). When used together, these agents target non-overlapping pathways, resulting in synergistic tumor regression, cancer stem cell depletion, and reversal of multidrug resistance in multiple in vitro and in vivo models (22). The pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of both ivermectin and mebendazole document excellent tissue penetration (8) This mechanistic complementarity provides a clear biological rationale for the high CBR and frequent tumor regression or no evidence of disease reported with the combination in our real-world setting.
The benefits of using repurposed medication are two-fold: a previous safety record and low cost. The cost analysis of standard chemotherapies is important to consider. Overall, it is estimated that annual costs of standard chemotherapies average $111,000 per year (23). In contrast, the estimated annual cost of a daily ivermectin–mebendazole regimen is approximately a few thousand U.S. dollars (e.g., ~$2,000-$3,000), depending on formulation and dispensing source.
Strengths of the study include its prospective, longitudinal design with standardized surveys at baseline and six months, a solid response fraction of 61.9%, and a representative follow-up cohort. Utilization of major standard-of-care therapies (chemotherapy 27.9% vs. 31.5%; radiation 21.3% vs. 28.9%) was statistically comparable between the follow-up and full baseline groups (both p>0.05), indicating that survey responders were not disproportionately those with less aggressive disease or better prognoses. The real-world telemedicine setting, detailed capture of concurrent supplements and lifestyle modifications, and dose-stratified analyses further enhance the generalizability and practical relevance of the findings.
Limitations are inherent to the observational, self-reported nature of the data. Outcomes were not clinically adjudicated or radiographically confirmed, no control group was available, and confounding from concurrent conventional therapies, supplements, and lifestyle changes cannot be excluded. Given these threats to validity, therapeutic benefit cannot be inferred. These results should therefore be regarded as hypothesis-generating.
Conclusion
In this prospective real-world cohort, the combination of ivermectin and mebendazole was associated with high proportions of self-reported clinical benefit, with nearly half of participants declaring tumor regression or no current evidence of disease across a heterogeneous population of cancer types. These findings, observed alongside favorable tolerability and strong adherence, support the biological plausibility suggested by preclinical data, indicating this combination may offer therapeutic potential as an adjunctive or repurposed strategy in oncology. However, given the observational design, reliance on self-reported outcomes, and potential for confounding, these results should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating. Rigorous randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trials are urgently needed to validate safety and efficacy, clarify optimal dosing strategies, and determine the role of this combination across specific cancer types.
Acknowledgements
None.
Footnotes
Authors’ Contributions
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH: Conceptualization; Methodology; Formal analysis; Data curation; Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing; Supervision. Kelly Victory, MD: Conceptualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing. James A. Thorp, MD: Conceptualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing. Drew Pinsky, MD: Conceptualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing. Alejandro Diaz-Villalobos, MD: Investigation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing. Peter Gillooly, MSc: Data curation; Formal analysis; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing. Foster Coulson: Investigation; Project administration; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing. Melissa Annazone: Investigation; Data curation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing. Chloe Radesi: Investigation; Data curation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing. Jessica Brooks: Investigation; Project administration; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing. Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH: conceptualization; Supervision; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD: Methodology; Formal analysis; Supervision; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.
Conflicts of Interest
All Authors are affiliated with and/or receive salary support from The Wellness Company (TWC), which operates the telemedicine platform through which the ivermectin–mebendazole combination evaluated in this analysis was prescribed and dispensed. TWC also offers compounded formulations of ivermectin and mebendazole as part of its clinical services.
Funding
No external funding was received for this project.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Disclosure
During the preparation of this manuscript, a large language model (Gemini, Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA) was used for language editing and stylistic improvements in select paragraphs. Additionally, Gemini was utilized to generate preliminary figures, which were subsequently and extensively manually modified by the authors to ensure scientific accuracy and precision. No sections involving the generation, analysis, or interpretation of raw research data were produced by generative AI. All final scientific content was created, reviewed, and approved by the authors.
- Received April 8, 2026.
- Revision received April 20, 2026.
- Accepted April 24, 2026.
- Copyright © 2026 The Author(s). Published by the International Institute of Anticancer Research.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.