Shark Cartilage
Ground shark cartilage
'Sharks don't get cancer' — they do, and this doesn't cure it.
Evidence tier
No Evidence
Research weight
Not supported
Citations
14 verified / 14
Classification
Debunked
⊘
What the evidence says. No credible human evidence supports the marketed claims — widely considered ineffective.
⊘
No credible evidence. The claims below are what marketers assert — not what science supports. This entry is included so you can recognise it.
What is Shark Cartilage?
Shark Cartilage (Ground shark cartilage) is a debunked supplement marketed for treats cancer. NutriDex grades the human evidence as No Evidence. Shark cartilage was popularized by the myth that sharks don't get cancer (they do) and the idea that anti-angiogenic compounds in cartilage could starve tumors. Controlled clinical trials of shark-cartilage products in cancer patients found no survival or quality-of-life benefit. Beyond debunking a harmful cancer myth, the trade has also contributed to shark population decline.
Marketed Claims (unproven)
✕(Claimed) treats cancer
✕(Claimed) joint / arthritis benefit
Dosing & Compounds
Use & Legality
No demonstrated therapeutic dose; not a cancer treatment.
Active Compounds
Safety & Cautions
Generally low direct toxicity, but the real harm is the myth: using it instead of proven cancer treatment can be life-threatening. GI upset and bad taste are common. Ecologically harmful to shark populations. Educational only — always check with your doctor or pharmacist before combining Shark Cartilage with any medicine.
Evidence & Risk Findings ★ 14 studies
systematic review
CAM-Cancer Collaboration 2024 (review)
✓ Source
Updated systematic monograph concludes that across two RCTs (n=379 and n=83) oral shark cartilage did not prolong survival or improve tumor outcomes in advanced cancer, and is generally well tolerated with only minor transient GI adverse events.
guideline
NCI PDQ Cartilage (Bovine and Shark) (Health Professional Version)
✓ Source
The National Cancer Institute's authoritative PDQ summary concludes that the few human cancer studies of cartilage reported are inconclusive, the FDA has not approved cartilage for cancer, and no shark cartilage product has been shown to be an effective anticancer agent.
Clinical trial
Lu 2010 (RCT)
✓ PubMed
No survival benefit from a shark-cartilage product in lung cancer.
rct
Escudier 2007 (J Urol / large phase III)
✓ PubMed
A randomized phase III trial of the shark-cartilage extract AE-941 (Neovastat) in 300 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma refractory to immunotherapy failed to improve overall survival (median 12.6 months for the cohort), with the agent subsequently dropped from development.
phase I/II trial
Latreille/Batist 2003 (Clin Lung Cancer phase I/II)
✓ PubMed
In an 80-patient open-label dose-escalation phase I/II trial of the shark-cartilage extract AE-941 (Neovastat) in lung cancer, higher doses were associated with a modest median-survival difference (6.1 vs 4.6 months, P=0.026); this early signal was not confirmed in later randomized phase III testing.
phase II trial
Berbari 2002 (Neovastat phase II RCC)
✓ PubMed
A phase II trial of two dose levels of Neovastat (AE-941) in refractory renal cell carcinoma reported a dose-dependent association with longer survival, but the agent failed to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in subsequent randomized phase III evaluation.
RCT
Miller 1998
✓ PubMed
Phase I/II single-agent trial of oral shark cartilage (1 g/kg/day) in 60 patients with advanced pretreated cancer. No complete or partial responses; 16.7% had stable disease (similar to supportive care alone) and no improvement in quality of life. Shark cartilage was inactive; 21 adverse events recorded, mostly gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, constipation).
Safety / toxicology
Mondo (Toxins) 2016
✓ Full text
Across ten shark species, the neurotoxin BMAA was detected in all samples (34-2011 ng/mg wet weight) at levels 15-1500x higher than mercury, raising safety concerns for shark fin and cartilage supplement consumers (DOI 10.3390/toxins8080238).
toxicology safety study
Mondo 2014 (Food Chem Toxicol)
✓ PubMed
Analysis of 16 commercial shark-cartilage supplements detected the cyanobacterial neurotoxin BMAA in 15/16 products (86-265 ug/g) plus measurable mercury, indicating a contamination/neurotoxicity safety risk.
Review
Reviews
✓ Source
No credible evidence for anticancer or major joint benefits.
case report
Patel 2017 (Am J Gastroenterol case report)
✓ Source
Case report of acute drug-induced liver injury in an adult attributed to shark-cartilage supplementation, with liver enzymes/bilirubin normalizing after discontinuation.
case series
Hutton 2003 (Support Care Cancer case series)
✓ PubMed
A Cleveland Clinic case series of eight cancer patients with symptomatic hypercalcemia found that calcium, vitamin D, and shark-cartilage supplements may have contributed to the prevalence or severity of hypercalcemia, flagging a clinically relevant safety hazard.
Study
Loprinzi 2005 (Cancer)
✓ PubMed
Shark cartilage added no benefit to standard care in advanced cancer.
institutional monograph
MSKCC Integrative Medicine (Shark Cartilage monograph)
✓ Source
Memorial Sloan Kettering's authoritative integrative-medicine monograph concludes shark cartilage is not effective in treating cancer, noting that orally ingested cartilage proteins are likely digested rather than absorbed, so test-tube anti-angiogenic activity does not translate to anti-tumor effects in animals or humans.