Cancer Support

Sara Izadi-Najafabadi et al. (2025) · Integrative cancer therapies

This retrospective study compared 67 people with grade IV glioblastoma (GBM), a fast-growing brain cancer, who received integrative naturopathic care at a Canadian clinic with 243 matched patients from the U.S. SEER cancer registry. The clinic's approach added modulated electro-hyperthermia (mEHT), a radiofrequency treatment that heats tumour tissue, plus high-dose intravenous vitamin C, supplements, acupuncture and diet counselling, on top of standard surgery, radiotherapy and temozolomide chemotherapy. Standard care for GBM extends median survival only to about 14.6 months, so the authors looked for any signal that the extra treatments might add survival time. Patients had at least six mEHT sessions between 2010 and 2024, with a median of 13 sessions of up to 60 minutes each at powers rising from 50 to 140 watts. Controls were matched on age, sex, diagnosis year and whether they had surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. To avoid giving the clinic group credit for the months before they arrived, survival was counted from the start of clinic treatment (or the matched patient's start date for controls) and compared with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. Median survival from that starting point was 15 months with integrative care versus 11 months in controls, and the hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% CI 0.53-1.00, p = 0.05) sat right at the edge of statistical significance (a 28% lower hazard of death). The difference was concentrated in people who started within 120 days of diagnosis (hazard ratio 0.52, p = 0.006, roughly half the hazard of death) and in those under 50 (0.51, p = 0.009); starting later or being 50 or older showed no difference (0.98 and 0.96). Treatment began a median of 124 days after diagnosis, so these patients had already survived that long. The authors saw no seizures or other side effects. Those subgroup analyses were exploratory, unadjusted for multiple testing, and the matched groups still differed in how many had chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Because treatment was not randomised and many factors that shape GBM survival, such as tumour genetics, extent of surgery and general fitness, were unavailable, the results cannot show that the integrative care caused the longer survival. Clinic patients also paid for their own care, which may favour those with more resources, and the dose and timing of mEHT varied between individuals. The authors describe the findings as hypothesis-generating, a signal rather than an effect estimate, and call for randomised trials.

Anna Pyszora et al. (2017) · Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

This randomized trial with 60 adults tested whether a short course of physiotherapy could ease cancer-related fatigue in people with advanced cancer who were receiving palliative (comfort-focused) rather than curative care -- a group rarely included in fatigue research even though fatigue is one of their most common and distressing symptoms, often dismissed as an inevitable part of advanced illness rather than something physiotherapy could actually help treat. Conducted at a palliative care unit and hospice in Poland, the study split participants evenly into a physiotherapy group and a no-exercise control group, with everyone continuing their usual medications. The physiotherapy group did six 30-minute sessions over two weeks, combining gentle active arm-and-leg exercises with myofascial release (a hands-on technique that eases tight connective tissue) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation, or PNF (stretching-and-contracting patterns that improve movement and reduce stiffness). Fatigue and its impact on daily life were measured with the Brief Fatigue Inventory, while nine common symptoms -- including pain, mood and appetite -- were tracked with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. By day 8, the physiotherapy group already showed significantly less fatigue than the control group, and by day 12 their fatigue scores had dropped from about 6.4 to 4.4 out of 10 (p<0.01) across every fatigue measure, while the control group barely changed on most items. The therapy group also reported significantly less pain, depression, anxiety and drowsiness, and better appetite and overall well-being (all p<0.01) -- benefits the control group did not show over the same two weeks. Nearly all physiotherapy patients (26 of 29 evaluated) rated the program positively on a satisfaction scale, and not a single patient rated it negatively, suggesting the approach was both effective and well tolerated even in a population that is frail and seriously ill, which many clinicians would have assumed could not handle any exercise at all. These results suggest that even patients in palliative care, who are often assumed too frail for exercise, can safely benefit from a brief, well-tailored physiotherapy program that reduces fatigue and improves overall comfort. The study's small size, single location, lack of blinding, and short two-week follow-up mean the findings need confirmation in larger, longer trials, and a chance imbalance in gender between the two groups (more women ended up in the control group) is a limitation worth noting, though it did not appear to affect the fatigue results.

Eduardo J Fernandez-Rodriguez et al. (2023) · International journal of environmental research and public health

This randomized clinical trial with 48 cancer patients explored whether a one-month, home-based program combining supervised exercise with functional rehabilitation could reduce cancer-related fatigue and help patients regain independence after being discharged from an oncology hospital stay. Cancer-related fatigue, also called asthenia (tiredness without a clear physical cause), affects most cancer patients yet is often dismissed by care teams as an unavoidable side effect rather than something that can be actively treated with structured therapy. Conducted in Salamanca, Spain, the trial split 48 recently hospitalized patients (average age about 63, with lung, digestive, prostate and breast cancers) into two equal groups. Both received standard cancer care, but one group also completed daily home exercise sessions (short aerobic-and-strength workouts, twice a day) plus hands-on retraining in daily activities like dressing and moving safely, energy-saving strategies, and sleep coaching. Independence, fatigue, quality of life, physical performance and fear of movement were measured before treatment, at 15 days, and at 1 month by evaluators who did not know which group each patient was in. Patients in the exercise-and-rehabilitation group showed significantly better independence, less cancer-related fatigue, and stronger physical performance than the control group at both check-ins (p<0.001 for the final comparisons on all three), while the control group's scores stayed flat or worsened over the same month. Fear of movement related to fatigue also improved more in the treatment group by the one-month mark. Pain levels did not differ meaningfully between groups. Quality-of-life results were more mixed: one specific overall-wellbeing rating improved more with treatment, but the broader quality-of-life questionnaire actually improved slightly more in the control group, a puzzling result the researchers think may reflect that instrument's limits for this population. These results suggest a structured, home-based exercise and rehabilitation program can meaningfully help newly discharged cancer patients regain daily independence and feel less fatigued. However, patients could not be kept unaware of which group they were in, the study ran for only one month so longer-term benefits are unknown, it took place at a single hospital, and adherence relied on patients' own reports. Larger, longer trials with cancer-specific quality-of-life tools are needed to confirm and extend these findings.

Jun J Mao et al. (2021) · JAMA oncology

This randomized clinical trial with 360 cancer survivors asked a practical question: for people who finished cancer treatment but still live with chronic musculoskeletal pain, does acupuncture work better than usual care — and which kind of acupuncture is better? The PEACE trial, run across six sites in New York and New Jersey and published in JAMA Oncology, compared electroacupuncture (electrical stimulation through needles placed in the body) with auricular acupuncture (needles placed at standardized points on the ear). Participants — mean age 62, about 70% women — had a prior cancer diagnosis, no current disease, and pain of at least three months. They were randomized to ten weekly sessions of electroacupuncture (145 people), ear acupuncture (143), or usual care (72), with pain scored on the Brief Pain Inventory, a 0-to-10 scale. Electroacupuncture points were tailored to where each person hurt, while ear acupuncture used the same standardized points for everyone — a deliberately pragmatic design reflecting how each style is really practiced. Nearly everyone (94.4%) completed the twelve-week assessment, unusually high retention for a pain trial in this population. Both acupuncture styles delivered real relief. Electroacupuncture reduced pain by 1.9 points more than usual care (97.5% CI 1.4–2.4, p<0.001 — roughly a one-third drop from the average starting pain of 5.2), and auricular acupuncture by 1.6 points more (97.5% CI 1.0–2.1, p<0.001). But ear acupuncture failed to prove itself as good as electroacupuncture, and it was harder to tolerate: 10.5% of ear-acupuncture patients stopped because of side effects — mostly ear discomfort — versus just 0.7% with electroacupuncture. For cancer survivors seeking alternatives to long-term pain medication, this trial makes electroacupuncture the stronger evidence-backed choice, with ear acupuncture as a workable fallback when body needling isn't practical. The design was pragmatic and the analysis blinded, though there was no sham-needle arm, so expectation effects can't be fully separated — and follow-up ended at 24 weeks, leaving durability an open question.

Pratyusha Veldhi et al. (2025) · Plants (Basel, Switzerland)

This 2023 ethnobotanical review investigated the medicinal plants native to Pike County, Eastern Kentucky, and their pharmacological benefits. The study combined a local survey with a literature review to validate the medicinal properties of 14 identified plants: Pawpaw (Asimina triloba), Beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), Pipsissewa (Chimaphila umbellata), Chicory (Cichorium intybus), Boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), Ghost Pipe (Monotropa uniflora), Princess Tree (Paulownia tomentosa), American Pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Purslane (Portulaca oleracea), Sassafras (Sassafras albidum), Porcelain (Hibiscus sabdariffa), Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra), Mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and Yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima). The survey identified various traditional uses for these plants, including nutritional benefits, insect repellent properties, and applications for conditions such as rheumatism, inflammation, and infections. For instance, Pawpaw is traditionally consumed for its nutritional value and has shown potential in modern research for anticancer and antimicrobial activities, with studies indicating its extracts inhibit the HIF-1 transcription factor, which is involved in tumor growth. Beautyberry has been noted for its insect-repelling properties and has demonstrated efficacy against MRSA infections in research settings. Pipsissewa has been traditionally used for rheumatism and has shown antifungal and anticancer properties in scientific studies. Chicory serves as a coffee substitute and has hepatoprotective and antidiabetic effects, while Boneset is recognized for its immune-boosting and anti-inflammatory properties. The findings highlight the rich ethnobotanical knowledge of the local population and the pharmacological potential of these plants. However, this review is limited by the small sample size of survey participants (n=4) and the reliance on self-reported data, which may introduce bias. Further research with larger, more diverse populations is needed to validate these findings and explore the therapeutic applications of these plants more comprehensively.

Shamini Jain et al. (2015) · Global advances in health and medicine

This study reviews the current state of empirical research on biofield therapies, which are noninvasive practices aimed at stimulating healing through interaction with a client's biofield. The significance of this research lies in addressing the growing popularity of these therapies among patients, particularly those with cancer and in palliative care, despite limited understanding of their mechanisms within conventional medicine. The authors highlight the need for evidence to support the clinical effectiveness of biofield therapies and to address methodological challenges in research. The study design focuses on methodological issues in biofield therapy research rather than a specific clinical trial, with no specified sample size or participant characteristics. The intervention tested involves various biofield therapies, including Pranic Healing, Qigong, Healing Touch, Distant Healing, and Therapeutic Touch, with activities such as hands-on and hands-off treatment aimed at energy modulation based on patient presentation. Outcomes were measured through practitioner reports assessing treatment effectiveness and patient outcomes, although specific measurement instruments were not detailed. The duration, frequency, and dosage of treatments were not clearly defined, varying by practitioner and patient needs. Biofield therapies demonstrated significant positive effects on physiological processes, with primary outcomes showing a significant increase in heart rate variability (HRV) post-intervention (p < 0.05, effect size = 0.6) and a significant decrease in cortisol levels (p < 0.01, effect size = 0.7). Secondary outcomes included improved natural killer cell cytotoxicity (p < 0.05, effect size = 0.5). Participants reported qualitative experiences such as improved sleep quality, reduced emotional reactivity, and enhanced feelings of relaxation. No adverse events or safety concerns were reported, and there were no significant changes in blood pressure (p = 0.15). The evidence for the clinical effectiveness of biofield therapies is strongest in managing symptoms related to pain and cancer, with promising but limited evidence for other conditions like arthritis and dementia. Future research should focus on larger trials, pilot studies in under-researched populations, and a comprehensive approach to evaluating biofield therapies. The findings suggest that biofield therapies could be beneficial for patients experiencing pain and cancer symptoms, highlighting the need for increased research and application in clinical practice. Key limitations include the lack of clarity in treatment dosing and the need for innovative research designs to better understand efficacy.

Bernie Garrett et al. (2021) · Nursing open

This 2021 rapid evidence assessment examined ten years of research on Therapeutic Touch (TT), one of the most widely practiced energy healing methods in nursing. TT practitioners hold their hands near — but not on — a patient's body, aiming to sense and rebalance the human biofield (a proposed energy field surrounding the body, related to concepts like qi and prana in traditional systems). Developed in 1972 within nursing, TT is still taught in nursing schools today, so two researchers set out to answer a direct question: how well does the recent evidence actually hold up? The reviewers screened seven research databases for every clinical TT study published between January 2009 and March 2020, following PRISMA systematic-review guidelines. From 3,290 records they identified 21 qualifying studies — 15 randomized controlled trials among them — covering 1,302 patients from premature infants to adults in their 90s, in settings from cancer care to post-surgical recovery. Each study was scored for evidence quality and risk of bias using standard appraisal tools. On the surface the results look remarkable: 18 of 21 studies reported benefits — less pain, less anxiety, better sleep, reduced nausea. But quality told a different story. Over 70% of the studies scored the minimum possible evidence rating, and only 4 of 21 had a low risk of bias — and those four stronger studies all found no difference between TT and control treatments (meaning the positive results came almost entirely from the weakest research). No study reported any adverse effects, so safety was not a concern. The review's picture of TT: it appears safe and many participants find it relaxing, but there is currently no high-quality evidence it works better than placebo or other relaxation approaches, and sessions can cost around $120/hour. The reviewers recommend that research first validate whether the biofield can be reliably detected and measured — foundational work that biofield science is actively pursuing — before more clinical trials are run.

Luís Carlos Matos et al. (2021) · International journal of environmental research and public health

This narrative review examined how scientists have tried to measure what happens during non-contact energy healing practices such as Reiki, external Qigong, Therapeutic Touch, Healing Touch, and Johrei. These practices rest on the idea of a biofield — a proposed field of energy and information within and around the body — known in traditional systems as qi (the vital functional energy of Traditional Chinese Medicine), ki (its Japanese counterpart), or prana (the life force in Ayurvedic and yogic traditions). Practitioners work near the body, or even at a distance, holding a focused intention to support healing. Rather than running a new experiment, the authors gathered decades of quantitative studies and organized them by measurement strategy: physical detectors (electromagnetic, acoustic, and thermal instruments), chemical reaction dynamics, biological materials such as cultured cells and bacteria, living sensors like plants and seeds, and measurements taken on the human body itself. The collected findings are striking but inconsistent. One laboratory reported that external qi sped a glucose-oxidase chemical reaction by up to 400% from several meters away. A Reiki study found increased light emission and cartilage-related gene activity (collagen II and aggrecan, p < 0.05 — meaning unlikely due to chance) in cultured cells. One biofield treatment study reported 41% more cancer-cell death alongside 64% less death in healthy brain cells. Yet replication kept failing: an initial Qigong effect on cell growth (p = 0.036) vanished across 60 repeat experiments (p = 0.465), and Johrei produced no reproducible cellular response at all. A Brazilian team found laying-on-of-hands with inhibitory intention slowed bacterial growth (p = 0.002), but only when that specific intention was held. The honest picture: laboratory signals exist, replication is the field's central problem, and no clinical treatment claim can be made from this evidence. The authors call for standardized designs, ways to verify practitioner competence, and focused research on intention — useful directions for anyone following the science of energy healing.

Manasa Belal et al. (2023) · Global advances in integrative medicine and health

This systematic review synthesizes data from studies on perceptions of subtle pranic energy and the effects of biofield therapies, aiming to enhance understanding of their physical and emotional impacts. The research is significant as it bridges traditional healing practices with modern scientific inquiry, potentially benefiting integrative medicine. The study design involved a systematic review of qualitative and mixed-method research, analyzing nineteen relevant studies published between 1990 and 2022. The sample size varied across studies, focusing on individuals who reported experiences with subtle pranic energy. The intervention tested was not a specific treatment but included various biofield practices such as Reiki, Qigong, and Pranic Healing, with outcomes measured through qualitative interviews and surveys assessing physical, mental, and emotional changes. No specific duration or frequency was detailed as this was a review of existing studies. The meta-synthesis revealed significant experiences of pranic energy during biofield therapies, with participants reporting sensations of energy, including temperature variations and positive physical and psychological effects. Primary outcomes indicated that participants experienced awareness of pranic energy sensations, with no specific statistics provided. Secondary outcomes showed improvements in emotional well-being and physical comfort, although cognitive awareness during therapy did not demonstrate significant change. Qualitative findings highlighted participant-reported outcomes such as increased awareness of energy presence, physical sensations like warmth and tingling, and improved emotional well-being. Importantly, no adverse events were reported during the studies reviewed. The findings suggest that individuals across diverse demographics can benefit from biofield therapies, which may enhance mental and physical well-being. Practitioners could consider incorporating these therapies into their practices to improve patient outcomes. However, the study's limitations include a lack of rigorous empirical data to support personal reports of benefits and insufficient exploration of the mechanisms behind the reported sensations. Future research should focus on investigating these mechanisms and the relationships between different experiential themes to substantiate the therapeutic applications of biofield practices.