Oncotarget. 2017 Oct 6; 8(46): 81485–81491.
Healing touch in radiation therapy: is the benefit tangible?
Jean-Baptiste Guy,1 Sacha Bard-Reboul,1 Jane-Chloé Trone,1 Alexis Vallard,1 Sophie Espenel,1 Julien Langrand-Escure,1 Anis Hamrouni,1 Majed Ben Mrad,1 Stéphanie Morisson,2 Patrick Michaud,2 Nicolas Magné,1 and Chloé Rancoule1
1 Département de Radiothérapie, Institut de Cancérologie de la Loire-Lucien Neuwirth, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France
2 Département Interdisciplinaire des Soins de Supports, Institut de Cancérologie de la Loire-Lucien Neuwirth, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France
Abstract
Background:
Cancer patients tend to use more and more complementary or alternative medicine concomitantly to radiotherapy. A large part of these patients have recourse to Mind and Body practice, mainly with biofield healers or magnetizers, without any level of evidence. The aim of the present study was to report epidemiologic data on biofield healers in radiation therapy patients, and to assess the possible objective and subjective benefits.
Materials and Methods:
A retrospective study was conducted in a French cancer institute. All consecutive breast or prostate cancer patients undergoing a curative radiotherapy during 2015 were screened (n = 806). Healer consultation procedure, frequency, and remuneration were collected. Patient's self-evaluation of healer's impact on treatment tolerance was reported. Tolerance (fatigue, pain) was assessed through visual analogic scale (0 to 10). Analgesic consumption was evaluated. Toxicities were described according to NTCAEv4.0.
Results:
500 patients were included (350 women and 150 men). A total of 256 patients (51.2%) consulted a healer during their radiation treatment, with a majority of women (58%, p < 0.01). Most of patients had weekly (n = 209, 41.8%) or daily (n = 84, 16.8%) appointments with their healer. Regarding the self-reported tolerance, > 80% of the patients described a “good” or “very good” impact of the healer on their treatment. Healers were mainly voluntary (75.8%). Regarding the clinical efficacy, no difference was observed in prostate and in breast cancer patients (toxicity, antalgic consumption, pain).
Conclusions:
This study reveals that the majority of patients treated by radiotherapy consults a healer and reports a benefit on subjective tolerance, without objective tolerance amelioration.
Free full text:
http://www.oncotarget.com/index.php?journal=oncotarget&page=article&op=view&path[]=20594&path[]=65631
Excerpts:
"In French daily routine, radiotherapy patients often fear radiation-induced dermatitis and frequently see distant healers, also called 'biofield healers'. Biofield healers are believed to be able to prevent and limit radiation dermatitis through hand imposition, therapeutic or healing touch, breathe and healing symbols. Although radiotherapy patients frequently report to see biofield healers in daily routine practice, the rate of utilization, the cost, the efficacy and the nature of the healer procedure has only been very poorly described [11]."
"Among the 500 patients included in the study, 256 (51.2%) saw a biofield healer during their radiotherapy (Table 1)."
"Most of patients (n = 215, 84%) reported a good or very good impact of the biofield healer on their tolerance to radiotherapy (Table 3)
"We confirm that radiotherapy patients frequently resort to CAM, and especially turn to biofield healers. In the present study, nearly 50% of prostate and breast cancer patients saw a biofield healer during their radiation therapy. Our results corroborate previous data reporting that patients commonly used CAMs during their cancer treatments [4]."
"Furthermore, the present study reports biofield healer's procedures, with sometimes surprising results. The use of breath as a healing technique has never been described in literature, although it accounted for more than half of our patients’ set. Therapeutic touch or healing touch technique was the most reported technique in the literature [9] and was found here in only 42% of cases. This technique is close to 'Reiki' technique, that was successfully tested in prostate cancer, especially with positive effects on anxious patients [13]."
"Subjective benefit of biofield healer was major, with 84 % of patients having a good or very good opinion on the healer's impact on their tolerance to radiotherapy. Yet, our results did not show any significant difference in favor of healers regarding radiation toxicities, related fatigue or pain, corroborating previous data. Thus, a randomized placebo-controlled study evaluating the benefit of healing touch on fatigue in 41 breast cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy failed to prove its positive effect [15]. Regarding the pathophysiological explanations, various hypotheses can be found in literature to rationalize the effect of these practices [16]. One of the explanation might be found in a placebo effect, that was previously reported to decrease the pain and fatigue in radiotherapy patients [17–20]....Furthermore, healing touch was previously reported to have a positive effect on symptoms of chronic fatigue [21], and could therefore still have a positive impact on patient's quality of life."
"At the time of modern radiation therapy era, where patient's quality of life is one of the objective to achieve, biofield healers could help both patient and radiation oncologist. A prospective evaluation including a quality of life evaluation is necessary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Comments:
Although the authors acknowledge placebo effects, and note no difference in some measures, they seem sympathetic to the use of healing touch. They do not discuss the scientific implausibility of the method.
