Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach

J Exp Clin Cancer Res · 2009 · Mixed · Very low evidence

← Research stream

MixedVery low evidencePaper 6737

Study snapshot

PublicationJ Exp Clin Cancer Res · 2009

Study typeother

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingVery low

Abstract

Purpose: Because in vitro studies suggest that low levels of electromagnetic fields may modify cancer cell growth, we hypothesized that systemic delivery of a combination of tumor-specific frequencies may have a therapeutic effect. We undertook this study to identify tumor-specific frequencies and test the feasibility of administering such frequencies to patients with advanced cancer. Patients and methods: We examined patients with various types of cancer using a noninvasive biofeedback method to identify tumor-specific frequencies. We offered compassionate treatment to some patients with advanced cancer and limited therapeutic options. Results: We examined a total of 163 patients with a diagnosis of cancer and identified a total of 1524 frequencies ranging from 0.1 Hz to 114 kHz. Most frequencies (57-92%) were specific for a single tumor type. Compassionate treatment with tumor-specific frequencies was offered to 28 patients. Three patients experienced grade 1 fatigue during or immediately after treatment. There were no NCI grade 2, 3 or 4 toxicities. Thirteen patients were evaluable for response. One patient with hormone-refractory breast cancer metastatic to the adrenal gland and bones had a complete response lasting 11 months. One patient with hormone-refractory breast cancer metastatic to liver and bones had a partial response lasting 13.5 months. Four patients had stable disease lasting for +34.1 months (thyroid cancer metastatic to lung), 5.1 months (non-small cell lung cancer), 4.1 months (pancreatic cancer metastatic to liver) and 4.0 months (leiomyosarcoma metastatic to liver). Conclusion: Cancer-related frequencies appear to be tumor-specific and treatment with tumor-specific frequencies is feasible, well tolerated and may have biological efficacy in patients with advanced cancer. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00805337.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother

Effect directionmixed

PopulationPatients with various types of cancer; compassionate treatment in patients with advanced cancer and limited therapeutic options

Sample size163

ExposureELF

Evidence strengthVery lowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Using a noninvasive biofeedback method, 1524 frequencies (0.1 Hz to 114 kHz) were identified in 163 cancer patients, with most frequencies (57–92%) reported as specific to a single tumor type. Compassionate treatment was offered to 28 patients; among 13 evaluable for response, 1 complete response (11 months), 1 partial response (13.5 months), and 4 cases of stable disease (4.0 to >34.1 months) were reported. Toxicity was limited to grade 1 fatigue in three patients, with no grade 2–4 toxicities reported.

Outcomes measured

Identification of tumor-specific frequencies
Adverse events/toxicity (NCI grading)
Tumor response (complete response, partial response, stable disease)
Feasibility/tolerability of administering tumor-specific frequencies

Limitations

Noninvasive biofeedback method used to identify frequencies; details not provided in abstract
Compassionate-use treatment without stated control group
Only 13/28 treated patients were evaluable for response
Heterogeneous cancer types and metastatic sites
Duration of exposure/treatment regimen not specified in abstract
No SAR or field strength/exposure metrics reported in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "therapeutic device/systemic delivery (amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Patients with various types of cancer; compassionate treatment in patients with advanced cancer and limited therapeutic options",
  "sample_size": 163,
  "outcomes": [
    "Identification of tumor-specific frequencies",
    "Adverse events/toxicity (NCI grading)",
    "Tumor response (complete response, partial response, stable disease)",
    "Feasibility/tolerability of administering tumor-specific frequencies"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using a noninvasive biofeedback method, 1524 frequencies (0.1 Hz to 114 kHz) were identified in 163 cancer patients, with most frequencies (57–92%) reported as specific to a single tumor type. Compassionate treatment was offered to 28 patients; among 13 evaluable for response, 1 complete response (11 months), 1 partial response (13.5 months), and 4 cases of stable disease (4.0 to >34.1 months) were reported. Toxicity was limited to grade 1 fatigue in three patients, with no grade 2–4 toxicities reported.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Noninvasive biofeedback method used to identify frequencies; details not provided in abstract",
    "Compassionate-use treatment without stated control group",
    "Only 13/28 treated patients were evaluable for response",
    "Heterogeneous cancer types and metastatic sites",
    "Duration of exposure/treatment regimen not specified in abstract",
    "No SAR or field strength/exposure metrics reported in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "very_low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields",
    "tumor-specific frequencies",
    "biofeedback",
    "compassionate treatment",
    "advanced cancer",
    "0.1 Hz",
    "114 kHz",
    "feasibility",
    "toxicity",
    "clinical response"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1186/1756-9966-28-51
PubMed: 19366446

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library