Acupressure is a treatment-variation of acupuncture; instead of sticking needles into the skin, pressure is applied over ‘acupuncture points’ which is supposed to provide a stimulus similar to needling. Therefore the effects of both treatments should theoretically be similar.
Acupressure could have several advantages over acupuncture:
- it can be used for self-treatment
- it is suitable for people with needle-phobia
- it is painless
- it is not invasive
- it has less risks
- it could be cheaper
But is acupressure really effective? What do the trial data tell us? Our own systematic review concluded that the effectiveness of acupressure is currently not well documented for any condition. But now there is a new study which might change this negative verdict.
The primary objective of this 3-armed RCT was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-acupressure using wristbands compared with sham acupressure wristbands and standard care alone in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea. 500 patients from outpatient chemotherapy clinics in three regions in the UK involving 14 different cancer units/centres were randomised to the wristband arm, the sham wristband arm and the standard care only arm. Participants were chemotherapy-naive cancer patients receiving chemotherapy of low, moderate and high emetogenic risk. The experimental group were given acupressure wristbands pressing the P6 point (anterior surface of the forearm). The Rhodes Index for Nausea/Vomiting, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General (FACT-G) served as outcome measures. At baseline, participants completed measures of anxiety/depression, nausea/vomiting expectation and expectations from using the wristbands.
Data were available for 361 participants for the primary outcome. The primary outcome analysis (nausea in cycle 1) revealed no statistically significant differences between the three arms. The median nausea experience in patients using wristbands (both real and sham ones) was somewhat lower than that in the anti-emetics only group (median nausea experience scores for the four cycles: standard care arm 1.43, 1.71, 1.14, 1.14; sham acupressure arm 0.57, 0.71, 0.71, 0.43; acupressure arm 1.00, 0.93, 0.43, 0). Women responded more favourably to the use of sham acupressure wristbands than men (odds ratio 0.35 for men and 2.02 for women in the sham acupressure group; 1.27 for men and 1.17 for women in the acupressure group). No significant differences were detected in relation to vomiting outcomes, anxiety and quality of life. Some transient adverse effects were reported, including tightness in the area of the wristbands, feeling uncomfortable when wearing them and minor swelling in the wristband area (n = 6). There were no statistically significant differences in the costs associated with the use of real acupressure band.
26 subjects took part in qualitative interviews. Participants perceived the wristbands (both real and sham) as effective and helpful in managing their nausea during chemotherapy.
The authors concluded that there were no statistically significant differences between the three arms in terms of nausea, vomiting and quality of life, although apparent resource use was less in both the real acupressure arm and the sham acupressure arm compared with standard care only; therefore; no clear conclusions can be drawn about the use of acupressure wristbands in the management of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. However, the study provided encouraging evidence in relation to an improved nausea experience and some indications of possible cost savings to warrant further consideration of acupressure both in practice and in further clinical trials.
I could argue about several of the methodological details of this study. But I resist the temptation in order to focus on just one single point which I find important and which has implications beyond the realm of acupressure.
Why on earth do the authors conclude that no clear conclusions can be drawn about the use of acupressure wristbands in the management of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting? The stated aim of this RCT was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-acupressure using wristbands compared with sham acupressure wristbands and standard care. The results failed to show significant differences of the primary outcome measures, consequently the conclusion cannot be “unclear”, it has to be that ACUPRESSURE WRIST BANDS ARE NOT MORE EFFECTIVE THAN SHAM ACUPRESSURE WRIST BANDS AS AN ADJUNCT TO ANTI-EMETIC DRUG TREATMENT (or something to that extent).
As long as RCTs of alternative therapies are run by evangelic believers in the respective therapy, we are bound to regularly encounter this lamentable phenomenon of white-washing negative findings with an inadequate conclusion. In my view, this is not research or science, it is pseudo-research or pseudo-science. And it is much more than a nuisance or a trivial matter; it is a waste of research funds, a waste of patients’ good will that has reached a point where people will lose trust in alternative medicine research. Someone should really do a systematic study to identify those research teams that regularly commit such scientific misconduct and ensure that they are cut off public funding and support.
In 1747, James Lind conducted what may well be the first documented controlled clinical trial in the history of medicine. He treated a small group of healthy sailors with a range of different remedies to see whether one of these regimen might be effective in preventing scurvy. The results showed that lemon and lime juice – effectively vitamin C – did the trick. This trial changed the world: it saved tens of thousands of lives, gave Britain the advantage at sea needed to become a dominant empire, and set medicine on the track to eventually become evidence-based.
Of course, Lind did not know that the effective principle in his lemon/lime juice was vitamin C. The Hungarian physiologist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi discovered vitamin C only ~200 years later and received the Nobel Prize for it in 1937. Since then, research has been buoyant, and vitamin C has been advocated for almost every condition one can think of. Looking at some of the claims made for it, I get the impression that more charlatans have jumped on the vitamin C band-waggon than the old vehicle can support. In alternative medicine, high-dose IV vitamin C is a popular variation of Lind’s concept, not least for the treatment of cancer.
Researchers from the NIH in the US surveyed attendees at annual CAM Conferences in 2006 and 2008, and determined sales of intravenous vitamin C by major U.S. manufacturers/distributors. They also queried practitioners for adverse effects, compiled published cases, and analyzed FDA’s Adverse Events Database. Of 199 survey respondents (out of 550), 172 practitioners had administered IV vitamin C to 11,233 patients in 2006 and to 8876 patients in 2008. The average dose was 28 grams every 4 days, with a mean of 22 treatments per patient. Estimated yearly doses used (as 25g/50ml vials) were 318,539 in 2006 and 354,647 in 2008. Manufacturers’ yearly sales were 750,000 and 855,000 vials, respectively. Common reasons for treatment included infection, cancer, and fatigue. Of 9,328 patients for whom data was available, 101 had adverse effects, mostly minor, including lethargy/fatigue in 59 patients, change in mental status in 21 patients and vein irritation/phlebitis in 6 patients. Publications documented serious adverse events, including two deaths. The FDA Adverse Events Database was uninformative.
The authors of this paper conclude that high dose IV vitamin C is in unexpectedly wide use by CAM practitioners. Other than the known complications of IV vitamin C in those with renal impairment or glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, high dose intravenous vitamin C appears to be remarkably safe. Physicians should inquire about IV vitamin C use in patients with cancer, chronic, untreatable, or intractable conditions and be observant of unexpected harm, drug interactions, or benefit.
I find these results somewhat worrying. Desperate cancer patients are constantly being told that they can fight the disease with high-dose vitamin C, for instance on the >9 million (!) websites on this subject. One site, for instance, leaves little doubt about the efficacy of vitamin C as a treatment for cancer: First shown to be a powerful anti-cancer agent in 1971, it wasn’t until 20 years later that vitamin C started to be accepted by the mainstream medical profession. Eating a vitamin C-rich diet substantially reduces the risk of cancer, and high intakes – above 5000mg a day (the equivalent of 100 oranges) – substantially increases the life expectancy of cancer patients.
Statements like this one give false hope to cancer patients which is unethical and cruel and might hasten the death of many. The reality is quite different and provides little reason for such hope. Here are just a few conclusions from recent scientific analyses on this or closely related topics:
We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality. The potential cancer preventive effect of selenium should be studied in adequately conducted randomised trial
The question whether the regular intake of high doses of vitamin C have a preventative effect for certain cancers is currently open. But there is no good reason to suggest that high dose IV vitamin C is an effective treatment for any cancer. To pretend otherwise, as so many alternative practitioners seem to do, is less than responsible – in fact, it is a hallmark for cancer quackery.
CAM-Cancer is short for a project entitled “Concerted Action for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Assessment in the Cancer Field”. Originally funded by the European Commission, it is now hosted by the National Information Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NIFAB) at the University of Tromsø, Norway.
Our executive Committee is very international and, in my view, fairly balanced; it consists of the following experts:
- Prof Vinjar Fønnebø, The Norwegian National Research Center in CAM
- Prof Thomas Cerny, Kantonsspital St Gallen, Switzerland
- Prof Edzard Ernst, University of Exeter, UK
- Dr Markus Horneber, Department of Oncology/Hematology, Klinikum Nuernberg, Germany
- Dr Christine Paludan-Müller, Danish Cancer Society
Our work consists mainly of conducting and updating systematic reviews of treatments often used by cancer patients and providing them for free via the Internet. To date, we have concluded more than 60 such projects and they are all available for anyone to study. I have previously reported about our results in the area of herbal medicine. Today, I will briefly mention those on mind-body interventions.
The Internet is awash with information on the effectiveness of such treatments which is not always accurate, and even top-journals publish reviews which paint a rather optimistic picture: Mind-body therapies categorized as CAM could potentially serve as a positive platform from which providers could discuss CAM and even link survivor subgroups to services that may, at least, partly address unmet psychosocial needs. This would be especially relevant for survivor subgroups that have a cultural bias toward CAM. The mind-body therapies reviewed in this article have some supportive evidence and a rationale for use in cancer survivors. Although data on efficacy and mechanisms of action of mind-body therapies are incomplete and inconclusive, the potential benefits of using these therapies in survivor care plans warrant consideration.
By contrast, our reviews seem far less positive. Here are the key sentences describing the evidence of the four mind-body therapies that we at ’CAM cancer’ have so far tackled.
- Based on one clinical trial and two pilot studies, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of autogenic therapy for people with cancer
- There is presently a lack of good quality, single-intervention trials, so it is not possible to draw clear conclusions about the efficacy of biofeedback for people with cancer
- Existing evidence suggests that hypnotherapy may reduce cancer therapy related pain, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, and anxiety
- There is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of PMR for cancer patients suffering from pain, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders and chemotherapy-induced nausea
The question is, what precisely does that mean? I think this evidence is compatible with several interpretations:
- Mind-body therapies are generally over-rated but not really that helpful.
- They are effective, but the research is in its infancy and currently fails to document their value adequately.
- Some mind-body therapies are effective, while others are not.
At present, it is impossible to tell which interpretation is correct. What is clear, however, is the fact that ‘CAM-Cancer’ is a source that tries its utmost to inform people accurately while doing everything possible to minimise bias.
Imagine: you consult your doctor and he says: “I am so sorry, but I have bad news: the tests have shown that you have cancer”. You go home and feel as though someone has hit you with a sledge hammer. You cry a lot and your thoughts go round in circles. A complete nightmare unfolds; you sometimes think you are dreaming but reality soon catches up with you.
A few days later, you have an appointment with the oncologist who explains the treatment plan. You feel there is no choice and you agree to it. After the first chemotherapy, you lose your hair, your well-being, your dignity, your control and your patience – time to investigate what else there is on offer. There must be an alternative!
By then lots of well-wishers will have mentioned to you that the conventional route is but one of many: there are, in fact, alternatives!!! You go on the internet and find not just a few, you find millions of website promoting hundreds of solutions – anything from diets to herbal remedies, from homeopathy to faith-healing. All are being promoted as cures for your cancer, and all are free of those nasty side-effects which make your life hell at the moment. You think “there is a choice after all”.
Who would not be tempted by these options advertised in the most glorious terms? Who would not begin to distrust the oncologists who kindly but firmly insist that ‘alternative cancer cures’ are bogus? Who would not want to get rid of the cancer and the side-effects in one genial master-stroke?
Cancer patients yearn for hope and are extremely vulnerable to such influences. I do not know a single one who, faced with the diagnosis and all it entails, has not looked at the ‘alternatives’. This is why it would be so very important that the websites informing patients and their carers convey accurate and responsible information. But do they?
One of our research projects at Exeter had been aimed at assessing the quality of the websites advising patients on alternative treatments for cancer. For this purpose, we evaluated a total of 32 sites which cancer patients were most likely to consult according to pre-defined criteria – in other words, we assessed the most frequented websites for cancer.
Our results were shocking: many of these sites were of poor quality and most of them recommended a plethora of unproven treatments for cancer, most frequently herbal remedies, diets and mind-body therapies. In our estimation, at least three of them were outright dangerous and had the potential to harm patients.
The level of misinformation in this area is sickening. Patients are being sold false hope by the truck-load. Yet they deserve better; they deserve impartial information on their illness and the best treatment for it – cancer patients especially so. What they get instead is a total disgrace: commercially driven lies about ‘treatments’ which are not just unproven but which would, if used as instructed, hasten their death. Some alternative therapies have potential for palliative and supporting care, BUT NONE OFFER A CURE OR A REDUCTION OF THE TUMOR BURDEN OR A CHANGE IN THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE DISEASE.
A lengthy article posted by THE HOMEOPATHIC COLLEGE recently advocated treating cancer with homeopathy. Since I doubt that many readers access this publication, I take the liberty of reproducing here their (also fairly lengthy) CONCLUSIONS in full:
Laboratory studies in vitro and in vivo show that homeopathic drugs, in addition to having the capacity to reduce the size of tumors and to induce apoptosis, can induce protective and restorative effects. Additionally homeopathic treatment has shown effects when used as a complementary therapy for the effects of conventional cancer treatment. This confirms observations from our own clinical experience as well as that of others that when suitable remedies are selected according to individual indications as well as according to pathology and to cell-line indications and administered in the appropriate doses according to the standard principles of homeopathic posology, homeopathic treatment of cancer can be a highly effective therapy for all kinds of cancers and leukemia as well as for the harmful side effects of conventional treatment. More research is needed to corroborate these clinical observations.
Homeopathy over almost two decades of its existence has developed more than four hundred remedies for cancer treatment. Only a small fraction have been subjected to scientific study so far. More homeopathic remedies need to be studied to establish if they have any significant action in cancer. Undoubtedly the next big step in homeopathic cancer research must be multiple comprehensive double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials. To assess the effect of homeopathic treatment in clinical settings, volunteer adult patients who prefer to try homeopathic treatment instead of conventional therapy could be recruited, especially in cases for which no conventional therapy has been shown to be effective.
Many of the researchers conducting studies — cited here but not discussed — on the growing interest in homeopathic cancer treatment have observed that patients are driving the demand for access to homeopathic and other alternative modes of cancer treatment. So long as existing cancer treatment is fraught with danger and low efficacy, it is urgent that the research on and the provision of quality homeopathic cancer treatment be made available for those who wish to try it.
When I report about nonsense like that, I find it hard not to go into a fuming rage. But doing that would not be very constructive – so let me instead highlight (in random order) eight simple techniques that seem to be so common when unsubstantiated claims are being promoted for alternative treatments:
1) cherry pick the data
2) use all sorts of ‘evidence’ regardless how flimsy or irrelevant it might be
3) give yourself the flair of being highly scientific and totally impartial
4) point out how dangerous and ineffective all the conventional treatments are
5) do not shy away from overt lies
6) do not forget to stress that the science is in full agreement with your exhaustive clinical experience
7) stress that patients want what you are offering
8) ignore the biological plausibility of the underlying concepts
Provided we adhere to these simple rules, we can convince the unsuspecting public of just about anything – even of the notion that homeopathy is a cure for cancer!
Guest post by Louise Lubetkin
Those who recognize and appreciate a fine example of pseudoscientific baloney when they see one know that there is no richer seam, no more inexhaustible source, than the bustling, huckster-infested street carnival that is alternative medicine. There one can find intellectual swindlers in abundance, all offering outrageously implausible claims with the utmost earnestness and sincerity. But the supreme prize, the Fabergé egg found buried among the bric-a-brac, surely belongs to that most convincing of illusionists, the physician reborn as an ardent advocate of alternative medicine.
Why would any physician, exhaustively trained in the basic sciences that underpin every aspect of medical practice, decide to toss aside the entire canon in favor of a return to blatant mumbo jumbo?
There can be only two possible explanations, and they’re mutually exclusive.
First is the unsavory possibility that the physician who embraces alternative medicine is a cynical charlatan who knows full well that what is being offered is worthless, but sees it as a path to a more lucrative form of practice that is largely paid for out of pocket, in cash, requiring no tedious insurance company paperwork and avoiding the unpleasant possibility of Medicare audits.
And then there is the opposite explanation: the physician has actually become a true believer, in which case the wholesale rejection of his or her scientific training is essential in order to resolve the uneasy tension between what the physician knows to be fundamentally true and what he or she ardently believes and wishes were true. The two are diametrically opposed: one is a system of thinking in which each component has been painstakingly validated, assessed and reassessed over time, and revised where necessary with the emergence of new knowledge. The other is a simply a belief system founded on faith and wishful thinking.
Alternative medicine, particularly in the realm of cancer, has a long history of attracting people who are seduced by simplistic explanations of this dauntingly implacable and hugely complex constellation of diseases and become gripped by a messianic conviction that this is the true path to a cure. Never mind that such explanations have usually been around for a very long time and have been repeatedly debunked in carefully conducted studies. There is usually an element of paranoia involved: they see themselves as martyrs and explain the medical profession’s indifference to this revolutionary truth as a conspiracy designed to maintain a profitable status quo by silencing dissidents, especially when they arise from within the medical profession itself.
Which of these explanations is the correct one in any particular situation is not always easy to discern. Take the case of Nicholas James Gonzalez, M.D., a New York physician turned alternative practitioner whose practice focuses largely on the treatment of advanced cancer by nutritional means.
THE ORIGINS OF GONZALEZ’S TREATMENT
Gonzalez presents himself as a true believer who became a convert to alternative medicine after coming across the work of William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., a Texas orthodontist who had his own Damascene conversion when his doctors told him that he was dying of pancreatic cancer and that there was nothing more that they could do for him. Undeterred, Kelley claimed that he had cured himself by means of a rigorous diet combined with frequent self-administered coffee enemas. After thus miraculously dragging himself (and his enema bucket) back from the banks of the River Styx, Kelley decided to abandon straightening children’s teeth in favor of treating people with advanced cancer – perhaps not the most logical career move, to be sure, but Texas is Texas.
Probably the most famous of Kelley’s patients was the actor Steve McQueen, who, in the advanced stages of mesothelioma, turned to the erstwhile orthodontist in search of a cure. Not surprisingly, McQueen died despite Kelley’s ministrations, an unfortunate turn of events which Kelley rationalized away by claiming that he had in fact successfully cured McQueen, but that the medical establishment had subsequently had McQueen murdered in order to prevent him “blowing the lid off the cancer racket.”
But back to Gonzalez.
Like Kelley before him, Gonzalez bases his treatment on the work of James Beard, a long-dead Scottish embryologist who, more than 100 years ago, put forward the notion that all cancer was caused by wayward cells called trophoblasts. Trophoblasts are the cells which organize around the developing embryo very early in pregnancy, and which ultimately give rise to the placenta. Beard, of course, lived and died long before the advent of electron microscopy, the unraveling of the structure of DNA and a myriad other crucial discoveries that have helped to elucidate the hugely complex phenomenon that is collectively referred to as cancer. While his observations concerning the similarities between the invasiveness of cancer and the ability of the primitive placenta to tunnel its way into the uterine wall were undoubtedly astute, they are inadequate to explain what is now known about the etiology and progression of cancer.
Having observed that the placenta’s invasion of the uterine wall ceased at the very moment that the fetal pancreas became active, he took a leap of faith and postulated that it was the fetal pancreatic enzymes that were responsible for arresting the growth and invasion of the trophoblast layer. Beard went further, suggesting that quite apart from their role in digestion, pancreatic enzymes actually represent the body’s main defense against cancer, and therefore it should be possible to control cancer by administering large quantities of pancreatic enzymes.
This hundred-year-old hypothesis forms the cornerstone of the cancer treatment program devised by Gonzalez. (It should also be mentioned that Gonzalez doesn’t limit himself to the treatment of cancer, but uses the same methodology for treating a range of chronic degenerative diseases, including multiple sclerosis, presumably on the assumption that wayward trophoblasts are responsible for these, also, although it is difficult to imagine exactly how.)
Beard rightly surmised that pancreatic enzymes could not be successfully administered by mouth because the acid environment of the stomach would inactivate them immediately. Furthermore, being proteins themselves, any orally administered pancreatic enzymes would be quickly broken down by the gastric enzyme pepsin. Beard therefore advocated administering the enzymes by hypodermic injection.
In this, and in other ways, Beard seems to have been considerably more circumspect about his theory and its therapeutic implications than his modern day acolytes. It is interesting to note that he conspicuously refrained from making any claim that his method was a cure for cancer. A contemporary account of the public debate over Beard’s theory of cancer origins and treatment, which appeared in 1907 in the New York Times, is available here.
Much has happened since Beard’s day, it’s true, but gastric physiology and the essentials of protein digestion have not changed an iota. Pepsin is still pepsin, and the stomach is still awash in acid. Nevertheless, Gonzalez insists that the oral route is perfectly adequate. This odd departure from otherwise strict historical orthodoxy may have more to do with regulatory issues than pharmacokinetics: the type of enzymes he uses are viewed as dietary supplements by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rather than as prescription drugs, and are therefore unregulated.
In addition to pancreatic enzymes taken by mouth, Gonzalez prescribes a restrictive diet (which, even for those whom be pronounces to be obligate vegetarians, includes raw liver), and a staggering number of nutritional supplements which patients must take at regular intervals throughout the day and night.
The dietary guidelines he issues to his patients contain an amazing array of obviously unsound statements which bespeak not only a total abandonment of logical thinking on the part of their author, but also a casual disregard for objective fact, as though the solid benchmarks of physiology and biochemistry, such as pH, were just another narrative.
And then of course there’s the obligatory detoxification, without which no alternative treatment regimen could possibly be considered complete. But beyond its role as a doctrinal tenet, the notion that the body is inadequate to the task of handling its own waste holds a special utility for the practitioner of alternative cancer treatment. By insisting on regular and vigorous detoxification, the practitioner can reinforce the idea that the treatment regime – in this case, the pancreatic enzyme barrage – is working so well that the patient’s liver and bloodstream are in danger of being overrun by waste products from tumor breakdown. This must be a great boost to a patient in the advanced stages of cancer who is grimly contemplating his umpteenth coffee enema of the week and struggling to swallow another round of 30 supplement pills. However, most self-respecting physicians and patients would surely like to have that comforting assertion about massive tumor destruction confirmed with some kind of objective test such as imaging. And if the liver is really so hobbled by its task that it has to be supported by regular retrograde sluicing with tepid coffee, perhaps a few blood tests of liver function might be in order? It appears that such considerations are purely for pedants and infidels: real believers have no need for such niceties.
And then there are the supplements, in staggering quantities and bewildering combinations:
Five times during your waking hours take:
- 16 pancreas glandular tissue
- 1 magnesium citrate 60mg
With two doses of pancreas glandular take
- 2 chicken collagen type II
During breakfast and dinner (twice daily) take:
- 1 amino acids
- 1 Calsym (vitamin D3 and calcium carbonate)
- 1 thyroid (sic)
- 1 vitamin E 100 IU
During each meal (3 times daily) take:
- 1 adrenal glandular
- 2 vitamin C
- 1 Atlantic kelp
- 2 Formula #1 (sic)
- 1 liver
- 1 lung
- 2 magnesium citrate 60mg
- 1 digest aid
- 1 multivitamin
- 1 multimineral
- 3 pancreas glandular tissue
- 3 thymus glandular tissue
- 1 vitamin 400 IU
During lunch only take:
- 1 beta carotene 25,000
- 1 copper gluconate
- 1 potassium citrate
- 1 vitamin A 10,000 (which incidentally is twice the recommended daily allowance)
At bedtime take:
- 2 iron
- 2 magnesium citrate 60mg
- 4 RNA/DNA (sic)
At 3:30am take:
- 16 pancreas glandular tissue
The patient following such a program would take 187 supplement pills daily. Regardless of the dosage of active ingredients involved, the sheer volume and weight of excipients that are ingested during any one 24 hour period is surely something to take into account, especially in a patient debilitated by the ravages of advanced cancer. In a regimen that puts such emphasis on detoxification this is a curious departure indeed.
In 1999, Gonzalez published a paper in the journal Nutrition and Cancer (abstract here) claiming that he had achieved significantly increased survival in 11 patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer by treating them with what he described as “an aggressive nutritional therapy with large doses of pancreatic enzymes.”
Now bear in mind that pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and deadly of all malignancies. The majority of people with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which is by far the commonest form of pancreatic cancer, die within a few months of their diagnosis; only one in five patients survive the first year, and just four percent of patients live five years beyond diagnosis.
So when Gonzalez published his paper asserting that 9 of the 11 patients (81%) whom he had treated with this regimen survived one year, while 5 (45%) survived two years, and the remaining 4 patients were still alive and holding their own at the 3 year mark, people sat up and took notice.
Despite the fact that this was a very small study, and rife with biases (not least, an obvious selection bias: a further 12 patients who were unable to comply fully with the treatment were excluded from the analysis), it was sufficiently positive a report in an otherwise unrelievedly gloomy prognostic landscape that it prompted further investigation. Ultimately a full-fledged phase III clinical trial comparing Gonzalez’ nutritional protocol to the standard chemotherapy regimen in pancreatic cancer patients was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and was carried out at Columbia University.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the trial turned out to be hugely contentious and very unorthodox. As a means of eliminating experimental bias, clinical trials are typically “blinded” and randomized – i.e., they are carefully designed so that patients are randomly assigned to one group or the other, and neither the patients nor the physicians know which treatment they are receiving. But in this case there was no way that the trial could be randomized or blinded. Patients could choose whether to undergo chemotherapy or to be assigned to the Gonzalez protocol group, so both they and the investigating physicians knew what treatment they were getting from the beginning.
When it became apparent, as it quickly did, that the results were not going to reflect well on his treatment protocol. Gonzalez began clamoring loudly for an investigation, claiming that the clinical trial had been deliberately rigged to discredit him. (Those interested in the background to the clinical trial, including a very thorough discussion of its ethical and scientific implications, can read about it in several installments, titled “The Ethics of CAM Trials” (parts I-V), here.)
The results of the clinical trial were reported in a paper published in October, 2009, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (article here). To summarize the results, the 32 patients who underwent traditional chemotherapy lived more than three times as long (14 months vs 4.3 months), and had a measurably better quality of life, including less pain than those treated by the Gonzalez protocol – and since pancreatic cancer is notoriously painful, this is a hugely important consideration in any treatment, regardless of whether or not it extends survival.
But perhaps the most extraordinary and disturbing aspect of the paper was this paragraph, in the Methods section, describing the Gonzalez protocol:
“The enzyme treatment included orally ingested proteolytic enzymes, nutritional supplements, detoxification, and an organic diet (unaltered from the pilot study). Patients received three pancreatic enzyme and two magnesium citrate capsules with each meal. The patients also took specified numbers of capsules with magnesium citrate and Papaya Plus every 4 hours on an empty stomach. The dose for patients with stage II disease was 69 enzyme capsules, and the dose for patients with stages III or IV was 81 capsules per day. After day 16, patients had a 5-day rest period and then resumed treatment on day 22. Treatment could be adjusted by the physician and could be increased for cancer progression. A diet that required at least 70% of the food to be raw or minimally cooked was required. All food was organic. Prescribed detoxification procedures included coffee enemas twice each day; skin brushing and cleansing; salt and soda baths; and a liver flush, clean sweep, and purging.”
Excuse me? A liver flush? What is that, exactly? And could someone please explain what is meant by “a clean sweep”? And purging? If it’s not an indelicate question, might we be told exactly what that consists of?
How this extraordinary paragraph found its way into print, unchallenged, in the venerable Journal of Clinical Oncology is unfathomable. Why didn’t the editors, or the authors, for that matter, feel that it might be useful – in fact, essential – to (a) append an explanation of exactly what was meant by these terms, and (b) to include some kind of rationale for their use?
And then, of course, there’s the larger question of how the institutional review board at Columbia managed to sidestep the ethical issues inherent in approving a trial that was set up to compare the apples of standard treatment with the oranges of liver flushes and clean sweeps. If there was genuine clinical equipoise here we’re in deep, deep trouble.
You might think that this study, with its damning result, would be the end of it. But you’d be wrong. Gonzalez has written a book, a paranoid, self-exculpatory monologue, a martyr’s manifesto detailing what he perceives as his deliberate persecution at vast public expense by a pernicious cancer industry mafia whose goal is to silence him forever. (Presumably the hit man who got Steve McQueen was no longer available?)
So what are we to make of Gonzalez? Is he a cynical fraud or does he genuinely believe that coffee enemas, skin brushing and massive doses of supplements are capable of holding back the tsunami of cancer?
At the end of the day it hardly matters: either way, he’s a dangerous man.
Rudolf Steiner was a weird guy by any stretch of imagination. He was the founding father of anthroposophy, an esoteric “philosophy” that created a new dimension of obtrusiveness. Not only that, he also dabbled in farming methods, devised an educational technique and created an entire school of health care, called anthroposophical medicine. The leading product in its range of homeopathy-inspired “drugs” is a mistletoe-extract which is, according to Steiner, a cure for cancer. His idea was simple: the mistletoe plant is a parasite that lives off host trees sapping its resources until, eventually, it might even kill its host - just like cancer threatening the life of a human being!!!
So, what is more logical than to postulate that extracts from mistletoe are a cure for cancer? Medicine seems simple – particularly, if you do not understand the first thing about it!
But here comes the odd thing: some ingredients from mistletoe do actually have anti-cancer properties. So, was the old Steiner an intuitive genius who somehow sensed that mistletoe would be a life-saver for cancer patients? Or is all this just pure luck? Or was it perhaps predictable?
Many plants produce molecules that are so toxic that they can kill (cancer) cells, and many conventional cancer drugs were originally derived from plants; the fact that mistletoe has some anti-cancer activity therefore comes as a surprise only to those who have little or no knowledge of phyto-pharmacology.
Ok, mistletoe might have some ingredients which possess pharmacological activity. But to claim that it is a cancer cure is still a huge leap of faith. This fact did not stop promoters of anthroposophical medicine to do just that.
Due to decades of clever promotion, it is now hard in many countries (including for instance Germany) to find cancer patients who have not tried mistletoe; indeed, selling mistletoe preparations to desperate cancer patients has become a mega-business.
But does it actually work? Do these extracts achieve what proponents advertise?
The claims for mistletoe are essentially twofold:
1) Mistletoe cures cancer.
2) Mistletoe improves the quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients.
The crucial question clearly is: are these claims based on good evidence?
According to our own systematic review, the answer is NO. In 2003, we looked at all the clinical trials and demonstrated that some of the weaker studies implied benefits of mistletoe extracts, particularly in terms of quality of life. None of the methodologically stronger trials exhibited efficacy in terms of quality of life, survival or other outcome measures. The current Cochrane review (of which I am not a co-author) concluded similarly : The evidence from RCTs to support the view that the application of mistletoe extracts has impact on survival or leads to an improved ability to fight cancer or to withstand anticancer treatments is weak.
But both reviews have one major weakness: they included all of the many available extracts of mistletoe - and one cannot deny that there are considerable differences between them. The market leader in this area is Weleda (avid readers of science blogs might remember that this firm has been mentioned before); they produce ISCADOR, the mistletoe extract that has been tested more than any other such preparation.
Perhaps it would be informative to focus specifically on this product then? A German team from the “Center for Integrative Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Witten/Herdecke” has done just that; despite the fact that these authors are not really known for their critical analyses of anthroposophical medicine, their conclusion is also cautious: The analyzed studies give some evidence that Iscador treatment might have beneficial short-time effects on QoL-associated dimensions and psychosomatic self-regulation.
So, what is the bottom line? Sceptics would say that almost a century of research without a solid proof of efficacy is well and truly enough; one should now call it a day. Proponents of mistletoe treatment, however, insist: we need more and better studies. Well, there is more! A new RCT of Iscador has just been published.
It included chemotherapy-naive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients to assess Iscador’s influence on chemotherapy-related adverse-effects and QoL. Patients with advanced NSCLC were randomised to receive chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus Iscador thrice weekly until tumour progression. Chemotherapy consisted of 21-day cycles of carboplatin combined with gemcitabine or pemetrexed. Seventy-two patients were enrolled of whom 65% were in stage IV, and 62% had squamous histology. Median overall survival in both groups was 11 months. Median time to tumour progression was not significantly different between the two groups. Differences in grade 3-4 haematological toxicity were not significant, but more control patients had chemotherapy dose reductions, grade 3-4 non-haematological toxicities, and hospitalisations.
The authors’ conclusion: No effect of Iscador could be found on quality of life or total adverse events. Nevertheless, chemotherapy dose reductions, severe non-haematological side-effects and hospitalisations were less frequent in patients treated with Iscador, warranting further investigation of Iscador as a modifier of chemotherapy-related toxicity.
So, does Steiner’s notion based on the weirdest of intuitions contain some kernel of truth? I am not sure. But for once I do agree with the proponents of mistletoe: we need more and better research to find out.
Acupuncture is not just one single form of therapy, there are dozens of variations of this theme. For instance, acupuncture-points can, according to proponents of this form of treatment, be stimulated in a number of ways: needles, heat (moxibustion), electrical current, laser-light, ultrasound or pressure. In the latter case, the therapy is called acupressure. This therapy is popular and often recommended as a form of self-treatment, for instance, to alleviate nausea and vomiting of all causes.
Chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting can normally be successfully treated with standard anti-emetic drugs. Some patients, however, may not respond satisfactorily and others prefer a drug-free option such as acupressure for which there has been encouraging evidence. A brand-new study sheds new light on this issue.
Its objective was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-administered acupressure using wristbands compared with sham acupressure wristbands and standard care alone in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea. Secondary objectives included assessment of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the wristbands in relation to vomiting and quality of life and exploration of any age, gender and emetogenic risk effects. The trial was conducted in outpatient chemotherapy clinics in three regions in the UK involving 14 different cancer units/centres. Chemotherapy-naïve cancer patients were included receiving chemotherapy of low, moderate and high emetogenic risk. The intervention were acupressure wristbands pressing the P6 point (anterior surface of the forearm), sham-wrist bands providing no pressure on acupuncture-points or no wrist-bands at all; all three groups had standard care in addition. The main outcome measures were the Rhodes Index for Nausea/Vomiting, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General (FACT-G). At baseline participants also completed measures of anxiety/depression, nausea/vomiting expectation and expectations from using the wristbands.
In total, 500 patients were randomised (166 standard care, 166 sham acupressure + standard care, and 168 acupressure + standard care). Data were available for 361 participants for the primary outcome. The primary outcome analysis (nausea in cycle 1) revealed no differences between the three arms. Women responded more favourably to the use of sham acupressure wristbands than men. No significant differences were detected in relation to vomiting outcomes, anxiety and quality of life. Some transient adverse effects were reported, including tightness in the area of the wristbands, feeling uncomfortable when wearing them and minor swelling in the wristband area.There were no statistically significant cost differences associated with the use of real acupressure bands.
In total, 26 patients took part in qualitative interviews. The qualitative data suggested that participants perceived the wristbands (both real and sham) as effective and helpful in managing their nausea during chemotherapy.
The authors concluded that there were no statistically significant differences between the three arms in terms of nausea, vomiting and quality of life.
Intriguingly, this study was published in two different journals; and the second article reporting the identical data concluded that no clear recommendations can be made about the use of acupressure wristbands in the management of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.
A further equally new study tested acupressure for post-operative nausea/vomiting. One hundred and thirty-four healthy, non-smoking women scheduled for breast surgery were randomised either to P6 stimulation or to sham control. Wristbands were applied and covered with a dressing before induction of anaesthesia. Follow-up was carried out three times within 24 h postoperative. Primary outcomes were postoperative nausea and/or vomiting.
One hundred and twelve patients completed the study. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of nausea or vomiting. Approximately, one third of the patients reported adverse-effects caused by the wristband, for example, redness, swelling and tenderness.
The authors of this trial concluded as follows: We did not find the Vital-Band effective in preventing either nausea or vomiting after operation in women undergoing breast surgery.
There has been quite a bit of previous research on acupressure. The most recent summary included 2 meta-analyses, 6 systematic reviews and 39 RCTs of acupressure for various conditions. Its authors stated that the strongest evidence was for pain (particularly dysmenorrhoea, lower back and labour), post-operative nausea and vomiting.
So, is acupressure effective in reducing nausea and vomiting or not? The evidence is contradictory to a degree that is baffling. If we look closer at the existing trials, we are likely to find that the more rigorous studies and those published by researchers who do not have an axe to grind tend to produce negative findings. I am therefore not convinced that acupressure has any effects beyond placebo.
Postoperative ileus (POI), the phenomenon that after an operation the intestines tend to be inactive for a few days, can cause intense pain and thus contributes significantly to human suffering. It also prolongs hospital stay and increases the risks of post-operative complications. There is no known effective treatment for POI.
In China, POI is often treated with acupuncture, and due to this fact acupuncture became known in the West: James Reston, a journalist who accompanied Nixon on his first trip to China, had to have an appendectomy in a Beijing hospital, he subsequently suffered from POI, was treated with acupuncture and moxibustion, experienced symptom-relief, and subsequently wrote about it in the New York Times. This was the beginning of the present acupuncture-boom.
Since then, thousands of acupuncture trials have been published but, intriguingly, very few have tested the effectiveness of acupuncture for POI. Now researchers from the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York have conducted a randomized, sham-controlled trial to test whether acupuncture reduces POI more effectively than sham acupuncture.
Ninety colon cancer patients undergoing elective colectomy were randomized to receive 30 min of true or sham acupuncture twice daily during their first three postoperative days. GI-3 (the later of the following two events: time that the patient first tolerated solid food, AND time that the patient first passed flatus OR a bowel movement) and GI-2 (the later of the following two events: time patient first tolerated solid food AND time patient first passed a bowel movement) were determined. Pain, nausea, vomiting, and use of pain medications were evaluated daily for the first three postoperative days. Eighty-one patients received the allocated intervention: 39 the true acupuncture and 42 the sham acupuncture. The mean time to GI-3 was 149 hours and 146 hours for the acupuncture group and the sham acupuncture group. No significant differences were found between groups for secondary endpoints.
The authors’ conclusion was clear: True acupuncture as provided in this study did not reduce POI more significantly than sham acupuncture.
So, did a mere misunderstanding start the present acupuncture boom? POI inevitably normalises with time. Did the journalist just imagine that acupuncture helped, while nature cured the condition? It would seem so, according to this study. But perhaps things are not just black or white. Almost at the same time as the New York trial, another study was emerged.
Researchers from Hong Kong conducted an RCT with 165 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery for colonic and upper rectal cancer. Patients were assigned randomly to receive electroacupuncture (n = 55) or sham acupuncture (n = 55), once daily from postoperative days 1-4, or no acupuncture (n = 55). The primary outcome was time to defecation. Secondary outcomes included postoperative analgesic requirement, time to ambulation, and length of hospital stay. The results showed that patients who received electroacupuncture had a shorter time to defecation than patients who received no acupuncture (85.9 ± 36.1 vs 122.1 ± 53.5 h) and length of hospital stay (6.5 ± 2.2 vs 8.5 ± 4.8 days). Patients who received electroacupuncture also had a shorter time to defecation than patients who received sham acupuncture (85.9 ± 36.1 vs 107.5 ± 46.2 h). Electroacupuncture was more effective than no or sham acupuncture in reducing postoperative analgesic requirement and time to ambulation.
The Chinese researchers’ conclusion is equally clear: electroacupuncture reduced the duration of postoperative ileus, time to ambulation, and postoperative analgesic requirement, compared with no or sham acupuncture, after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.
The only other trial I know in this area failed to show that acupuncture shortens POI. What should we make of these data? A systematic review would be nice, of course, but, to the best of my knowledge, none is currently available.
Is this a question of everyone being able to pick and chose the evidence they like? Is it a question of who we trust, the researchers in New York or those in China? Is it a question of where the treatment was done authentically? Is it a question of critically analysing which study had the higher risks of bias? Or is it a question of simply saying that two negative studies are more than one positive trial?
Confused? Me too, a little!
Whatever answers we chose, several things seems fairly certain to me. It would be wrong to say that there is good evidence for acupuncture as a treatment of POI. And the acupuncture-boom that ensued after Reston’s article was to a very large degree built on a simple misunderstanding: POI is a condition that resolves literally into thin air whether we treat it or not.
Lymph oedema in the arms or legs is a frequent complication after lymph-node dissections for cancer. Treatment or prevention can be difficult, and the results are often unsatisfactory. Consequently, the burden of suffering of cancer patients affected by this problem is immense.
Amongst several options, a little-known massage technique, called lymph-drainage (or lymphatic drainage, LD), is sometimes recommended. It consists of gentle manual movements which lightly push the lymph fluid through the lymphatic vessels that eventually enter into the blood circulation. During a session of lymph-drainage, a specially trained massage therapist lightly moves his or her hands along the lymph vessels to facilitate the lymph flow. The treatment is agreeable and relaxing, but does it really reduce the oedema?
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of LD in the prevention and treatment of breast-cancer related lymph-oedema. The primary outcome for prevention was the incidence of postoperative lymph-oedema. The outcome for management of was a reduction in oedema volume.
In total, 10 RCTs with altogether 566 patients were identified. Two studies evaluating the preventive outcome of LD found no significant difference in the incidence of lymph-oedema between the LD and standard treatments. Seven studies assessed the reduction in arm volume, and found no significant difference between the LD and standard treatments.
The authors conclusion was negative about the value of LD: The current evidence from RCTs does not support the use of LD in preventing or treating lymph-oedema. However, clinical and statistical inconsistencies between the various studies confounded our evaluation of the effect of LD on breast-cancer-related lymph-oedema.
Perhaps a brand-new clinical trial which had not been included in the above assessment would have persuaded the authors to be a little more optimistic. This study evaluated the effectiveness of LD in the prevention of lymph-oedema after treatment of breast cancer. The study-population consisted of 67 women, who had undergone surgery for breast cancer. From the second day of surgery, 33 randomly chosen women were given LD. The control group consisted of 34 women who did not receive LD. Measurements of the volumes of both arms were taken before surgery and on days 2, 7, 14, and at 3 and 6 months after surgery.
Among the women who did not have LD, a significant increase in the arm volume on the operated side was observed after 6 month. There was no statistically significant increase in the volume of the upper limb on the operated side in women who underwent LD.
The authors conclude that regardless of the surgery type and the number of the lymph nodes removed, LD effectively prevented lymph-oedema of the arm on the operated side. Even in high risk breast cancer treatments (operation plus irradiation), LD was demonstrated to be effective against arm volume increase. Even though confirmatory studies are needed, this study demonstrates that LD administered early after operation for breast cancer should be considered for the prevention of lymph-oedema.
So, does LD reduce oedema or not? This does not seem to be such a difficult question that it should take decades to resolve! And who would doubt that it is an important one? Lymph-oedema has the potential to seriously impede the quality of life of many patients, and it can even contribute to unnecessary mortality. The fact that the few available studies are too small and too weak to generate reliable results is disappointing and shines a dim light on the supposedly patient-centred research in oncology, in my view.
The concept of LD is plausible, at least some of the findings from clinical trials are encouraging, and the problem of lymph-oedema is both prevalent and relevant. So what is stopping us from funding a large, well-designed and definitive study?