Acupuncture Study: Beneficial for breast cancer side effects

[Justforfun000]

This is quite interesting. It's a randomized study, and not double-blind, but it certainly seems to indicate efficacy.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/122612.php

Side Effects Of Breast Cancer Treatment Reduced By Acupuncture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Relief
Fast Relief From Hot Flashes, Mood Swings & More. Get Free Welcome Kit
NaturalRelief.com


Acupuncture is as effective and longer-lasting in managing the common debilitating side effects of hot flashes, night sweats, and excessive sweating (vasomotor symptoms) associated with breast cancer treatment and has no treatment side effects compared to conventional drug therapy, according to a first-of-its-kind study presented September 24, 2008, at the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology's 50th Annual Meeting in Boston.

Findings also show there were additional benefits to acupuncture treatment for breast cancer patients, such as an increased sense of well being, more energy, and in some cases, a higher sex drive, that were not experienced in those patients who underwent drug treatment for their hot flashes.

"Our study shows that physicians and patients have an additional therapy for something that affects the majority of breast cancer survivors and actually has benefits, as opposed to more side effects. The effect is more durable than a drug commonly used to treat these vasomotor symptoms and, ultimately, is more cost-effective for insurance companies," Eleanor Walker, M.D., lead author of the study and a radiation oncologist at the Henry Ford Hospital Department of Radiation Oncology in Detroit, said.

The reduction in hot flashes lasted longer for those breast cancer patients after completing their acupuncture treatment, compared to patients after stopping their drug therapy plan.

Eighty percent of women treated for breast cancer suffer from hot flashes after being treated with chemotherapy and/or anti-estrogen hormones, such as Tamoxifen and Arimidex. Although hormone replacement therapy is typically used to relieve these symptoms, breast cancer patients cannot use this therapy because it may increase the risk of the cancer coming back. As a treatment alternative, patients are generally treated with steroids and/or antidepressant drugs. These drugs, however, have additional side effects, such as weight gain, nausea, constipation and fatigue. The antidepressant, venlafaxine (Effexor), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, is one of the most common drugs used to treat these hot flashes. However, many women decide against this treatment choice because of potential side effects, including decreased libido, insomnia, dizziness and nausea, or because they simply do not want to take any more medications.

The randomized clinical trial compared acupuncture treatment to venlafixine for 12 weeks to find out if acupuncture reduced vasomotor symptoms in breast cancer patients receiving hormonal therapy and produced fewer side effects than venlafaxine. The study involved 47 breast cancer patients who received either Tamoxifen or Arimidex and had at least 14 hot flashes per week. Results show that acupuncture reduces hot flashes as effectively as venlafaxine, with no side effects, and also provides additional health benefits to patients.

----------------------------
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
----------------------------

For more information on radiation therapy for breast cancer, visit http://www.rtanswers.org/.

The abstract, "Acupuncture for the Treatment of Vasomotor Symptoms in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Hormone Suppression Treatment," will be presented in a scientific session at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 24, 2008.

Source: Nicole Napoli
American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology

[Covenant]

I'd like to see this researched more. Of all the strange pseudo-magical effects of Kung Fu and such, the accupressure/accupuncture effects have always been the most verifiable and repeatable of the bunch.

[haard]

We've discussed acupuncture before. Studies suggest it's all in your head.

[Justforfun000]

Haard Wrote:

We've discussed acupuncture before. Studies suggest it's all in your head.

Yes, and that's what I assumed as well. Still this new study seems to suggest otherwise. Maybe certain conditions respond well to it while others are placebo? I guess we'll find out eventually.

[General Zod]

Yes, and that's what I assumed as well. Still this new study seems to suggest otherwise. Maybe certain conditions respond well to it while others are placebo? I guess we'll find out eventually.

The thing is. . .placebos can work. But they work because people expect them to, rather than any inherent properties of the placebo itself.

[Justforfun000]

General Zod Wrote:

The thing is. . .placebos can work. But they work because people expect them to, rather than any inherent properties of the placebo itself.

Yeah, I know. If there is one subject I'm pretty laymen versed in, it's medical science. It is a very powerful effect and it makes evaluation of true efficacy and belief response annoyingly difficult which is one of the reasons it costs millions of dollars to put drugs through so many expensive trials.

Without delving too deeply into the entire source of the article, I'm (cautiously) taking it at face value that this is a considerably more promising result because the people behind the study seem to be respectable and qualified and not the usual bunch of space cadets that come out with this kind of claim.

[General Zod]

Without delving too deeply into the entire source of the article, I'm (cautiously) taking it at face value that this is a considerably more promising result because the people behind the study seem to be respectable and qualified and not the usual bunch of space cadets that come out with this kind of claim.

So many of these things wind up falling apart when put under a double-blind proverbial microscope, that it's probably best to just treat it skeptically.

[Justforfun000]

So many of these things wind up falling apart when put under a double-blind proverbial microscope, that it's probably best to just treat it skeptically.

True, but don't forget that this is a little different then determining efficacy against placebo because in this study it was actually comparing acupuncture against conventional drug treatment.

The results of this seemingly support acupuncture as a superior treatment.

(Bolded for emphasis)

"Acupuncture is as effective and longer-lasting in managing the common debilitating side effects of hot flashes, night sweats, and excessive sweating (vasomotor symptoms) associated with breast cancer treatment and has no treatment side effects compared to conventional drug therapy, according to a first-of-its-kind study presented September 24, 2008, at the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology's 50th Annual Meeting in Boston.

Findings also show there were additional benefits to acupuncture treatment for breast cancer patients, such as an increased sense of well being, more energy, and in some cases, a higher sex drive, that were not experienced in those patients who underwent drug treatment for their hot flashes. "

[Kar Kar]

From what I've seen acupuncture tends to have the same effect as placebos in these studies. In essence it's still a coin toss whether it's actually any use or not.

It's interesting that this study seems to suggest differently, though it'll take a lot more to convince me acupuncture has any actual medical benefits.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

From what I've seen acupuncture tends to have the same effect as placebos in these studies. In essence it's still a coin toss whether it's actually any use or not.

It's interesting that this study seems to suggest differently, though it'll take a lot more to convince me acupuncture has any actual medical benefits.

More damning, (and I'm sure this has been mentioned before,) but fake acupuncture works just as well as "real" acupuncture, strongly implying that the placebo effect is at work in either case.

[Kar Kar]

More damning, (and I'm sure this has been mentioned before,) but fake acupuncture works just as well as "real" acupuncture, strongly implying that the placebo effect is at work in either case.

Apologists tend to claim that it doesn't matter where they stick you with the needles, be it in your arse or the tips of your toes. It all has to do with endorphins, all natural pain killers, brain chemistry, hand waving, and so on.

[Mr Bean]

Here's the following issues

1. It's a random sample

2. The test is not double blinded

3. It's not controlled for(No Fake acupuncture)

4. This is side-effects and symptoms not the disease itself. Side effects can be anything, side affects can be both mental and acutally physical, side effects respond better to placebo's than conventional drugs since they are just that side effects.

5. The length of time was to short... 12 weeks? We know the drugs work, we know they will keep working, can the same be said of the

6.Sample size, 47 people is not enough, unless your kicking a minim of about a thousand you can't take out random chance of getting people who are highly susceptible to placebo treatments.

And that two are the mains issues.

OK they followed less than 100 people around for about four months and from this we can declare acuptunure to be a viable treatment for hot flash for cancer sufferers?

Justforfun did you not note the fact this is a side effect of cancer treatment drugs not for cancer itself making it even more dodgy?

This study on it's own would be interesting but when you toss it in the stack of the dozens of acupuncture just as good a fake acupuncture or has no effect studies it's not worth much of anything besides a day's worth of headlines.

[Justforfun000]

Justforfun did you not note the fact this is a side effect of cancer treatment drugs not for cancer itself making it even more dodgy?

I did, but I still think it's a bit more intriguing becasue it was based head to head against drug therapy. However it is a rather small sample. Ah well. Time will tell. I've never tried it myself and I always thought it sounded like hooey, but I'm surprised at the people involved in this study if it's usually been debunked. I wonder what got them involved.

[Dooey Jo]

How exactly would you go about doing a double blind test on acupuncture?

[General Zod]

How exactly would you go about doing a double blind test on acupuncture?

The easiest method that I can tell is to not tell the patients whether the acupuncture they're getting uses the traditional points that "professional" acupuncturists use or that you're just jabbing them anywhere, and then monitor their responses for both methods. Ideally the patients shouldn't know which is genuine and which is a sham.

[salm]

How exactly would you go about doing a double blind test on acupuncture?

The easiest method that I can tell is to not tell the patients whether the acupuncture they're getting uses the traditional points that "professional" acupuncturists use or that you're just jabbing them anywhere, and then monitor their responses for both methods. Ideally the patients shouldn't know which is genuine and which is a sham.

That´s been done in a really large test. It was found that stabbing people anywhere is just as good as stabbing them in traditional places. However, IIRC, it also found that accupuncture, no matter if traditional or not, was better than a placebo.

[General Zod]

That´s been done in a really large test. It was found that stabbing people anywhere is just as good as stabbing them in traditional places. However, IIRC, it also found that accupuncture, no matter if traditional or not, was better than a placebo.

Right, I just didn't have a link to the test on hand. But the reasons for it being "better" than a placebo are still up in the air. afaik.

[salm]

That´s been done in a really large test. It was found that stabbing people anywhere is just as good as stabbing them in traditional places. However, IIRC, it also found that accupuncture, no matter if traditional or not, was better than a placebo.

Right, I just didn't have a link to the test on hand. But the reasons for it being "better" than a placebo are still up in the air. afaik.

Yeah, more tests need to be done. They think that it might have something to do with stimulating the skin. However, it is also suspected that the control groups that didn´t have access to acupuncture but were treated with the standard therapy were under the influence of a nocebo effect.

[Covenant]

Also, I've just gotta throw in and say, no matter what other people say, I did feel the effects of a predicted accupuncture procedure without knowing what it was. I had the accupressure technique done on me, and I didn't know what it was supposed to do, and it didn't do anything at the time so I nor the instructor thought anything of it. A day later I got a massive headache that lasted until my next session, at which time I explained the problem, he reversed the same motion, and my headache went away. I looked it up and that was what the predicted result from that technique would be. It may be just a random chance occurance, but it wasn't a placebo effect, since I didn't even think it worked. Still, it was pretty remarkable.

[Justforfun000]

A very close friend of mine who is in his mid 50's, pulled his back out in the gym. He was lifting a heavy weight and turned sideways. He was absolutely hobbled for 2 days with no relief in sight, and his workout partner talked him into getting acupuncture. He went in and was told by the 2nd or 3rd treatment he'd notice relief, (coming in daily). He said the first day..nothing...the second after the treatment? A couple of hours later he said the pain relief was tremendous. He said it came on very suddenly and he could move with ease.

Now I grilled him on this and he is a fairly skeptical person in the first place, used to be a school teacher and science was one of his subjects. He really didn't expect anything and he's had many such injuries in his life. He said there is absolutely no question this had to have had an impact. It would never have just responded so on it's own based on his own experience and his body. He wasn't even taking any pain killers or anti-inflammatories either because he hates them.

So I always file these stories away in my head with a "hmmmmm...truth is stranger then fiction" thought. I know it's anectdotal, but it does seem definitive to him. At his age you would expect someone to be pretty aware of their body and how quickly it heals with injury of these sorts.

Ultimately it all comes down to "if it works for you", then by all means do it. It's why I'm all for studies galore being done on alternative methods and medicine, but also totally in favour of allowing the consumer to choose said therapies in the meantime providing there is no PROVEN harm that should warrant it being illegal of course.

[General Zod]

Ultimately it all comes down to "if it works for you", then by all means do it. It's why I'm all for studies galore being done on alternative methods and medicine, but also totally in favour of allowing the consumer to choose said therapies in the meantime providing there is no PROVEN harm that should warrant it being illegal of course.

Why does it need to be proven harmful? They shouldn't be attempting to pass it off as a valid medical treatment that works in place of conventional medicine if there's no evidence supporting it, period. Sugar pills aren't harmful, but only an idiot wanting to get sent to prison for fraud would even consider passing them off as a way to treat anything. (As an example).

[Justforfun000]

Why does it need to be proven harmful?

Because people have been using it as a traditional form of medicine for centuries and there is no valid reason to deny them this as a choice if there is no definitive evidence for OR against. They are working towards the "for", and so far while some say placebo, others suggest possible independant efficacy. The only reason the government should have the right to step in, is if it is demonstrably harmful. We don't always need a nanny. Adults have the means and the brains to educate themselves enough about said treatments and decide on their own if they wish to use such an alternative procedure.

You come across too often as if people should be babysat Zod. Adults have the right to their own medical choices and sure some will choose stupidly, but that doesn't mean we should have the right to choose taken from us without a valid reason, and in this case the valid reason would be definite harm by the procedure itself.

They shouldn't be attempting to pass it off as a valid medical treatment that works in place of conventional medicine if there's no evidence supporting it, period.

They have the right to pass if off as a TRADITIONAL medicine, but no they should not be allowed to make definite health claims beyond what is expressed as "possibly" helpful until/unless they prove so. A medium ground is what's sensible here.

[General Zod]

You come across too often as if people should be babysat Zod. Adults have the right to their own medical choices and sure some will choose stupidly, but that doesn't mean we should have the right to choose taken from us without a valid reason, and in this case the valid reason would be definite harm by the procedure itself.

They don't need to be babysat, but they do need to be informed. Letting anything call itself a medicine or say that it has any medical benefits without vigorous testing supporting the claims it's making is not helping with that, and would only wind up confusing people.

If you truly want to let people make their own medical choices, then why do the "remedies" need to make any claims whatsoever on the bottle? If they work, then people can look up the treatments themselves and decide what's best based on the information that's out there instead of hoping that the bottle they're picking isn't lying to them.

[Lancer]

Because people have been using it as a traditional form of medicine for centuries and there is no valid reason to deny them this as a choice if there is no definitive evidence for OR against. They are working towards the "for", and so far while some say placebo, others suggest possible independant efficacy. The only reason the government should have the right to step in, is if it is demonstrably harmful. We don't always need a nanny. Adults have the means and the brains to educate themselves enough about said treatments and decide on their own if they wish to use such an alternative procedure.

You come across too often as if people should be babysat Zod. Adults have the right to their own medical choices and sure some will choose stupidly, but that doesn't mean we should have the right to choose taken from us without a valid reason, and in this case the valid reason would be definite harm by the procedure itself.

They have the right to pass if off as a TRADITIONAL medicine, but no they should not be allowed to make definite health claims beyond what is expressed as "possibly" helpful until/unless they prove so. A medium ground is what's sensible here.

Without corroborating imperical evidence of efficacy from an impartial source, those adults aren't making educated decisions because the information they need to make informed choices simply isn't available to them. In such a situation, fraud is far more of a concern than the product actually causing harm.

Going with Zod's prior example, under the setup you argue for, I could take sugar pills and sell them as a "traditional medicine" remedy for anything from fighting the common cold to relieving pain. Any actual benefits experienced as a result would be purely a result of the placebo effect, rather than any actual medical efficacy of the product. Yet since it's not actually doing any harm, I would be free to market it as I saw fit.

[Justforfun000]

Without corroborating imperical evidence of efficacy from an impartial source, those adults aren't making educated decisions because the information they need to make informed choices simply isn't available to them. In such a situation, fraud is far more of a concern than the product actually causing harm.

Yes they are making educated decisions. The grand majority of adults are quite aware that acupuncture is an alternative medicine that is not mainstream or necessarily supported by enough clinical studies to make a comprehensive ruling on it.

Fraud is always a concern, but there is something already in place that is supposed to be the guiding factor here. Caveat Emptor.

Now if we are talking about adults having CHILDREN treated with alternative medicine, in place of conventional, then we have a totally different ballgame. However that is not what we have been discussing.

Going with Zod's prior example, under the setup you argue for, I could take sugar pills and sell them as a "traditional medicine" remedy for anything from fighting the common cold to relieving pain. Any actual benefits experienced as a result would be purely a result of the placebo effect, rather than any actual medical efficacy of the product. Yet since it's not actually doing any harm, I would be free to market it as I saw fit.

This is not a valid analogy because there is no way to pass off "sugar pills" as traditional medicine. They are not. You can't just pop sugar pills in a bottle and sell them as "CureO pills". In Canada, you have to list all of the ingredients in anything being sold for consumption.

TCM is Traditional Chinese Medicine which includes acupunture. Herbal therapy is traditional medicine.
There are good reasons that certain herbs have long histories of efficacy on certain conditions, and you know what? Many of them have had this verified by clinical studies now that they are looked at more seriously.

The point here is adults should have the right to choose alternative treatments. The people professing these treatments should be carefully and cautiously regulated to allow only so much latitude in suggesting what benefits MIGHT be there for the patient.

It really shouldn't be hard to find the middle ground here. They've been practicing it that way for many years up here in Canada and most people are pretty satisfied with the situation. The consumers I'm referring to mainly, but even a good half of a survey of Ontario doctor's were in favour of more integration.

Abstract
Objective: We studied physicians’ current and desired clinical role functions within the complementary health paradigm and their perceptions of the necessary educational programs to support them.

Design and setting: A questionnaire to determine clinical activities within different complementary therapies was developed and mailed-out to 837 eligible physicians in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, using a modified Dillman approach.

Results: The overall response rate to the mailed survey was 49.8% (417/837), with response rates of 50.2% (115/229) for family physicians and 49.7% (302/608) for specialists. The amount of interactions around complementary therapies between physicians, their patients and complementary therapists appears to be low. At the same time, there is a growing interest among physicians about complementary therapies, particularly with respect to developing their knowledge about efficacy and enhancing their skills in assessment and counselling.

Conclusions: The differential levels of acceptance of different therapies by physicians will influence integration of complementary therapies in mainstream medicine.

The big problem is when people foolishly choose alternative methods, (especially in exclusion to), mainstream medicine for serious diseases like cancer.

Still, we cannot FORCE people to always do the smartest thing and there is even evidence to suggest people forced into treatment they do not want or even feel strongly negative about using will statistically receive a much poorer outcome. I've seen this stated many times, so it's very important to work with people's mental attitudes as well.