BACKGROUND:Hot flushes are common and distressing among men with castrational treatment for prostate cancer. Of the few treatments, most have side effects. OBJECTIVE: Assess changes in hot flushes of electrostimulated (EA) and traditional acupuncture (TA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one men with hot flushes due to prostate cancer treatment were recruited from three urological departments in Sweden, from 2001 to 2004. INTERVENTION: Thirty-one men were randomized to EA (12 needle points, with 4 electrostimulated) or TA (12 needle points) weekly for 12 wk. PRIMARY OUTCOME: number of and distress from hot flushes in 24 h and change in "hot flush score." Secondary outcome: change in 24-h urine excretion of CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty-nine men completed the treatment. Hot flushes per 24 h decreased significantly, from a median of 7.6 (interquartile range [IQR], 6.0-12.3) at baseline in the EA group to 4.1 (IQR, 2.0-6.5) (p=0.012) after 12 wk, and from 5.7 (IQR, 5.1-9.5) in the TA group to 3.4 (IQR1.8-6.3) (p=0.001). Distress by flushes decreased from 8.2 (IQR, 6.5-10.7) in the EA group to 3.3 (IQR, 0.3-8.1) (p=0.003), and from 7.6 (IQR, 4.7-8.3) to 3.4 (IQR, 2.0-5.6) (p=0.001) in the TA group after 12 wk, (78% and 73% reduction in "hot flush score," respectively). The effect lasted up to 9 mo after treatment ended. CGRP did not change significantly. Few, minor side effects were reported. LIMITATIONS: small number of patients; no placebo control, instead a small group controlled for 6 wk pretreatment. CONCLUSIONS:EA and TA lowered number of and distress from hot flushes. The hot flush score decreased 78% and 73%, respectively, in line with or better than medical regimens for these symptoms. Acupuncture should be considered an alternative treatment for these symptoms, but further evaluation is needed, preferably with a non- or placebo-treated control group.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Hot flushes are common and distressing among men with castrational treatment for prostate cancer. Of the few treatments, most have side effects. OBJECTIVE: Assess changes in hot flushes of electrostimulated (EA) and traditional acupuncture (TA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one men with hot flushes due to prostate cancer treatment were recruited from three urological departments in Sweden, from 2001 to 2004. INTERVENTION: Thirty-one men were randomized to EA (12 needle points, with 4 electrostimulated) or TA (12 needle points) weekly for 12 wk. PRIMARY OUTCOME: number of and distress from hot flushes in 24 h and change in "hot flush score." Secondary outcome: change in 24-h urine excretion of CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty-nine men completed the treatment. Hot flushes per 24 h decreased significantly, from a median of 7.6 (interquartile range [IQR], 6.0-12.3) at baseline in the EA group to 4.1 (IQR, 2.0-6.5) (p=0.012) after 12 wk, and from 5.7 (IQR, 5.1-9.5) in the TA group to 3.4 (IQR1.8-6.3) (p=0.001). Distress by flushes decreased from 8.2 (IQR, 6.5-10.7) in the EA group to 3.3 (IQR, 0.3-8.1) (p=0.003), and from 7.6 (IQR, 4.7-8.3) to 3.4 (IQR, 2.0-5.6) (p=0.001) in the TA group after 12 wk, (78% and 73% reduction in "hot flush score," respectively). The effect lasted up to 9 mo after treatment ended. CGRP did not change significantly. Few, minor side effects were reported. LIMITATIONS: small number of patients; no placebo control, instead a small group controlled for 6 wk pretreatment. CONCLUSIONS:EA and TA lowered number of and distress from hot flushes. The hot flush score decreased 78% and 73%, respectively, in line with or better than medical regimens for these symptoms. Acupuncture should be considered an alternative treatment for these symptoms, but further evaluation is needed, preferably with a non- or placebo-treated control group.
Authors: Brian Hutton; Mona Hersi; Wei Cheng; Misty Pratt; Pauline Barbeau; Sasha Mazzarello; Nadera Ahmadzai; Becky Skidmore; Scott C Morgan; Louise Bordeleau; Pamela K Ginex; Behnam Sadeghirad; Rebecca L Morgan; Katherine Marie Cole; Mark Clemons Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: M Kay Garcia; Jennifer McQuade; Richard Lee; Robin Haddad; Michael Spano; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Helene M Langevin; Rosa Schnyer; Hugh MacPherson; Robert Davis; Richard E Harris; Vitaly Napadow; Peter M Wayne; Ryan J Milley; Lixing Lao; Elisabet Stener-Victorin; Jiang-Ti Kong; Richard Hammerschlag Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Crystal S Denlinger; Tara Sanft; K Scott Baker; Shrujal Baxi; Gregory Broderick; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Melissa Hudson; Nazanin Khakpour; Allison King; Divya Koura; Elizabeth Kvale; Robin M Lally; Terry S Langbaum; Michelle Melisko; Jose G Montoya; Kathi Mooney; Javid J Moslehi; Tracey O'Connor; Linda Overholser; Electra D Paskett; Jeffrey Peppercorn; M Alma Rodriguez; Kathryn J Ruddy; Paula Silverman; Sophia Smith; Karen L Syrjala; Amye Tevaarwerk; Susan G Urba; Mark T Wakabayashi; Phyllis Zee; Deborah A Freedman-Cass; Nicole R McMillian Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 11.908