BACKGROUND:Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most frequently reported side effect of cancer and its treatment. In previous research, Polarity Therapy (PT), an energy therapy, was shown to reduce CRF in patients receiving radiation. This study reports on a small randomized clinical trial designed to collect preliminary data on the efficacy of PT compared with an active control (massage) and passive control (standard care) for CRF among cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. METHODS:Forty-five women undergoing radiation therapy for breast cancer were randomized to 1 of 3 weekly treatment conditions. Patients received standard clinical care, 3 modified massages, or 3 PT treatments. CRF and health-related quality of life (HRQL) were assessed during baseline and the 3 intervention weeks. RESULTS: TResults show CRF ratings were reduced after PT. The effect sizes for PT versus modified massage and versus standard care were small when using the primary measure of CRF (Brief Fatigue Inventory) and large when using the secondary measure of CRF (Daily CRF Diaries).The effect size was medium when assessing the benefit of PT on maintaining HRQL compared with standard care with very little difference between the PT and modified massage conditions. Patients' feedback showed that both the modified massage and PT treatments were deemed useful by radiation patients. CONCLUSION: The present pilot randomized clinical trial supports previous experimental research showing that PT, a noninvasive and gentle energy therapy, may be effective in controlling CRF. Further confirmatory studies as well as investigations of the possible mechanisms of PT are warranted.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most frequently reported side effect of cancer and its treatment. In previous research, Polarity Therapy (PT), an energy therapy, was shown to reduce CRF in patients receiving radiation. This study reports on a small randomized clinical trial designed to collect preliminary data on the efficacy of PT compared with an active control (massage) and passive control (standard care) for CRF among cancerpatients receiving radiation therapy. METHODS: Forty-five women undergoing radiation therapy for breast cancer were randomized to 1 of 3 weekly treatment conditions. Patients received standard clinical care, 3 modified massages, or 3 PT treatments. CRF and health-related quality of life (HRQL) were assessed during baseline and the 3 intervention weeks. RESULTS: TResults show CRF ratings were reduced after PT. The effect sizes for PT versus modified massage and versus standard care were small when using the primary measure of CRF (Brief Fatigue Inventory) and large when using the secondary measure of CRF (Daily CRF Diaries).The effect size was medium when assessing the benefit of PT on maintaining HRQL compared with standard care with very little difference between the PT and modified massage conditions. Patients' feedback showed that both the modified massage and PT treatments were deemed useful by radiation patients. CONCLUSION: The present pilot randomized clinical trial supports previous experimental research showing that PT, a noninvasive and gentle energy therapy, may be effective in controlling CRF. Further confirmatory studies as well as investigations of the possible mechanisms of PT are warranted.
Authors: Joseph A Roscoe; Sara E Matteson; Karen M Mustian; Devi Padmanaban; Gary R Morrow Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Martine Margaretha Goedendorp; Marieke F M Gielissen; Constantijn A H H V M Verhagen; Gijs Bleijenberg Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-01-21
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Melissa J DuPont-Reyes; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha R Cohen; Gary Deng; Jillian A Johnson; Matthew Mumber; Dugald Seely; Suzanna M Zick; Lindsay M Boyce; Debu Tripathy Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Darren Hunter; Christopher Marinakis; Ruth Salisbury; Alison Cray; Richard Oates Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Tao Wang; Jianxia Zhai; Xian-Liang Liu; Li-Qun Yao; Jing-Yu Benjamin Tan Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Julia E Inglis; Amber S Kleckner; Po-Ju Lin; Nikesha J Gilmore; Eva Culakova; Amy C VanderWoude; Karen M Mustian; I Diana Fernandez; Richard F Dunne; Jeremy Deutsch; Luke J Peppone Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: Kavita D Chandwani; Julie L Ryan; Luke J Peppone; Michelle M Janelsins; Lisa K Sprod; Katie Devine; Lara Trevino; Jennifer Gewandter; Gary R Morrow; Karen M Mustian Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 2.629