Maria Vadalà, 1 Julio Cesar Morales‐Medina, 2 Annamaria Vallelunga, 3 Beniamino Palmieri, 1 Carmen Laurino, 1 and Tommaso Iannitti
Abstract
Cancer is one of the most common causes of death worldwide. Available treatments are associated with numerous side effects and only a low percentage of patients achieve complete remission. Therefore, there is a strong need for new therapeutic strategies. In this regard, pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy presents several potential advantages including non‐invasiveness, safety, lack of toxicity for non‐cancerous cells, and the possibility of being combined with other available therapies. Indeed, PEMF stimulation has already been used in the context of various cancer types including skin, breast, prostate, hepatocellular, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, thyroid, and colon cancer in vitro and in vivo. At present, only limited application of PEMF in cancer has been documented in humans. In this article, we review the experimental and clinical evidence of PEMF therapy discussing future perspectives in its use in oncology.Keywords: Cancer, electromagnetic therapy, oncology, pulsed electromagnetic fields, tumor‐specific frequenciesGo to:
Introduction
Cancer is one of the most common causes of death worldwide and accounted for 8.2 million deaths in 2012 1. The number of cancer‐related deaths is predicted to increase to over 11 million by 2030 2. The types of cancer with the highest incidence are lung (1.59 million people), liver (745,000), stomach (723,000), colon and rectum (694,000), breast (521,000), and esophagus (400,000) 1. In oncology, the selection of correct treatment strategy, in early disease stages, is crucial to increase the probability of remission and improve survival. Available cancer treatments include chemotherapy, immunotherapy or antibody‐based therapy, radiation therapy, and surgery 3. The therapeutic strategy is chosen taking into account the individual patient’s medical assessment, type of cancer, location, and disease stage 4. Multimodal treatments are often required to reduce the therapy‐induced side effects 5 related to pharmacological as well as other approaches including surgery 6. Chemotherapy‐induced side effects depend on various variables such as the drug employed, its dosage, and treatment duration. These side effects include pain, fatigue, throat and mouth sores, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and blood disorders. Side effects affecting the nervous system are commonly experienced with chemotherapy and include cognitive dysfunction, headache, dizziness, vision loss and vision disturbances such as blurred or double vision, changes in learning and memory, sexual dysfunction, ataxia, and peripheral neuropathy 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Rashes, fever, hypotension, colitis or other gastrointestinal problems, and thyroid dysfunctions are immunotherapy‐related side effects 12. The main radiotherapy‐induced side effects are dry mouth and gum sores, jaw stiffness, nausea, lymphedema, swallowing difficulties, shortness of breath, breast or nipple soreness, rectal bleeding, incontinence, bladder irritation, and pituitary dysfunction 13. Surgical techniques, such as minimally invasive surgery, also result in pain, fatigue, appetite loss, swelling and bruising around the site of surgery, bleeding, infection, lymphedema, and organ dysfunction 14. Numerous studies support the development of new treatments in oncology to be added to the traditional protocols to increase the effectiveness of available treatments, reducing side effect profile, and the patients’ quality of life 15, 16, 17, 18. Such resources include traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, homeopathy, and naturopathy 19. While complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is not generally considered part of conventional medicine, it has been widely used in the oncology field as an add‐on therapy to control patients’ symptoms and improve their quality of life 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. The beginning of the 20th century saw the first therapeutic applications of CAM therapies for cancer treatment; these therapies include acupuncture, chromotherapy, therapeutic touch (reiki), and pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy 4, 15, 27, 28, 29, 30. In this review, we have focused on PEMF therapy, a noninvasive technique characterized by electromagnetic fields inducing microcurrents to the entire body or locally to target specific body tissues. Exposure to PEMFs in the 0–300 Hz range is a therapeutic tool extensively used for the treatment of several pathologies including osteoarthritis, Parkinson’s disease, postsurgical pain and edema, treatment of chronic wounds, and facilitation of vasodilatation and angiogenesis producing direct stimulation to excitable cells including nerve and muscle cells 31, 32, 33, 34. Stimulation with sufficient intensity and duration induces a current across targeted cell membranes, activating nerve cells or muscles to propagate action potentials 35, 36, 37. Indeed, PEMF therapy can be used as an adjuvant treatment to chemotherapy and radiotherapy with the aim of reducing their dosage, mitigating any harmful secondary side effects, and enhancing patient’s prognosis 15, 35, 38, 39, 40.
Aim and searching criteria
We reviewed in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies employing PEMF therapy for cancer treatment published between 1976 and 2016. We searched Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus using the keywords “PEMFs”, “cancer”, “magnet therapy”, “tumour specific frequencies” and “oncology” alone or combined. This review aims at describing the state of the art of PEMF therapy, discussing current understanding of the underlying mechanisms and outlining future therapeutic perspectives in oncology.Go to:
In Vitro Studies
PEMF therapy has been extensively studied in vitro using various human cancer cell lines, such as pheochromocytoma‐derived (PC12), breast cancer (e.g., MCF7, MDA‐MB‐231 and T47D), and colon cancer (SW‐480 and HCT‐116) 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. These studies have shown that PEMF therapy may exert proliferative inhibition and mitotic spindle disruption 18, 40, block the development of neovascularization required for tumor supply 46, 47, 48 and exacerbate an inherent or induced genetic instability by reducing the stringency of the late‐cycle (G2) checkpoint 49. While chemotherapy is not specific to cancer cells and targets all rapidly dividing cells 50, 51, 52, PEMFs exert selective cytotoxic effect on neoplastic cells 15, 40, 53, 54, 55 making this therapy a highly promising strategy.
In the next subparagraphs, we will review studies employing PEMF therapy in different cell lines as a model to study specific types of cancer (Table 1).
Table 1
In vitro studies of PEMF therapy in oncology
| Author(s), year | Cell type | Treatment | Main findings | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crocetti et al., 2013 | Human breast adenocarcinoma cells (MCF7) and nontumorigenic cells (MCF10) | Daily 60‐min PEMF therapy session (20 Hz; 3 mT) for 3 days | PEMFs increased apoptosis in MCF7 cells but had no effect on MCF10 cells | 38 |
| Filipovic et al., 2014 | Human breast cancer (MDA‐MB‐231) and colon cancer (SW‐480 and HCT‐116) cell lines | 24 and 72 h exposure to PEMF therapy (50 Hz; 10 mT) | PEMFs increased apoptosis in MDA‐MB‐231 (55% and 20%), SW480 (11% and 6%), and HCT‐116 cell lines (2% and 3%) after 24 and 72 h exposure, respectively, compared with untreated control cancer cell lines | 58 |
| Morabito et al., 2010 | Undifferentiated PC12 pheochromocytoma cells and differentiated PC12 cells | Short PEMF therapy session (50 Hz, 0.1–1.0 mT) for 30 min, and long‐term PEMF session (50 Hz, 0.1–1.0 mT) for 7 days | 30‐min PEMF session in undifferentiated PC12 cells increased ROS levels and decreased catalase activity. No change in intracellular Ca2+ concentration was observed. 7‐day PEMF therapy session in undifferentiated PC12 cells resulted in increased intracellular Ca2+ concentration and increased catalase activity. No significant findings were observed in differentiated PC12 cells | 41 |
PEMF, pulsed electromagnetic field; ROS, reactive oxygen species.
Studies of PEMF therapy in human breast cancer and colon cancer cell lines
A study by Crocetti and coworkers 38 investigated whether ultra‐low intensity and frequency PEMF therapy could induce apoptosis in human breast adenocarcinoma cells (MCF7). PEMF exposure was cytotoxic to MCF7 cells, but not to normal breast epithelial cells (MCF10). Both MCF7 and MCF10 cells were exposed to PEMF therapy and the cytotoxic indices were measured in order to design PEMF paradigms that could reduce selectively neoplastic cell proliferation. The PEMF parameters tested were: (1) frequency of 20 Hz, (2) intensity of 3 mT and (3) exposure time of 60 min/day for up to 3 days. Four independent methods of monitoring cancer‐induced apoptosis (trypan blue assay, apoptosis determination by DNA strand break detection, analysis of cellular electrical properties by means of impedance microflow cytometer, and apoptosis determination by Annexin V staining) showed that this specific set of PEMF parameters was cytotoxic to breast cancer cells. While this treatment selectively induced apoptosis of MCF7 cells, it had no effect on MCF10 cells that were more resistant to apoptosis in response to PEMFs. Although these results are encouraging, PEMF exposure was limited to 3 days. Long‐term PEMF exposure needs to be assessed in further studies based on the concept that PEMF effectiveness is strictly linked to the signal parameters, exposure magnitude, duration, signal shape, duration of treatment as well as the type of cells exposed to the magnetic field 56, 57.
The antineoplastic effect of PEMFs has also been investigated in human breast cancer MDA‐MB‐231, colon cancer SW‐480, and HCT‐116 cell lines. These cells were exposed to 50 Hz PEMFs for 24 and 72 h 58. PEMFs decreased the number of viable cells in all the cell lines tested, reaching 55% after 24 h and 20% after 72 h in the MDA‐MB‐231 cell line, 11% after 24 h and 6% after 72 h in the SW480 cell line, and 2% after 24 h and 3% after 72 h in the HCT‐116 cell line, compared with unexposed cancer cell lines used as controls, as assessed by a computer reaction‐diffusion model, a mathematical model widely employed to study cell proliferation and infiltration 59. The lower percentage inhibition of neoplastic cell proliferation was observed after 72 h, showing that PEMF therapy had antiproliferative activity which decreased over time. This action is exerted in vitro by interfering with microtubule spindle polymerization. Indeed, PEMF exposure reduces the fraction of polymerized microtubules, disrupts the mitotic spindle structure, inhibits cell division, thereby leading to chromosome mis‐segregation and cancer‐induced apoptosis 60. In summary, studies in human breast and colon cancer cell lines are promising and warrant further investigations.
Studies of PEMF therapy in pheochromocytoma‐derived cells
PEMF signal parameters have been extensively utilized on diverse cell types to determine in vitro effectiveness 61, 62. For example, Morabito and coworkers 41 investigated cell responsiveness and in vitro neuritogenesis following PEMF exposure. They specifically focused on PEMF ability to modify morphology, proliferation, and differentiation in PC12 pheochromocytoma cells. Furthermore, they assessed whether PEMFs can induce variable and species‐specific alterations in the oxidative stress pathway such as Ca2+‐dependent oxidative stress which enhances free radical production, particularly via the Fenton reaction, leading to apoptotic cell death 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69. Undifferentiated and differentiated [supplemented with 50 ng/mL of nerve growth factor (NGF)] PC12 cells were exposed to 50 Hz PEMF therapy (0.1–1.0 mT), and cell growth and viability were evaluated after immediate (30 min) or long‐term exposure (7 days), using colorimetric and morphological assays. The long‐lasting exposure to PEMFs did not affect the biological response in terms of proliferation and neuritogenesis. Thirty‐minute PEMF exposure at 1.0 mT in undifferentiated PC12 cells increased the levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and decreased catalase activity, an indicator of oxidative stress. Conversely, long‐term PEMF exposure of undifferentiated PC12 cells also increased catalase activity that could reflect the absence of ROS accumulation and a possible adaptation cell response to PEMFs. During immediate PEMF exposure in undifferentiated PC12 cells, no change in intracellular Ca2+ concentration was observed, while it increased after long‐term exposure. This enhanced calcium level could activate, through voltage‐gated (L‐type) calcium channels, signaling pathways and lead to the expression of genes modulating cell differentiation, survival, and apoptosis such as extracellular signal‐regulated kinases, c‐Jun N‐terminal protein kinase/stress‐activated protein kinase, and p38 70, 71, 72, 73. In particular, the undifferentiated PC12 cells were more sensitive to PEMFs exposure, while the differentiated PC12 cells were more stable and resistant to stress, probably due to the action of the cell surface NGF receptors such as p75NR 74.
Further studies are necessary to identify the ROS/intracellular Ca2+ cross‐talking pathway activated by PEMF therapy. However, the study by Morabito and coworkers supports the hypothesis that ROS and Ca2+ could be the cellular “primum movens” of PEMF therapy‐induced effects, as observed in pheochromocytoma cells.Go to:
In Vivo Studies
Several studies investigated the antineoplastic effect of PEMFs using widely employed animal models of several types of cancer, including breast cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and melanoma (Table 2) 4, 48, 75, 76, 77, 78.
Table 2
In vivo studies of PEMF therapy in oncology
| Author(s), year | Animal model (number of animals, study design) | Route of administration | Treatment | Main findings | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tatarov et al., 2011 | 12 T‐cell‐immunodeficient Swiss outbred female nude mice (Cr:NIH(S)‐nu/nu), divided into 4 groups (n = 3 each) | Orthotopic injection of metastatic mouse breast tumor cell line [EpH4‐MEK Bcl213 cells (1 × 106)] into the mammary fat pad | Group 1, 2 and 3 were exposed to PEMFs (1 Hz, 100 mT) daily for 60, 180, or 360 min, respectively, for 4 weeks; group 4 did not receive any treatment and was used as control | Mice exposed for 60 and 180 min daily showed a 30% and 70% tumor reduction, respectively, at week 4, if compared to baseline | 85 |
| Emara et al., 2013 | 60 rats (strain not reported) divided into 6 groups | Intraperitoneal administration of a carcinogenic agent, DEN | Group 1 (naive rats) received PEMF therapy (2‐3 Hz, 0.004 T) for 30 min/day for 6 days/week for 4 weeks; group 2 (naive rats) received PEMF therapy (<1 Hz, 0.6 T) 15 min/day for 6 days/week for 4 weeks; group 3 (naive rats) was left untreated; group 4 (HCC rats) received PEMF therapy (2‐3 Hz, 0.004 T) for 30 min/day for 6 days/week for 4 weeks; group 5 (HCC rats) received PEMF therapy (<1 Hz, 0.6 T) 15 min/day for 6 days/week for 4 weeks; group 6 (HCC rats) was left untreated. | A significant decrease in serum AFP level and a slight improvement in dielectric properties of liver tissues was observed in HCC rats treated with PEMFs. These results were confirmed by electron microscopy and histological analysis showing HCC regression. No changes in histopathology and dielectric properties of liver tissue were observed in naive rats exposed to PEMFs. | 91 |
| Nuccitelli et al., 2006 | 23 SKH‐1 immunocompetent, hairless, albino mice | Single subcutaneous injection of B16 murine melanoma cells (1 × 105) on the dorsal side of the mouse ear | 30‐min PEMF therapy session (0.5 Hz, 0.2 T) three times a day for 6 days | All mice exhibited significant pyknosis, shrinkage of the tumor cell nuclei by 54% within a few minutes after PEMF therapy and by 68% within 3 h and reduction in the blood flow in about 15 min following PEMF therapy | 95 |
| Nuccitelli et al., 2010 | Four female immunodeficient, hairless, albino Nu/Nu mice | Single subcutaneous injection of murine melanoma cells (B16‐F10‐eGFP, 1 × 105) on the mouse skin | Daily 6‐min PEMF session (5–7 Hz, 0.2 T) for 10 days | Melanoma cells shrank within an hour post PEMF therapy, exhibiting pyknosis within 24 h post treatment. PEMFs‐treated mice showed complete remission of melanoma | 100 |
PEMF, pulsed electromagnetic field; DEN, N‐diethylnitrosamine; AFP, alpha‐fetoprotein; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma
PEMF therapy effectiveness in mouse models of breast cancer
PEMF therapy effectiveness on tumor growth and viability has been tested in mouse models of breast cancer. For example, xenograft mouse models are widely used to study breast cancer. This model is obtained by injection of human breast cancer cells including estrogen‐negative (MDA‐MB‐231) and estrogen‐positive (MCF7) breast carcinoma cell lines or mouse breast cancer cells including EpH4 mammary epithelial cells or mitogen‐activated protein kinase (MEK)‐transformed EpH4 cells subcutaneously, intravenously, intracardially, or orthotopically, four times every 5 days, into the mammary fat pad of immunocompromised mice 79, 80. The injected cells are highly invasive in vitro and tumorigenic when transplanted into the mammary fat pad. After a week from the last injection, the mouse is palpated biweekly for mammary tumors and the dimensions of tumors are measured using an external caliper daily. Mice are euthanized when the tumor size becomes ulcerated with macro‐metastases, mainly in liver, bone, and brain 81, 82, 83, 84. For example, EpH4‐MEK Bcl213 cells (1 × 106) transfected with a luciferase expression vector (pβP2‐PolII‐luciferase) were injected into the mammary fat pad in 12 T‐cell‐immunodeficient Swiss outbred female nude mice (Cr:NIH(S)‐nu/nu) 85. Mice were divided into four groups (n = 3 each). Group 1, 2, and 3 were exposed to PEMF therapy (1 Hz, 100 mT) daily for 60, 180, or 360 min, respectively, for 4 weeks, while group 4 did not receive PEMF therapy and was used as control. All mice were monitored for tumor growth by body bioluminescence imaging once every 2 to 4 days for 4 weeks. Then, all the mice were sacrificed and skin, liver, lung, and spleen samples were collected for histopathologic analysis. Mice exposed to PEMFs for 60 and 180 min daily showed a 30% and 70% breast tumor reduction, respectively, at week 4, if compared to baseline. Mice exposed to PEMFs for 360 min daily, showed a suppression of tumor growth at week 4. In summary, this study shows that the time of PEMF exposure is critical to determine its effectiveness. Mice exposed for longer duration (360 min daily for 4 weeks) showed a significant reduction in tumor size, due probabily to the inhibition of angiogenesis that may suppress the formation of blood vessels in tumor tissues, reducing the tumor growth.
Antineoplastic effect of PEMF therapy in rodent models of hepatocellular carcinoma
Chemically induced HCC is a widely used model of hepatocarcinogenesis that mimics the development of fibrosis and cirrhosis. This model is obtained by intraperitoneal administration of a carcinogenic agent, N‐diethylnitrosamine (DEN; 50–100 mg/kg mouse body weight) alone or followed by oral administration of a nongenotoxic liver tumor promoter [phenobarbital (PB)]. DEN induces damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids, leading to hepatocyte death 86. It is hydroxylated to α‐hydroxylnitrosamine, mediated by cytochrome P450 enzymes which are primarily located in the centrilobural hepatocytes. Then, an electrophilic ethyldiazonium ion is formed and causes DNA damage by reacting with nucleophiles. Three to four weeks following the last injection, mice receive drinking water containing PB (0.07%) that increases the expression of cytochrome P450, inducing oxidative stress and resulting in HCC development after 6 months from PB administration 86, 87, 88, 89, 90. Emara and coworkers evaluated the safety and effectiveness of PEMFs with different intensity and frequency in a rat model of DEN‐induced HCC (75 mg/kg body weight, once a week for 3 weeks) 91. Sixty rats were divided into six groups: Group 1 (naive rats) received PEMF therapy (2‐3 Hz, 0.004 T) for 30 min/day for 6 days/week for 4 weeks; group 2 (naive rats) received PEMF therapy (<1 Hz, 0.6 T) 15 min/day for 6 days/week for 4 weeks; group 3 (naive rats) was left untreated; group 4 (HCC rats) received PEMF therapy (2‐3 Hz, 0.004 T) for 30 min/day for 6 days/week for 4 weeks; group 5 (HCC rats) received PEMF therapy (<1 Hz, 0.6 T) 15 min/day for 6 days/week for 4 weeks; group 6 (HCC rats) was left untreated. No changes in histopathology and dielectric properties of liver tissue were observed in naive rats exposed to PEMFs supporting its safety. In HCC rats exposed to PEMFs, a significant decrease in AFP level (AFP is a serum glycoprotein often elevated in HCC patients and used as a carcinoma marker in the clinic) was reported together with a slight improvement in dielectric properties of liver tissue. These results were confirmed by electron microscopy and histological analysis showing HCC regression. Altogether this evidence supports the antineoplastic activity of PEMF therapy in the rat model of DEN‐induced HCC and warrants further investigations.
PEMF therapy effectiveness in murine melanoma models
The most frequently used murine melanoma model is the syngeneic B16 model. It is obtained by a single subcutaneous injection of 1 × 105 B16 murine melanoma cells on the dorsal side of the mouse ear. Melanoma nodules 5–6 mm in diameter develop 7 days post‐injection 92, 93, 94. The melanoma model in SKH‐1 hairless mice has been used to investigate the effectiveness of PEMF therapy (0.5 Hz, 0.2 T, 30 min/day). Mice (n = 23) received 1–3 PEMF treatments daily for 6 days and were monitored for tumor growth, daily, by optical methods, such as transillumination and power Doppler ultrasound reconstructions that display blood flow images for each tumor 95. Then, all the mice were sacrificed and skin tissues were collected for histopathological analysis. All mice exposed to PEMFs exhibited significant pyknosis, shrinkage of the tumor cell nuclei by 54% within a few minutes after PEMF therapy and by 68% within 3 h and reduction in the blood flow in about 15 min following PEMF therapy. These effects may be due to PEMF therapy that stimulates murine melanoma to self‐destruct by triggering rapid pyknosis of tumor cell nuclei and reducing blood flow 96, 97, 98, 99. A further study 100 optimized the PEMF therapy parameters pulse number, amplitude, and frequency to completely suppress melanoma with a single treatment. In this study, four female immunodeficient, hairless, albino Nu/Nu mice received a single PEMF treatment for 6 min using the following parameters: 2.700 pulses, amplitude of 30 kV/cm and frequency of 5–7 Hz for 10 days. After 2–4 weeks, mice were sacrificed and skin samples were processed for histology. Melanoma cells shrank within an hour post PEMF therapy, exhibiting pyknosis within 24 h post PEMFs and showing a complete remission of melanoma in all the mice, as assessed by in vivo imaging (transillumination and photography). To evaluate the safety of PEMF therapy, the authors recorded the physiological parameters and introduced a miniature thermocouple into the tumor for simultaneous measurement of intratumoral temperature during PEMF treatment; body temperature and systolic blood pressure showed no significant changes, while the intratumoral temperature was ~6–7°C, evidencing that, by limiting the frequency to 7 Hz or less, it was possible to avoid heating the tumor to hyperthermia temperatures potentially leading to damage of the surrounding tissues. Evidence of efficacy of a single PEMF treatment on mouse skin cancer resulting in suppression of tumor growth and induction of apoptosis is promising for translational applications.Go to:
Clinical Studies
The use of PEMF therapy in oncology is still limited (Table 3) 4. The first study utilizing PEMF therapy was conducted by Barbault and coworkers who hypothesized that a combination of specific frequencies, defined tumor‐specific frequencies, may display therapeutic effectiveness for localized treatment of tumors 15. They identified a total of 1524 tumor‐specific frequencies, ranging from 0.1 to 114 kHz, consisting in the measurement of variations in skin electrical resistance, pulse amplitude, and blood pressure in 163 patients affected by different types of cancer including brain tumors, colorectal cancer, HCC carcinoma, pancreatic, colorectal, ovarian, breast, prostate, lung, thyroid, and bladder cancer and exposed to the radiofrequency system. Self‐administered PEMF therapy for 60 min, three times a day, for an average of 278.4 months was offered to only 28 patients with advanced cancer (breast cancer [n = 7], ovarian cancer [n = 5], pancreatic cancer [n = 3], colorectal cancer [n = 2], prostate cancer [n = 2], glioblastoma multiforme [n = 1], HCC carcinoma [n = 1], mesothelioma [n = 1], neuroendocrine tumor [n = 1], non‐small‐cell lung cancer [n = 1], oligodendroglioma [n = 1], small‐cell lung cancer [n = 1], sarcoma [n = 1] and thyroid tumor [n = 1]). None of the patients who received PEMF therapy reported any side effects; four patients presented stable disease for 3 years (thyroid cancer with biopsy‐proven lung metastases), 6 months (mesothelioma metastatic to the abdomen), 5 months (non‐small‐cell lung cancer), and 4 months (pancreatic cancer with biopsy‐proven liver metastases), respectively.
Table 3
Clinical studies of PEMF therapy in oncology
| Author(s), year | Study design | Number of patients | Pathology | Treatment | Outcomes | Side effects | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbault et al., 2009 | Compassionate and investigational clinical trial | 28 | Glioblastoma multiforme, mesothelioma, oligodendroglioma, sarcoma, HCC and breast, colorectal, lung, neuroendocrine, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate and thyroid cancers | 60‐min PEMF session (0.1 Hz–114 kHz, 1.5 T) three times a day for 278.4 months | One patient with thyroid cancer, one patient with mesothelioma metastatic to the abdomen, one patient with non‐small‐cell lung cancer and one patient with pancreatic cancer with biopsy‐proven liver metastases presented stable disease for 3 years, 6 months, 5 months and 4 months, respectively | None reported | 15 |
| Costa et al., 2007 | A single‐group, open‐label, phase I/II clinical trial | 41 | Advanced HCC | Daily 60‐min PEMF session (100 Hz–21 kHz, 1.5 T) three times a day for 6 months | Five patients reported complete disappearance and two patients reported decrease in pain shortly after treatment. Four patients showed a partial response to treatment, while 16 patients had stable disease for more than 12 weeks | None reported | 102 |
PEMF, pulsed electromagnetic field; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma.
PEMF therapy has also been employed for the treatment of HCC. Therapies for this disease are needed, especially for patients at an advanced disease stage who cannot tolerate chemotherapy or intrahepatic interventions because of impaired liver function 101. The feasibility of PEMF therapy for treatment of HCC has also been investigated in a single‐group, open‐label, phase I/II clinical study 102. Forty‐one patients with advanced HCC received very low levels of PEMFs modulated at HCC‐specific frequencies (100 Hz–21 kHz) and received three‐daily 60 min outpatient treatments. No adverse reactions were observed during PEMF treatment. Five patients reported complete disappearance and two patients reported decrease in pain shortly after beginning of treatment. Four patients showed a partial response to treatment, while 16 patients (39%) had stable disease for more than 12 weeks. This study shows that PEMF therapy provides a safe and well‐tolerated treatment, as well as evidence of antineoplastic effects in patients with HCC.
In summary, encouraging findings warrant randomized clinical studies to determine the effectiveness of amplitude‐modulated PEMF therapy that can delay cancer progression and increase overall survival in patients. The increased knowledge of tumor‐specific frequencies and the preliminary evidence that additional tumor‐specific frequencies may yield a therapeutic benefit provide a strong rationale for the novel concept that administration of a large number of these frequencies may result in successful long‐term disease management.Go to:
Discussion and Conclusions
In vitro studies support antineoplastic and antiangiogenic effects of PEMF therapy. Several mechanisms of PEMF therapy have been elucidated. For example, PEMFs inhibit cancer growth by disrupting the mitotic spindle in a process mediated by interference of spindle tubulin orientation and induction of dielectrophoresis. Furthermore, PEMF therapy modulates gene expression and protein synthesis interacting with specific DNA sequences within gene promoter regions 18, 38, 40, 41, 58, 103. In addition, PEMFs inhibit angiogenesis in tumor tissues, suppressing tumor vascularization and reducing tumor growth, as shown by in vivo studies 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 104.
The specific claim, supported by the described in vivo studies, is that all treated groups showed slower tumor growth rate if compared with untreated control group, confirming that PEMF therapy can modulate the physiology and electrochemistry of cancer cells and influence cell membrane systems and mitosis. In addition, PEMFs induce some changes in membrane transport capacity through impacting the osmotic potential, ionic valves and leading to reduction in cellular stress factors, increase in the rate of DNA transcription, and modulation of immune response 105.
PEMFs have also an immunomodulatory effect, as supported by in vivo evidence showing an increase in tumor necrosis factor alpha levels that induce an anti‐tumoral response, leading to the activation of a proapoptotic pathway induced by caspase‐8 interaction with Fas‐associated death domain, in the spleen of the murine melanoma mouse model after a 16‐day therapy 78. Changes in blood pressure, skin electrical resistance, and pulse amplitude in 163 oncology patients exposed to tumor‐specific PEMF frequencies have also been reported suggesting that PEMF therapy does not only target neoplastic cells, but may also have systemic effects 15. However, long‐term PEMF treatment in HCC patients is not toxic, confirming the safety of PEMF therapy that employs 100,000 times lower frequencies if compared with radiofrequency ablation that is also employed for treatment of HCC 55.
In conclusion, only two clinical studies have used PEMF therapy for cancer treatment. These studies show that PEMF therapy is safe and promising compared to other available cancer therapies. In the future, PEMFs could be used not only as primary therapy but also in combination with other common antineoplastic therapies. Given that new portable and affordable PEMF devices are increasingly available on the market, future controlled clinical studies are expected to further determine the potential of PEMF therapy in oncology.Go to:
Conflict of Interest
The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.Go to:
Acknowledgments
JCMM acknowledges CONACyT for membership.Go to:
Notes
Cancer Medicine 2016; 5(11):3128–3139 [PMC free article] [PubMed]Go to:
References
1. Arteaga, C. L. , Adamson P. C., Engelman J. A., Foti M., Gaynor R. B., Hilsenbeck S. G., et al. 2014. AACR cancer progress report 2014. Clin. Cancer Res. 20(19 Suppl.):S1–S112. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]2. Woods, R. R. C. M. , and Coldman A. J.. 2015. Cancer incidence in British Columbia expected to grow by 57% from 2012 to 2030. B. C. Med. J. 5:190–196. [Google Scholar]3. Fischer, G. , Pelka R. B., and Barovic J.. 2005. [Adjuvant treatment of knee osteoarthritis with weak pulsing magnetic fields. Results of a placebo‐controlled trial prospective clinical trial]. Z. Orthop. Ihre Grenzgeb. 143:544–550. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]4. Verginadis, I. V. A. , Karagounis I., Simos Y., Peschos D., Karkabounas S., and Evangelou A.. 2012. Beneficial effects of electromagnetic radiation in Cancer. Electromagnetic Radiation; in tech.5. Wang, Z. M. , Wang G. X., Wang S. M., Bassi A., Khalid M., Schoenbach K. H., et al. 2006. Early response genes to DNA damage by nanosecond pulsed electric fields. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 28:206–223. [Google Scholar]6. Tofani, S. , Barone D., Cintorino M., de Santi M. M., Ferrara A., Orlassino R., et al. 2001. Static and ELF magnetic fields induce tumor growth inhibition and apoptosis. Bioelectromagnetics 22:419–428. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]7. Coates, A. , Abraham S., Kaye S. B., Sowerbutts T., Frewin C., Fox R. M., et al. 1983. On the receiving end–patient perception of the side‐effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur. J. Cancer Clin. Oncol. 19:203–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]8. Schagen, S. B. , Muller M. J., Boogerd W., Mellenbergh G. J., and van Dam F. S.. 2006. Change in cognitive function after chemotherapy: a prospective longitudinal study in breast cancer patients. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 98:1742–1745. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]9. Winocur, G. , Vardy J., Binns M. A., Kerr L., and Tannock I.. 2006. The effects of the anti‐cancer drugs, methotrexate and 5‐fluorouracil, on cognitive function in mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 85:66–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]10. Reiriz, A. B. , Reolon G. K., Preissler T., Rosado J. O., Henriques J. A., Roesler R., et al. 2006. Cancer chemotherapy and cognitive function in rodent models: memory impairment induced by cyclophosphamide in mice. Clin. Cancer Res. 12:5000; author reply 00‐1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]11. Joshi, G. , Sultana R., Tangpong J., Cole M. P., St Clair D. K., Vore M., et al. 2005. Free radical mediated oxidative stress and toxic side effects in brain induced by the anti cancer drug adriamycin: insight into chemobrain. Free Radic. Res. 39:1147–1154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]12. Belldegrun, A. , Webb D. E., Austin H. A. III, Steinberg S. M., White D. E., Linehan W. M., et al. 1987. Effects of interleukin‐2 on renal function in patients receiving immunotherapy for advanced cancer. Ann. Intern. Med. 106:817–822. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]13. al‐Mefty, O. , Kersh J. E., Routh A., and Smith R. R.. 1990. The long‐term side effects of radiation therapy for benign brain tumors in adults. J. Neurosurg. 73:502–512. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]14. Stege, R. 2000. Potential side‐effects of endocrine treatment of long duration in prostate cancer. Prostate Suppl. 10:38–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]15. Barbault, A. , Costa F. P., Bottger B., Munden R. F., Bomholt F., Kuster N., et al. 2009. 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. 28:51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]16. Evangelou, A. , Toliopoulos I., Giotis C., Metsios A., Verginadis I., Simos Y., et al. 2011. Functionality of natural killer cells from end‐stage cancer patients exposed to resonant electromagnetic fields. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 30:46–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]17. Ronchetto, F. , Barone D., Cintorino M., Berardelli M., Lissolo S., Orlassino R., et al. 2004. Extremely low frequency‐modulated static magnetic fields to treat cancer: a pilot study on patients with advanced neoplasm to assess safety and acute toxicity. Bioelectromagnetics 25:563–571. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]18. Kirson, E. D. , Dbaly V., Tovarys F., Vymazal J., Soustiel J. F., Itzhaki A., et al. 2007. Alternating electric fields arrest cell proliferation in animal tumor models and human brain tumors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:10152–10157. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]19. Committee on the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the American Public . 2005. Pp. 1–360. Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]20. Weiger, W. A. , Smith M., Boon H., Richardson M. A., Kaptchuk T. J., and Eisenberg D. M.. 2002. Advising patients who seek complementary and alternative medical therapies for cancer. Ann. Intern. Med. 137:889–903. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]21. Adams, J. , Sibbritt D. W., Easthope G., and Young A. F.. 2003. The profile of women who consult alternative health practitioners in Australia. Med. J. Aust. 179:297–300. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]22. Chrystal, K. , Allan S., Forgeson G., and Isaacs R.. 2003. The use of complementary/alternative medicine by cancer patients in a New Zealand regional cancer treatment centre. N. Z. Med. J. 116:U296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]23. Lee, M. M. , Chang J. S., Jacobs B., and Wrensch M. R.. 2002. Complementary and alternative medicine use among men with prostate cancer in 4 ethnic populations. Am. J. Public Health 92:1606–1609. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]24. Eisenberg, D. M. , Davis R. B., Ettner S. L., Appel S., Wilkey S., Van Rompay M., et al. 1998. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990‐1997: results of a follow‐up national survey. JAMA 280:1569–1575. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]25. Chang, K. H. , Brodie R., Choong M. A., Sweeney K. J., and Kerin M.. 2011. Complementary and alternative medicine use in oncology: a questionnaire survey of patients and health care professionals. BMC Cancer 11:196. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]26. Barrie, R. C. , and Deng G.. 2004. Complementary and alternative therapies for cancer. Oncologist 9:80–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]27. Zimmerman, J. W. , Jimenez H., Pennison M. J., Brezovich I., Morgan D., Mudry A., et al. 2013. Targeted treatment of cancer with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields amplitude‐modulated at tumor‐specific frequencies. Chin. J. Cancer 32:573–581. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]28. Lu, W. , Dean‐Clower E., Doherty‐Gilman A., and Rosenthal D. S.. 2008. The value of acupuncture in cancer care. Hematol. Oncol. Clin. North Am. 22:631–648, viii. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]29. Azeemi, S. T. , and Raza S. M.. 2005. A critical analysis of chromotherapy and its scientific evolution. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2:481–488. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]30. Miles, P. 2007. Reiki for mind, body, and spirit support of cancer patients. Adv. Mind Body Med. 22:20–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]31. Iannitti, T. , Fistetto G., Esposito A., Rottigni V., and Palmieri B.. 2013. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for management of osteoarthritis‐related pain, stiffness and physical function: clinical experience in the elderly. Clin. Interv. Aging 8:1289–1293. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]32. Vadala, M. , Vallelunga A., Palmieri L., Palmieri B., Morales‐Medina J. C., and Iannitti T.. 2015. Mechanisms and therapeutic applications of electromagnetic therapy in Parkinson’s disease. Behav. Brain Funct. 11:26. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]33. Ryang We, S. , Koog Y. H., Jeong K. I., and Wi H.. 2013. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field on knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford) 52:815–824. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]34. Strauch, B. , Herman C., Dabb R., Ignarro L. J., and Pilla A. A.. 2009. Evidence‐based use of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in clinical plastic surgery. Aesthet. Surg. J. 29:135–143. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]35. Elson, E. I. 2009. The little explored efficacy of magnetic fields in cancer treatment and postulation of the mechanism of action. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 28:275–282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]36. Repacholi, M. H. , and Greenebaum B.. 1999. Interaction of static and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields with living systems: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics 20:133–160. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]37. Organization WH . Electromagnetic fields and public health exposure to extremely low frequency fields. 2012.38. Crocetti, S. , Beyer C., Schade G., Egli M., Frohlich J., and Franco‐Obregon A.. 2013. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One 8:e72944. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]39. Cameron, I. L. , Sun L. Z., Short N., Hardman W. E., and Williams C. D.. 2005. Therapeutic electromagnetic field (TEMF) and gamma irradiation on human breast cancer xenograft growth, angiogenesis and metastasis. Cancer Cell Int. 5:23. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]40. Zimmerman, J. W. , Pennison M. J., Brezovich I., Yi N., Yang C. T., Ramaker R., et al. 2012. Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies. Br. J. Cancer 106:307–313. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]41. Morabito, C. , Guarnieri S., Fano G., and Mariggio M. A.. 2010. Effects of acute and chronic low frequency electromagnetic field exposure on PC12 cells during neuronal differentiation. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 26:947–958. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]42. Chen, Y. C. , Chen C. C., Tu W., Cheng Y. T., and Tseng F. G.. 2010. Design and fabrication of a microplatform for the proximity effect study of localized ELF‐EMF on the growth of in vitro HeLa and PC‐12 cells. J. Micromech. Microeng. 20:12 [Google Scholar]43. Tuffet, S. , de Seze R., Moreau J. M., and Veyret B.. 1993. Effects of a strong pulsed magnetic field on the proliferation of tumour cells in vitro. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 30:151–160. [Google Scholar]44. Sadeghipour, R. , Ahmadian S., Bolouri B., Pazhang Y., and Shafiezadeh M.. 2012. Effects of extremely low‐frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields on morphological and biochemical properties of human breast carcinoma cells (T47D). Electromagn. Biol. Med. 31:425–435. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]45. Loja, T. , Stehlikova O., Palko L., Vrba K., Rampl I., and Klabusay M.. 2014. Influence of pulsed electromagnetic and pulsed vector magnetic potential field on the growth of tumor cells. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 33:190–197. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]46. Fang, M. , Zhang H., and Xue S.. 1998. Role of calcium in apoptosis of HL‐60 cells induced by harringtonine. Sci. China C Life Sci. 41:600–607. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]47. da Silva, C. P. , de Oliveira C. R., da Conceicao M., and de Lima P.. 1996. Apoptosis as a mechanism of cell death induced by different chemotherapeutic drugs in human leukemic T‐lymphocytes. Biochem. Pharmacol. 51:1331–1340. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]48. Zhang, X. , Zhang H., Zheng C., Li C., and Xiong W.. 2002. Extremely low frequency (ELF) pulsed‐gradient magnetic fields inhibit malignant tumour growth at different biological levels. Cell Biol. Int. 26:599–603. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]49. Harris, P. A. , Lamb J., Heaton B., and Wheatley D. N.. 2002. Possible attenuation of the G2 DNA damage cell cycle checkpoint in HeLa cells by extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. Cancer Cell Int. 2:3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]50. DeHaven, C. 2014. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy effects on the skin. Plast. Surg. Nurs. 34:192–195. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]51. Corcos, D . 2013. Toward a universal treatment for cancer: cell inflation assisted chemotherapy. Cancer Med. 2:421–426. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]52. Barton‐Burke, M. , Wilkes G. M., and Ingwersen K.. 2001. P. 778 inCancer chemotherapy: a nursing process approach. Jones & Bartlett Learning Publishers. [Google Scholar]53. Barton‐Burke, M. , and Wilkes G. M.. 2004. Pp. 1–376 inCancer therapies. Jones & Bartlett Learning Publishers. [Google Scholar]54. Crocetti, S. , Piantelli F., and Leonzio C.. 2011. Selective destabilization of tumor cells with pulsed electric and magnetic sequences: a preliminary report. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 30:128–135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]55. Costa, F. P. , de Oliveira A. C., Meirelles R., Machado M. C., Zanesco T., Surjan R., et al. 2011. Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude‐modulated electromagnetic fields. Br. J. Cancer 105:640–648. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]56. Radeva, M. , and Berg H.. 2004. Differences in lethality between cancer cells and human lymphocytes caused by LF‐electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 25:503–507. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]57. Koh, E. K. , Ryu B. K., Jeong D. Y., Bang I. S., Nam M. H., and Chae K. S.. 2008. A 60‐Hz sinusoidal magnetic field induces apoptosis of prostate cancer cells through reactive oxygen species. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 84:945–955. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]58. Filipovic, N. D. T. , Radovic M., Cvetkovic D., Curcic M., Markovic S., Peulic A., et al. 2014. Electromagnetic field investigation on different cancer cell lines. Cancer Cell Int. 14:1–10. [Google Scholar]59. Swanson, K. R. , Bridge C., Murray J. D., and Alvord E. C. Jr.. 2003. Virtual and real brain tumors: using mathematical modeling to quantify glioma growth and invasion. J. Neurol. Sci. 216:1–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]60. Filipovic, N. D. , Peulic A. S., Zdravkovic N. D., Grbovic‐Markovic V. M., and Jurisic‐Skevin A. J.. 2011. Transient finite element modeling of functional electrical stimulation. Gen. Physiol. Biophys. 30:59–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]61. Simko, M. 2007. Cell type specific redox status is responsible for diverse electromagnetic field effects. Curr. Med. Chem. 14:1141–1152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]62. Coskun, S. , Balabanli B., Canseven A., and Seyhan N.. 2009. Effects of continuous and intermittent magnetic fields on oxidative parameters in vivo. Neurochem. Res. 34:238–243. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]63. Grassi, C. , D’Ascenzo M., Torsello A., Martinotti G., Wolf F., Cittadini A., et al. 2004. Effects of 50 Hz electromagnetic fields on voltage‐gated Ca2+ channels and their role in modulation of neuroendocrine cell proliferation and death. Cell Calcium 35:307–315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]64. Liboff, A. R. , Cherng S., Jenrow K. A., and Bull A.. 2003. Calmodulin‐dependent cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase activity is altered by 20 microT magnetostatic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 24:32–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]65. Manikonda, P. K. , Rajendra P., Devendranath D., Gunasekaran B., Channakeshava B., Aradhya R. S., et al. 2007. Influence of extremely low frequency magnetic fields on Ca2+ signaling and NMDA receptor functions in rat hippocampus. Neurosci. Lett. 413:145–149. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]66. Morabito, C. , Rovetta F., Bizzarri M., Mazzoleni G., Fano G., and Mariggio M. A.. 2010. Modulation of redox status and calcium handling by extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields in C2C12 muscle cells: a real‐time, single‐cell approach. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 48:579–589. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]67. Vyklicky, L., Jr. . 1993. Calcium‐mediated modulation of N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate (NMDA) responses in cultured rat hippocampal neurones. J. Physiol. 470:575–600. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]68. Mariggiò, M. A ., C. Morabito , G. Fanò Illic’ , F. Cuccurullo , C. Di Ilio . 2006. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and oxidative stress in excitable cell lines. Biol. Eff. Electromagn. Fields 4(1):1043–1050. [Google Scholar]69. Barrera‐Garcia, A. , O’Hara T., Galvan‐Magana F., Mendez‐Rodriguez L. C., Castellini J. M., and Zenteno‐Savin T.. 2013. Trace elements and oxidative stress indicators in the liver and kidney of the blue shark (Prionace glauca). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 165:483–490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]70. Nicotera, P. , and Orrenius S.. 1998. The role of calcium in apoptosis. Cell Calcium 23:173–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]71. Bito, H. , Deisseroth K., and Tsien R. W.. 1997. Ca2+‐dependent regulation in neuronal gene expression. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 7:419–429. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]72. Morgado‐Valle, C. , Verdugo‐Diaz L., Garcia D. E., Morales‐Orozco C., and Drucker‐Colin R.. 1998. The role of voltage‐gated Ca2+ channels in neurite growth of cultured chromaffin cells induced by extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic field stimulation. Cell Tissue Res. 291:217–230. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]73. Dolmetsch, R. E. , Pajvani U., Fife K., Spotts J. M., and Greenberg M. E.. 2001. Signaling to the nucleus by an L‐type calcium channel‐calmodulin complex through the MAP kinase pathway. Science 294:333–339. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]74. Ingraham, C. A. , and Schor N. F.. 2009. Necdin and TrkA contribute to modulation by p75NTR of resistance to oxidant stress. Exp. Cell Res. 315:3532–3542. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]75. Wang, Z. , Yang P., Xu H., Qian A., Hu L., and Shang P.. 2009. Inhibitory effects of a gradient static magnetic field on normal angiogenesis. Bioelectromagnetics 30:446–453. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]76. Tofani, S. , Cintorino M., Barone D., Berardelli M., De Santi M. M., Ferrara A., et al. 2002. Increased mouse survival, tumor growth inhibition and decreased immunoreactive p53 after exposure to magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 23:230–238. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]77. Williams, C. D. , Markov M. S., Hardman W. E., and Cameron I. L.. 2001. Therapeutic electromagnetic field effects on angiogenesis and tumor growth. Anticancer Res. 21(6A):3887–3891. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]78. Yamaguchi, S. , Ogiue‐Ikeda M., Sekino M., and Ueno S.. 2006. Effects of pulsed magnetic stimulation on tumor development and immune functions in mice. Bioelectromagnetics 27:64–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]79. Tofani, S. , Barone D., Peano S., Ossola P., Ronchetto F., and Cintorino M.. 2002. Anticancer activity by magnetic fields: inhibition of metastatic spread and growth in a breast cancer model. Trans. Plasma Sci. 30:1552–1557. [Google Scholar]80. Berg, H. , Gunther B., Hilger I., Radeva M., Traitcheva N., and Wollweber L.. 2010. Bioelectromagnetic field effects on cancer cells and mice tumors. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29:132–143. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]81. Pinkas, J. , and Leder P.. 2002. MEK1 signaling mediates transformation and metastasis of EpH4 mammary epithelial cells independent of an epithelial to mesenchymal transition. Cancer Res. 62:4781–4790. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]82. Reichmann, E. , Schwarz H., Deiner E. M., Leitner I., Eilers M., Berger J., et al. 1992. Activation of an inducible c‐FosER fusion protein causes loss of epithelial polarity and triggers epithelial‐fibroblastoid cell conversion. Cell 71:1103–1116. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]83. Pinkas, J. , Martin S. S., and Leder P.. 2004. Bcl‐2‐mediated cell survival promotes metastasis of EpH4 betaMEKDD mammary epithelial cells. Mol. Cancer Res. 2:551–556. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]84. Iorns, E. , Drews‐Elger K., Ward T. M., Dean S., Clarke J., Berry D., et al. 2012. A new mouse model for the study of human breast cancer metastasis. PLoS One 7:e47995. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]85. Tatarov, I. , Panda A., Petkov D., Kolappaswamy K., Thompson K., Kavirayani A., et al. 2011. Effect of magnetic fields on tumor growth and viability. Comp. Med. 61:339–345. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]86. Heindryckx, F. , Colle I., and Van Vlierberghe H.. 2009. Experimental mouse models for hepatocellular carcinoma research. Int. J. Exp. Pathol. 90:367–386. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]87. Goldfarb, S. , Pugh T. D., Koen H., and He Y. Z.. 1983. Preneoplastic and neoplastic progression during hepatocarcinogenesis in mice injected with diethylnitrosamine in infancy. Environ. Health Perspect. 50:149–161. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]88. Koen, H. , Pugh T. D., and Goldfarb S.. 1983. Centrilobular distribution of diethylnitrosamine‐induced hepatocellular foci in the mouse. Lab. Invest. 49:78–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]89. Newell, P. , Villanueva A., Friedman S. L., Koike K., and Llovet J. M.. 2008. Experimental models of hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Hepatol. 48:858–879. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]90. Leenders, M. W. , Nijkamp M. W., and Borel Rinkes I. H.. 2008. Mouse models in liver cancer research: a review of current literature. World J. Gastroenterol. 14:6915–6923. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]91. Emara, S. O. , EL‐Kholy S. M., Kazem A. H., Hussein N. A., and Shams Al‐dein R. S.. 2013. Therapeutic effects of low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields on rat liver cancer. Res. Inventy Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2:17–18. [Google Scholar]92. Overwijk, W. W. , and Restifo N. P.. 2001. B16 as a mouse model for human melanoma. Curr. Protoc. Immunol. Chapter 20:Unit 20.1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]93. Chen, X. , James Swanson R., Kolb J. F., Nuccitelli R., and Schoenbach K. H.. 2009. Histopathology of normal skin and melanomas after nanosecond pulsed electric field treatment. Melanoma Res. 19:361–371. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]94. Kranjc, S. , Kranjc M., Scancar J., Jelenc J., Sersa G., and Miklavcic D.. 2016. Electrochemotherapy by pulsed electromagnetic field treatment (PEMF) in mouse melanoma B16F10 in vivo. Radiol. Oncol. 50:39–48. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]95. Nuccitelli, R. , Pliquett U., Chen X., Ford W., James Swanson R., Beebe S. J., et al. 2006. Nanosecond pulsed electric fields cause melanomas to self‐destruct. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 343:351–360. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]96. White, J. A. , Blackmore P. F., Schoenbach K. H., and Beebe S. J.. 2004. Stimulation of capacitative calcium entry in HL‐60 cells by nanosecond pulsed electric fields. J. Biol. Chem. 279:22964–22972. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]97. Beebe, S. J. , Fox P., Rec L. J., Somers K., Stark R. H., and Schoenbach K. H.. 2002. Nanosecond pulsed electric field (nsPEF) effects on cells and tissues: apoptosis induction and tumor growth inhibition. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 30:286–292. [Google Scholar]98. Beebe, S. J. , Blackmore P. F., White J., Joshi R. P., and Schoenbach K. H.. 2004. Nanosecond pulsed electric fields modulate cell function through intracellular signal transduction mechanisms. Physiol. Meas. 25:1077–1093. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]99. Beebe, S. J. , Fox P. M., Rec L. J., Willis E. L., and Schoenbach K. H.. 2003. Nanosecond, high‐intensity pulsed electric fields induce apoptosis in human cells. FASEB J. 17:1493–1495. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]100. Nuccitelli, R. , Tran K., Sheikh S., Athos B., Kreis M., and Nuccitelli P.. 2010. Optimized nanosecond pulsed electric field therapy can cause murine malignant melanomas to self‐destruct with a single treatment. Int. J. Cancer 127:1727–1736. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]101. Thomas, M. B. , and Zhu A. X.. 2005. Hepatocellular carcinoma: the need for progress. J. Clin. Oncol. 23:2892–2899. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]102. Costa, F. , de Oliveira A. C., Meirelles R., Zanesco T., Surjan R., Chammas M., et al. 2007. A phase II study of amplitude‐modulated electromagnetic fields in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). J. Clin. Oncol. meeting abstract(25):15155. [Google Scholar]103. Kirson, E. D. , Gurvich Z., Schneiderman R., Dekel E., Itzhaki A., Wasserman Y., et al. 2004. Disruption of cancer cell replication by alternating electric fields. Cancer Res. 64:3288–3295. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]104. Nuccitelli, R. , Chen X., Pakhomov A. G., Baldwin W. H., Sheikh S., Pomicter J. L., et al. 2009. A new pulsed electric field therapy for melanoma disrupts the tumor’s blood supply and causes complete remission without recurrence. Int. J. Cancer 125:438–445. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]105. Majidian Eydgahi, S. , Baharara J., Zafar Balanezhad S., and Asadi Samani M.. 2015. The synergic effect of glycyrrhizic acid and low frequency electromagnetic field on angiogenesis in chick chorioallantoic membrane. Avicenna J. Phytomed. 5:174–181. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]