Abstract
Dear Editor,
We read with great interest the recent study by van Wietmarschen et al. 1 titled “Metabolic Effects of Healing Touch During Cervical Cancer Treatment: An Exploratory Analysis,” exploring possible reasons that Healing Touch benefits cervical cancer patients based on blood metabolites. The authors measured 884 kinds of metabolites, then indicated the positive effect is potentially consistent with acylcarnitine and fatty acid metabolism intervention differences. This appears to be the first research on the application of Healing Touch in cancer. Overall, elucidating these biological mechanisms holds significant guiding value for developing subsequent therapeutic strategies. However, we respectfully propose the following suggestions for consideration.
Firstly, the grouping criteria need to be optimized. We notice that there is a significant difference in the proportion of patients with different FIGO stages among the groups. Most patients in the Healing Touch (HT) group are stage IBⅠ and IIB, while patients in the Relaxation Therapy (RT) group are concentrated in stage IIB. Although the authors reported no differences in the metabolite profiles between the groups at baseline, we believe the stage of cancer makes difference in metabolism. Current research has suggested that changes in lipid metabolites are potentially associated with the progression of cervical cancer. 2 If conditions allow the conduct of studies with a larger sample size in the future, patients of each stage should be assigned to a separate group.
Furthermore, blood pressure measurements were taken as the indicator for assessing relaxation levels, which is worthy of further discussion. Existing research has shown connection between blood pressure and trait measures of sensitivity to social pain. 3 As some parts of HT and RT don’t involve physical touch, but rather function by restoring the patients’ energy system, we surmise that the factors affecting changes in blood pressure are not limited to the extent of relaxation. Researchers may prefer more intuitive and accurate evaluation method such as heart rate variability and electroencephalogram.
Finally, of all the patients included in the study, 97.7% are Caucasian. This bias in terms of race may also cause result deviation, especially when monitored indicators involve mental health conditions. As different races of patients vary in culture and national conditions, they may have different attitudes towards HT treatment. We recommend future studies to cover a broader range of patients with diverse ethnicities and cultures if possible, to determine whether HT is equally effective for different populations.
In conclusion, we deeply appreciate the authors for proposing and exploring a new perspective on how Healing Touch treatment could benefit cancer patients. However, we suggest future research to improve grouping criteria, variable control method and expand patients’ quantity and range. We hope our comments may offer valid references for future researchers to achieve greater clinical significance.
