Osteopathy as a complementary/alternative medicine for breast cancer: a Canadian case study and comprehensive review

Figures & data

Table 1. Studies characteristics (n = 5).

Study	Country	Objective(s)	N	Age (mean)	Control group	Cancer phase	Questionnaires administered for pain	Reason(s) for osteopathic treatment use	Osteopathy measures/techniques employed	Number of osteopathic consultations	Efficacy of osteopathic treatments	Ref.
Arienti et al. (2018)	Italy	1) Study the effect of osteopathic manipulation on pain relief and quality of life improvement in hospitalized oncology geriatric patients	23	76.5 years	Post-surgical cancer patients who underwent only physiotherapy treatment	Post-surgical Treatment	NRS	1) Pain relief 2) Improvement of quality of life	1) Dorsal, lumbar and cervical spine soft tissue 2) Rib raising 3) Back, abdominal and sacroiliac myofascial release 4) Suboccipital decompression	4 (once every week for 4 weeks)	1) Efficient for pain relief 2) Nonefficient for improvement in quality of life	[58]
Chvetzoff et al. (2019)	France	1) Examine intensity of pain post-mastectomy (3-month EVA) 2) Examine pain (EVA) at 6 and 12 months	28	50.0 years	N/A	Treatment	Pain intensity measured by VAS (mean VAS over the past week)	1) Reduce the intensity of post-mastectomy pain syndrome	1) Analgesic techniques (Jones technique) 2) Muscular techniques (Mitchell technique) 3) Myofascial techniques (functional techniques)	5 (each spaced 2 to 3 weeks apart)	1) Efficient for quality of life and depression 2) Nonconclusive for pain	[59]
De Groef et al. (2018)	Belgium	1) Investigate the effect of myofascial therapy in addition to a standard physical therapy program for treatment of persistent arm pain after finishing breast cancer treatment	50	53.3 years	Receiving a standard physical therapy program and placebo therapy	Treatment	1) Pain intensity was assessed with the VAS 2) The McGill pain questionnaire 3) Pain rating index (PRI)	1) Persistent arm pain after breast cancer treatment	1) Passive mobilizations of the shoulder to improve passive and active shoulder ROM 2) Stretching of pectoral muscles to improve muscle flexibility and passive and active shoulder ROM 3) Scar tissue massage to improve flexibility of the scar(s) 4) Myofascial therapy (active myofascial trigger points at the upper body and on myofascial adhesions in the pectoral, axillary and cervical region, diaphragm and scars)	20 (week 1–8 two sessions per week, week 9–12 one session per week)	1) Further research should explore the effectiveness of myofascial therapy in different groups of breast cancer survivors with different underlying pain mechanisms	[60]
Goyal et al. (2017)	India	1) Explore the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment on post-mastectomy lymphedema induced disabilities	1	55.0 years	N/A	Treatment	VAS for pain measurement	1) Pain in the upper thoracic spine, cervical spine and shoulder region	1) Diaphragm’s release namely pelvic diaphragm, abdominal diaphragm, thoracic outlet release (caudo-lateral MFR on bilateral supraclavicular fossa by thumb) 2) Hyoid diaphragm release	10 (2 sessions per week for 5 weeks)	1) Efficient for post-mastectomy lymphedema	[61]
Lagrange et al. (2019)	France	1) Determine the impact of visceral osteopathy on the incidence of nausea/vomiting, constipation, and overall quality of life in women who have undergone surgery for breast cancer and undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy	93	57.2 years	Patients who received a superficial/soft tissue manipulation without action on deeper chest wall and abdominal structures	Treatment	N/A	1) Reduce nausea and vomiting occurring during chemotherapy	1) Recisceral manipulation consisting of chest wall and diaphragm muscle relaxation through manual thoracic compression	3 (during the 15 minutes after the 3 initial cycles of FEC 100-Taxotere chemotherapy)	1) Nonefficient for reducing nausea and vomiting in women who have undergone surgery for breast cancer and undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. 2) Efficient for quality of life	[62]

FEC: Fluoracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide; MFR: Myofascial release; N/A: Not applicable; NRS: Numeric Rating Scale; ROM: Range of motion; VAS: Visual analogue scale.

Arienti C , Bosisio T , Ratti S , Miglioli R , Negrini S . Osteopathic manipulative treatment effect on pain relief and quality of life in oncology geriatric patients: a nonrandomized controlled clinical trial. Integr. Cancer Ther. 17(4), 1163–1171 (2018).

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chvetzoff G , Berthier A , Blanc E , Millaret A , Cropet C , Pérol D . Osteopathy for chronic pain after breast cancer surgery: a monocentric randomised study. Bulletin du Cancer 106(5), 436–446 (2019).

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Groef A , Van Kampen M , Vervloesem N et al. Effect of myofascial techniques for treatment of persistent arm pain after breast cancer treatment: randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 32(4), 451–461 (2018).

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Goyal M , Goyal K , Narkeesh K , Samuel AJ , Arumugam N . Osteopathic manipulative treatment for post mastectomy lymphedema: a case report. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 21(3), 569–573 (2017).

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Lagrange A , Decoux D , Briot N et al. Visceral osteopathic manipulative treatment reduces patient reported digestive toxicities induced by adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a randomized controlled clinical study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 241, 49–55 (2019).

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar