Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy (PEMF) and Cancer

Although PEMF therapy is not usually recommended as a sole treatment for cancer, it can be a beneficial piece of the puzzle.

There is no perfect solution to cancer and each course of treatment is unique to the individual.


No Such Thing as a Cure for Cancer


Cancer is a chronic disease.

Even if a physician declares you are “cured” (this is usually defined as surviving five years beyond diagnosis), it is necessary to be vigilant about monitoring your body for the rest of your life to ensure cancer does not return.

It is definitely possible to enter a long-term state of remission following your diagnosis.

Unfortunately, the majority of cancer victims do not make it to 5 years, let alone 10 or 15, beyond their original diagnosis.

Because of this grim diagnosis, the scientific community continues to search for a true cure for cancer.

Although it is crucial to find a cure, the true issue is finding a way to make the current therapies and treatment methods as efficient as possible, improve the patient’s quality of life, and prolong the effectiveness of treatments.

In many cases, traditional cancer treatment is extremely harsh.

This causes patients to be sick and miserable and has a significant impact on their quality of life.

Worse yet, even after enduring brutal treatments, the results can still be uncertain and unpredictable in many cases.


Enhancing Standard Therapies and Treatments with PEMFs


The big question is how to make current medical therapies and treatments more effective and predictable.

PEMF and cancer may be a successful combination when it comes to enhancing the value of current therapies.

Although the research surrounding the use of PEMF therapy as a mode of treatment for cancer is still minimal, the same can be said of the majority of standard medical treatments.

Given this fact, it seems there is no harm in approaching PEMF and cancer together.

Traditional medical therapies are often lacking in adequate research and have a certain level of unknowns.

However, since they are authorized by the medical community and society, they are still accepted even though they are often ineffective.

Because PEMF therapy is not widely accepted and since the science around it is lacking, it is difficult to convince most physicians or medical professionals that the treatment should be implemented.

Most doctors are completely unaware of the capabilities of PEMF therapy and have no desire to explore the potential benefits of it.

Similarly, most physicians are also unwilling to consider the nutritional facet of managing cancer.

As a result of the medical community’s resistance to alternative treatments, the majority of cancer sufferers are left to navigate unorthodox treatments on their own.

To further understand the potential applications of PEMF therapy, additional information can be gathered from two recent studies.

One of the studies was completed on animals and the other on humans.

A fair amount of conventional medical oncology relies on animals studies if human studies are unavailable.

Since the outcome of animals studies does not always apply to humans, it is important to be hesitant when basing conclusions off of animal studies.

However, most people would agree that individuals are responsible for their own health and therefore are allowed to make treatment decisions as they see fit.


Human Study


In the human study completed in China (Han JQ, Liu Q, Sun CT, Yao J, Zhao B, Wang H. Efficacy and safety of low-frequency rotary magnetic fields in the treatment of patients with advanced malignant tumors. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2013 Jun;35(6):468-71) magnetic fields were studied as a form of treatment for patients with advanced forms of various cancers. (1)

This particular study analyzed 137 patients with advanced malignant tumors.

These patients were exposed to a sinusoidal magnetic field of around 7 Hz, at 4000 Gauss, for 2 hours a day for approximately 30 to 50 days.

The outcome was a clinical benefit of 60 percent.

28 patients displayed a complete response while 54 patients experienced a partial response.

The median overall survival rate was one year.

The other survival rates were as follows: 1 year was 47 percent, 2 years was 11.8 percent, and 3 years was 3.4 percent.

Complications from the treatment were minimal and there were zero treatment-related deaths.

Unfortunately, individuals with advanced stages of cancer experienced survival rates that were quite poor.

If the treatment is capable of comfortably improving the quality of life, it could be extremely beneficial.

Ultimately, the particular PEMF utilized in the study appears to have raised the quality of life for many of the victims and also prolonged survival in some cases.

It is widely understood in the medical community that people suffering from advanced stages of cancer do quite poorly.

Medical therapies in these cases are almost entirely experimental and therefore produce poor results.

While commercially available PEMFs differ from the ones used in the study, there are PEMF systems with comparable intensities and similar frequencies.

The pitfall of these devices is that they are typically quite expensive and need to be used for significant periods of time (often for 2 hours a day each day for several months or possibly the rest of a patient’s life).

It is unknown if extended treatment (beyond 30 to 50 days as seen in the study) could have produced an even better outcome.

Nonetheless, the study’s results are quite impressive, especially given the short duration of treatment.

Since PEMF therapy is often performed in physician’s offices, the duration of treatment is likely too short.

Even if the PEMF devices available are not completely comparable to those utilized in this study, available devices may have the capability to produce similar results.

Overall, there is no harm, as evidenced in this study, in attempting this therapy.

It is believed that patients using PEMF devices at home on a consistent, long-term basis are far more comfortable regardless of their choice of traditional therapy (or lack thereof).


Animal Study


Another study (Wu S, Wang Y, Guo J, Chen Q, Zhang J, Fang J. Nanosecond pulsed electric fields as a novel drug-free therapy for breast cancer: An in vivo study.Cancer Lett. 2013 Oct 4. S0304-3835(13)00701-5) tested the effectiveness of pulsed electric fields on breast cancer in mice. (2)

Electric fields possess both electric and magnetic aspects.

The study used extremely short pulse length pulsed electric fields that did not create enough heat to destroy tissue.

The frequency used was 4 hertz. After two weeks of treatment, tumor growth was suppressed by 79 percent.

The study used an MRI to assess the physical alterations in the tumors.

A variety of growth factors, including the production of new blood vessels, was strongly suppressed.

As a control measure, the normal skin was subjected to the same treatment as the tumors.

The normal skin showed no permanent changes.

This indicated that tumors respond differently to PEMF therapy than the normal skin.

The results imply that short pulse electromagnetic fields possess the potential to suppress blood vessel growth in tumors and halt breast cancer development.




These 2 studies demonstrate the significant potential that PEMF may possess in treating cancer patients regardless of the stage of cancer they are fighting.

It is imperative to complete additional research in order to determine the optimal signals and approaches.

Although it is impossible for anyone to tell you what the best option is, it is still important to be aware of PEMF therapy and its potential benefits.

It is possible that PEMF therapy could be a beneficial addition to standard cancer treatments.

Although there is no perfect solution, PEMF may be an excellent option to consider in addition to any other cancer treatments a patient wishes to pursue.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual to determine if PEMF therapy might be a worthwhile approach to addressing cancer.

FDA Compliance

The information on this website has not been evaluated by the Food & Drug Administration or any other medical body. We do not aim to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any illness or disease. Information is shared for educational purposes only. You must consult your doctor before acting on any content on this website, especially if you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition.


1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)