Last edited: October 30, 2026
Research on physical cancer treatments encompasses a wide variety of methods. I, Herbert Eder, aims to highlight their differences: cold plasma applied to tissue, electric fields generated by electrodes, and an experimental plasma generator each address their own specific questions. Only by considering the specific application can the potential benefits of a treatment be assessed.
Frequency therapy When it comes to cancer, this may sound like a common concept, but the treatments offered involve very different approaches. For your decision, the key question is more specific: Which device was used on which patients, and what improvements were observed compared to an appropriate comparator treatment? Demonstrating a physical effect and demonstrating a health benefit are two distinct tasks. [1]
Research deserves careful consideration. This involves identifying promising results while acknowledging their limitations. The focus here, therefore, is on the path from an experiment to a verifiable treatment and on the question of which future promises are already viable today. Enthusiasm alone is not enough to predict the future effectiveness of a particular device.
The procedure under investigation must be clearly identified
In the case of pulsed electromagnetic fields, or PEMF for short, varying Magnetic fields produced. For certain applications outside the Cancer treatment, such as specific indications for pain or bone healing, have their own research and regulatory contexts. These do not constitute general validation of all magnetic devices, much less proof of an effect on tumors. [2]
The intended use, target audience, and specific conditions of use are also factors in the regulatory assessment of a medical device. The U.S. FDA evaluates the benefits and risks in this context and requires appropriate scientific evidence. A positive assessment of a device is therefore not a characteristic that can be applied to an entire marketing claim. [1]
So when you’re presented with a list of studies, start by comparing the device names. Do the model, type of energy transmission, and location of use match the procedure being offered? Was your specific condition studied? Is the method being offered in addition to a treatment or in place of it? This assessment alone can help you determine which publication actually answers your specific question.
A specific laboratory example: Cold plasma in tissue models
A study published in 2025 examined the kINPen plasma jet on hydrogels, tumor organoids, and animal and human tissue. The researchers analyzed how reactive components of the plasma penetrate these models and damage tumor cells. This provides insights into the mechanisms of action and the further development of the technology. The study did not involve a comparative treatment of cancer patients. [3]
Such models are helpful because they allow individual conditions to be specifically altered and examined. At the same time, the study itself describes the limitations of generalizing these findings: The composition of a tissue influences which reactive substances are produced and how they spread. Therefore, an effect measured in the model should not simply be interpreted as an identical effect in every organ. [3]
So when you see a headline like „Plasma Destroys Cancer Cells,“ be sure to read on to find out the experimental setup. Were the cells in a culture dish, tissue samples, or treated patients? An objective report will explicitly state this. A well-designed laboratory experiment provides a more precise—though not yet definitive—answer to the open question of the benefits for patients.
What an Initial Clinical Examination Can Achieve
In an early clinical study published in 2023, 20 people with advanced or recurrent solid tumors received treatment of their surgical margins with the Canady-Helios cold plasma system during surgery. The primary focus was on safety. The authors reported no adverse events attributable to the device. However, the small, heterogeneous group and the lack of a randomized comparison preclude any reliable general conclusions regarding a survival benefit. [4]
Early feasibility studies involving medical devices often begin by examining functionality, initial safety concerns, and necessary technical adjustments. This task is important, but it differs from a more comprehensive assessment of whether a treatment offers a significant advantage over the current approach. An early study is therefore a step in the development process and not a final, comprehensive assessment. [5]
The term „FDA-approved study“ must also be read carefully. An Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) in the United States allows for the clinical testing of a device under specified conditions in order to collect safety and efficacy data. Permission to conduct the study does not imply confirmation that the effect being tested has already been proven. [6]
Also, be sure to clarify which type of plasma is being referred to. Intraoperative use on exposed surgical margins cannot be confused with standing in front of a glowing Plasma tube equate. Without appropriate comparative data, the shared word element „Plasma“ does not support this transfer.
A random example: What PANOVA-3 actually tested
The PANOVA-3 study randomly assigned 571 people with inoperable, locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma to two groups: chemotherapy with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel, with or without Tumor Treating Fields. The median overall survival was 16.2 versus 14.2 months. At the same time, the study showed no benefit in terms of overall progression-free survival; skin reactions under the electrodes were common. [7]
These results pertain to a specific additional treatment in a precisely described clinical situation. They do not substantiate either cancer treatment without medication or the effectiveness of any frequency generators. The figures are group values from a study; they are not a prediction of an individual’s remaining life expectancy. [7]
This example shows what a helpful presentation of results looks like: It identifies the comparator treatment, the most important pre-specified endpoint, the observed difference, and the drawbacks. The phrase „scientifically investigated“ alone does not indicate whether a benefit was found, how large it was, or to whom it applies.
Examining Quality of Life and Tumor Response Separately
A fair comparison of treatments can have different goals: longer life, fewer symptoms, or a better quality of life. Random assignment to groups is intended to create comparable baseline conditions. Whenever possible, blinding prevents expectations or differences in behavior from skewing the results. The new treatment may prove to be better, equivalent, or less effective. [8]
A report on better sleep therefore first and foremost answers a question about sleep. The fact that the person reporting it has cancer does not make it proof of tumor regression. Conversely, a remedy for symptoms can be valuable without affecting the tumor. What matters is that the product or service promises exactly the benefit that was actually studied.
For any additional treatment that is important to you, set a clear goal—such as waking up less often at night or being able to perform a specific daily activity again. Discuss how this goal will be tracked and when you will evaluate it together. Such documentation can enhance the discussion; it is not a substitute for a controlled efficacy study.
RPZ15: Distinguish Between Manufacturer Specifications and Supporting Documentation
On its manufacturer's website, Z-Technology describes the RPZ15 as an experimental laboratory device and states that its products are not medical devices. This current self-declaration is essential for classifying a specific RPZ15 offering. [9]
The publications reviewed here do not provide controlled clinical evidence of the efficacy of the RPZ15 in treating cancer. This also applies to claims that the device prevents cancer, shortens recovery time, or reliably alleviates the side effects of cancer treatment. Studies on kINPen, Canady Helios, or Tumor Treating Fields do not close this evidence gap.
A CE mark alone does not clarify whether a product is a medical device. The guidance provided by BfArM explains that the CE marking may also be based on other European regulations. The relevant declaration of conformity, instructions for use, and intended use are the key factors. These should not be used to make a blanket assertion regarding carcinogenic effects. [10]
When new studies are cited, ask for the full title, the device version tested, the study registry, and the published results. The statement „in preparation“ does not indicate that a study has been completed. Especially in the case of successive models, the identity of the device that was actually tested should be unambiguous.
AI and personalization require their own evidence
For medical devices that use machine learning, the FDA, Health Canada, and the UK’s MHRA emphasize the need for transparent information regarding the intended use, training and test data, performance, risks, and known limitations. This includes identifying which patient groups lack data and how errors or declining performance are detected. Thus, a complex calculation is not exempt from the requirement to substantiate its results. [11]
Applied to the concept of a „personalized frequency profile,“ this raises the following questions: What measured data is included, and what is the output supposed to predict? Has this prediction been independently verified? Did selection based on this profile yield better results in a clinical trial than an appropriate comparison strategy? As long as these answers are lacking, „personalized“ initially refers to a selection method, not its proven benefit.
Even the announcement of a future AI feature does not alter the evidence regarding a device sold today. You can closely follow technological developments while still insisting that statements about current applications be based on current data.
Safety is an integral part of every research question
Magnetic therapies can interfere with devices such as pacemakers or insulin pumps, among other things. The NCCIH recommends a prior medical evaluation for individuals with pre-existing conditions or who are pregnant. Such warnings underscore why technical characteristics and personal circumstances must be evaluated together; „contactless“ or „low-intensity“ does not constitute a complete safety assessment. [2]
Furthermore, a small study with no observed serious complications does not prove that rare or long-term risks can be ruled out. Therefore, when evaluating a device, its benefits, potential harms, reliability, and conditions of use are considered together. Incomplete safety data should be identified as such. [1]
You should not attribute new headaches, weakness, or other symptoms solely to a supposed „detox.“ Seek a medical evaluation and keep a record of when the symptoms began. Interpreting these symptoms as a desired reaction should not be a reason to ignore any noticeable symptoms.
Unproven complementary therapies should neither replace nor delay effective cancer treatment. Discuss any planned complementary therapies with your oncology team so that potential risks and conflicts with your treatment plan can be evaluated. [12]
If you are interested in participating in a study
In Austria, there are regulated procedures for clinical trials of medical devices. The BASG requires, among other things, a final positive ethics committee approval for the relevant applications; the protocol and patient information must correspond to the approved versions. A treatment offered privately does not become a clinical trial simply by being labeled „experimental.“. [13]
A listing on ClinicalTrials.gov is a research tool, but not a seal of approval. The registry states that the submitting parties are responsible for the safety, scientific validity, and accuracy of their information. The U.S. government does not automatically review or approve the safety and scientific quality of all studies listed there. [14]
Participation does not guarantee any personal benefit. Eligibility depends, among other things, on your medical condition, the stage of your disease, previous treatments, and your overall health. Clinical trials are conducted precisely because it is not yet clear which treatment is more effective. Ask for an explanation of which group you might be assigned to and what additional burdens this may entail. [8]
Nehmen Sie zur Besprechung die konkrete Studiennummer mit. Fragen Sie nach dem verantwortlichen Zentrum, dem eigentlichen Studienziel, Alternativen außerhalb der Studie, zusätzlichen Terminen und dem Vorgehen bei Nebenwirkungen. Klären Sie auch, wie Ihre laufende Krebsbehandlung eingebunden bleibt. Eine nachvollziehbare Antwort auf diese Fragen ist eine tragfähigere Grundlage für Hoffnung als ein Versprechen, das sich nicht überprüfen lässt.
Meine Einordnung: Neue Technik braucht konkrete Patientendaten
Eine intraoperative Kaltplasmaanwendung und Tumor Treating Fields besitzen unterschiedliche technische Prinzipien und klinische Prüfprogramme. Die PANOVA-3-Ergebnisse betreffen eine zusätzliche Anwendung zu einer festgelegten Chemotherapie. Sie sind weder eine allgemeine Krebsheilung noch ein Nachweis für beliebige Plasmaröhren. [4] [7]
Auch KI oder ein persönliches Frequenzprofil ändern diesen Maßstab nicht. Eine Auswahl kann technisch individuell sein, ohne dadurch einen besseren Behandlungserfolg zu belegen. Entscheidend bleibt, ob die Auswahlstrategie mit unabhängigen Daten geprüft wurde und einen relevanten Vorteil gegenüber einer geeigneten Vergleichsstrategie zeigt. [11]
Ein aktuelles präklinisches Beispiel ist die MEMP-Tumorforschung im Mausmodell.
Den Überblick über unterschiedliche physikalische Ansätze ergänzt mein Beitrag zu elektrische und magnetische Krebsverfahren.
Sources and Further Information
- FDA: PMA Clinical Studies – Beurteilung von Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- NCCIH: Magnets For Pain – Verfahren und Sicherheit. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- Miebach et al. 2025: Gas plasma technology mediates deep tissue and anticancer events independently of hydrogen peroxide. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- Canady et al. 2023: Erste Phase-I-Untersuchung von Kaltplasma bei fortgeschrittenen soliden Tumoren. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- FDA: Early Feasibility Studies Program. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- FDA: Investigational Device Exemption. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- Babiker et al. 2025: PANOVA-3, randomisierte Phase-III-Studie zu Tumor Treating Fields. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- IQWiG: Soll ich an einer klinischen Studie teilnehmen?. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- Z-Technology: Aktueller Herstellerhinweis zum RPZ15 als experimentellem Laborgerät. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- BfArM: Leitfaden zu klinischen Prüfungen von Medizinprodukten, FAQ zur CE-Kennzeichnung. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- FDA, Health Canada und MHRA: Transparenzprinzipien für Medizinprodukte mit maschinellem Lernen. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- NCCIH: Cancer and Complementary Health Approaches. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- BASG: Klinische Prüfungen von Medizinprodukten und Leistungsstudien. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
- ClinicalTrials.gov: Hinweise zu Verantwortung und Prüfung der Studienangaben. Retrieved October 28, 2026.
Topic Overview: Research and Studies.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.