Complementary and integrative treatments, such as massage, acupuncture, and yoga, are used by increasing numbers of cancer patients to manage symptoms and improve their quality of life. In addition, such treatments may have other important and currently overlooked benefits by reducing tissue stiffness and improving mobility. Recent advances in cancer biology are underscoring the importance of connective tissue in the local tumor environment. Inflammation and fibrosis are well-recognized contributors to cancer, and connective tissue stiffness is emerging as a driving factor in tumor growth. Physical-based therapies have been shown to reduce connective tissue inflammation and fibrosis and thus may have direct beneficial effects on cancer spreading and metastasis. Meanwhile, there is currently little knowledge on potential risks of applying mechanical forces in the vicinity of tumors. Thus, both basic and clinical research are needed to understand the full impact of integrative oncology on cancer biology as well as whole person health. Cancer Res; 76(21); 6159–62. ©2016 AACR.

With early diagnosis and advanced treatment of cancer, an increasing number of patients survive long term, but many suffer consequences of their anticancer treatments. It is estimated that 14.5 million cancer survivors currently live in the United States, and at least 40% of them use complementary or integrative approaches to manage symptoms and improve their well-being during and after conventional cancer treatment (1). Emerging research suggests that body-based therapies like yoga, acupuncture, and massage may improve symptoms and quality of life in cancer patients (2). To date, clinical research in integrative medicine has mostly focused on patient-reported outcomes, such as pain, fatigue, insomnia, and psychologic distress (2, 3). Much less is known about physical components of these outcomes, such as stiffness, range of motion, balance, coordination, and strength, which affect the well-being and functional independence. Furthermore, even less is known about whether these treatments can influence the disease process of cancer itself. Thus, there is a need for research to better understand the physical impact of these therapies and the underlying mechanisms by which many patients realize a benefit from these approaches. In this article, we propose that recent advances in connective tissue biology are providing clues to potential mechanisms by which physical-based treatments may directly reduce cancer growth, spreading, and metastasis, in addition to improving symptoms and quality of life. We also underscore the need for evaluating the safety of these approaches along with potential benefits.

The connective tissue network is an integrated, whole-body system that is amenable to physical manipulation by modalities, including massage, acupuncture, acupressure, yoga, and similar mind–body exercises (4, 5). Fasciae are composed of an extracellular connective tissue matrix that forms structures surrounding every organ of the body, integrates the musculoskeletal system, and houses the blood and lymphatic vasculature. The lymphatic vessels then deliver local chemical information from the tissues they drain to the immune system via lymph nodes (6). The normal mobility of fascial tissues is due in part to gliding movement between adjacent fascial layers (7). Stiffness and lack of mobility of fascia has implications beyond a patient being unable to move adequately; it is also a feature of the underlying structure of the connective tissue, which can affect the behavior of all cells interacting with the connective tissue matrix (8, 9).

Pathologic processes involving chronic inflammation and tissue fibrosis result in stiff connective tissue; this is likely a bidirectional feedback, as emerging evidence points to tissue stiffness itself being a contributor to the fibrotic process (10, 11). In addition, there is evidence that these factors are important in cancer biology as well (11–17). Although the importance of connective tissue or stroma in cancer was first hypothesized over a century ago (18), cancer research has predominantly focused on the neoplastic transformation of the cancer cells themselves. However, the last decades have seen a growing interest in the factors within the “soil” that may influence cancer growth, such as angiogenesis (19) and inflammation (20–22). Indeed there is increasing evidence that inflammation and metabolic abnormalities within the cancer microenvironment are not simply a passive reaction to cancer cells, but can also drive neoplastic transformation (23, 24). This knowledge is beginning to be translated into clinical applications in the development of personalized chemotherapeutic regimens based on in vitro testing incorporating elements of the patient's tumor microenvironment (25). This new understanding is also shaping primary prevention strategies that promote a cancer-resistant extracellular environment, such as aspirin for colon cancer and metformin for breast cancer (26, 27). Although these strategies so far have mostly targeted the biochemical aspects of the extracellular “milieu,” such as locally released cytokines and growth factors (23), there is also a growing interest in biophysical factors within connective tissue, including extracellular matrix stiffness, alignment, and porosity, that may influence cancer growth (28–30). It has long been recognized that wound healing, fibrosis, and cancer share many common features, including epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), myofibroblast transformation, and collagen deposition (11, 31). In particular, the possible link between extracellular matrix stiffness and cancer has generated substantial interest for several decades in both primary tumors and the tumor metastatic niche (18, 30, 32). Although there are challenges in directly measuring tissue stiffness in situ, imaging methods, such as elastography and atomic force microscopy, show that malignant tumors are on average stiffer compared with benign lesions (33) and have a heterogeneous stiffness profile with soft and stiff areas corresponding to cancer cells and fibrotic stroma, respectively (34). In human biopsies, increased local stiffness (17) and perpendicular collagen alignment at the periphery of malignant tumors (16) have been associated with increased invasiveness. In animal models and in vitro experiments, increased collagen deposition, alignment, and cross-linking were shown to promote tumor progression (15, 35, 36). However, the question of whether extracellular matrix stiffness can, by itself, promote cancer growth is not fully answered. Although experiments in 3-dimensional gels suggest that matrix stiffness can independently promote malignant transformation (37), tumor cells have been shown to migrate both toward and away from areas of increased stiffness (30). A current model is that, in primary tumors, a desmoplastic response of the developing tumor stroma driven by both neoplastic cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts results in release of growth factors, such as TGFβ, that promote EMT, which itself feeds forward to both enhance matrix deposition and stiffness as well as tumor invasion (38). On the other hand, efforts to suppress tumor-associated stroma have generally been unsuccessful and have even resulted in increased tumor invasiveness in some models (12, 39–41). Although clearly many questions remain on the role played by connective tissue stiffness in cancer biology, it is a concern that conventional cancer treatments, including surgery and radiotherapy, can themselves contribute to fibrosis and matrix stiffening (42, 43). Furthermore, a broader consideration of the connective tissue system throughout the host has been largely overlooked. At the patient level, loss of mobility and activity can lead to additional tissue stiffness and impact quality of life, and the possibility that increased stiffness of the connective tissue network as a whole could, in addition, impact cancer growth and metastasis is mostly unexplored.

Recent advances in understanding the effect of mechanical forces on tissues provide clues that may now be useful to understand the biology of physical-based therapies in relation to cancer and perhaps eventually develop physical treatments that may enhance natural healing responses. Although epidemiologic studies have documented a positive association between physical activity and survival in many cancer types (44–46), the mechanisms underlying this association remain to be elucidated. Investigations of physiologic responses to exercise that may inhibit cancer growth have focused on energy metabolism (47, 48), inflammation (49), and immune surveillance (50, 51). Meanwhile, the possibility that mechanical forces produced within tissues during exercise could directly impact tumor growth or recurrence has received little attention. Noticing the paucity of metastases to muscle, Weiss (52) found rapid destruction of injected tumor cells by contracting muscles. Animal models have shown that gentle stretching can reduced chronic inflammation and collagen deposition within local connective tissue (53–55) and that manual manipulation of lymphatics can modify lymphatic flow, which plays a pivotal role in the interaction between connective tissue and tumors (13, 56). Although separating mechanical versus biochemical effects is difficult in vivo, experiments ex vivo are suggesting that stretching of connective tissues may have local anti-inflammatory effects independent of vascular, neural, or other systemic factors (53). This raises the question of whether the growth, spreading, and/or dissemination of a malignant lesion could be inhibited by mechanical forces applied actively or passively (e.g., during stretching exercises, yoga, massage, or acupuncture). On the other hand, it has long been a concern that applying mechanical pressure or shear force to a tumor might dislodge malignant cells and encourage their migration into lymphatics or blood vessels (57–59). More recently, the presence of labeled epithelial cells in sentinel axillary nodes in patients with breast cancer was found to be increased in patients who underwent breast massage prior to the procedure (60). Although this was interpreted as a form of “benign mechanical transport,” similar to that occurring with needle biopsies, rather than true micrometastases (61), there is a remaining debate on the long-term risks associated with such findings (62, 63). There is also controversy over the role and safety of manual therapies and acupuncture in the management of lymphedema postcancer treatment (64, 65). Although some studies have concluded that such treatment is safe even in areas with residual tumor (66–68), to date, no randomized prospective study has examined this issue. Meanwhile, there is virtually no basic research on physical manipulation of the connective tissue matrix surrounding tumors to influence the behavior of the tumor as it interacts with its surrounding matrix, or at distant sites to influence the receptivity of the matrix to metastatic seeding. This constitutes an important gap in knowledge and is an opportunity to both advance our understanding of mechanobiology and improve patient care through determining the potential benefits versus risks of body-based therapies in cancer patients. An intriguing possibility is that these outcomes may be related to long-term relapse and survival. Although the safety of applying direct mechanical forces in the vicinity of tumors should be a prime concern, the possibility that active or passive mechanical forces applied away from the tumor itself may promote a healthy connective tissue environment that is inhospitable to cancer should be considered and systematically investigated. As we connect the fields, we hope to emerge with a better understanding of the interplay between integrative medicine, matrix biology, and oncology.

Increasing evidence indicates that the physical and mechanical environment can regulate cell behavior and tumor progression at a cellular level. It is likewise clear that many patients benefit from physical manipulation of connective tissue, but it is not clear what happens at the cellular and molecular level when these manipulations occur. Thus, a large disconnect exists between the cell and connective tissue biology and integrative medicine approaches. Advancing this field will require a coordinated effort combining epidemiology with cancer cellular and extracellular matrix biology.

As such, considerations of physical sciences in oncology should be expanded to include the whole host and possible ways that integrative medicine might be deployed, to determine whether we can safely impact tumor progression and the underlying biology with active and passive physical manipulation. Conversely, body-based therapy research should be expanded to consider the underlying matrix, cell, and molecular mechanisms so that we understand what tissue-level effects derive from physical manipulations of the host.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: H.M. Langevin, P. Keely, J. Mao, L.M. Hodge, R. Schleip, M.A. Swartz, S. Zick, T. Findley

Development of methodology: J. Mao, R. Schleip

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): J. Mao

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): P. Keely, S. Zick

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: H.M. Langevin, P. Keely, J. Mao, L.M. Hodge, R. Schleip, G. Deng, B. Hinz, M.A. Swartz, B.A. de Valois, S. Zick, T. Findley

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): H.M. Langevin, G. Deng

Study supervision: H.M. Langevin

This article is the product of a joint collaboration of Society for Integrative Oncology, the Society for Acupuncture Research, the Fascia Research Society and the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

This work was supported by the Bernard Osher Foundation and the Ida P. Rolf Foundation.

1.
Deng
G
,
Cassileth
B
. 
Integrative oncology: an overview
.
Alexandra, VA:American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book;
2014
. p.
233
42
.
2.
Greenlee
H
,
Balneaves
LG
,
Carlson
LE
,
Cohen
M
,
Deng
G
,
Hershman
D
, et al
Clinical practice guidelines on the use of integrative therapies as supportive care in patients treated for breast cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr
2014
;
2014
:
346
58
.
3.
Johnson
JR
,
Crespin
DJ
,
Griffin
KH
,
Finch
MD
,
Dusek
JA
. 
Effects of integrative medicine on pain and anxiety among oncology inpatients
.
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr
2014
;
2014
:
330
7
.
4.
Schleip
R FT
,
Chaitow
L
,
Huijing
P
. 
Fascia: the tensional network of the human body: the science and clinical applications in manual and movement therapy
.
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
:
Churchill Livingsone, Elsevier
; 
2012
.
5.
Langevin
HM
,
Churchill
DL
,
Cipolla
MJ
. 
Mechanical signaling through connective tissue: a mechanism for the therapeutic effect of acupuncture
.
FASEB J
2001
;
15
:
2275
82
.
6.
Card
CM
,
Yu
SS
,
Swartz
MA
. 
Emerging roles of lymphatic endothelium in regulating adaptive immunity
.
J Clin Invest
2014
;
124
:
943
52
.
7.
Benetazzo
L
,
Bizzego
A
,
De Caro
R
,
Frigo
G
,
Guidolin
D
,
Stecco
C
. 
3D reconstruction of the crural and thoracolumbar fasciae
.
Surg Radiol Anat
2011
:
33
:
855
62
.
8.
Chiquet
M
,
Gelman
L
,
Lutz
R
,
Maier
S
. 
From mechanotransduction to extracellular matrix gene expression in fibroblasts
.
Biochim Biophys Acta
2009
;
1793
:
911
20
.
9.
DuFort
CC
,
Paszek
MJ
,
Weaver
VM
. 
Balancing forces: architectural control of mechanotransduction
.
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol
2011
;
12
:
308
19
.
10.
Liu
F
,
Mih
JD
,
Shea
BS
,
Kho
AT
,
Sharif
AS
,
Tager
AM
, et al
Feedback amplification of fibrosis through matrix stiffening and COX-2 suppression
.
J Cell Biol
2010
;
190
:
693
706
.
11.
Klingberg
F
,
Hinz
B
,
White
ES
. 
The myofibroblast matrix: implications for tissue repair and fibrosis
.
J Pathol
2013
;
229
:
298
309
.
12.
Alexander
J
,
Cukierman
E
. 
Stromal dynamic reciprocity in cancer: intricacies of fibroblastic-ECM interactions
.
Curr Opin Cell Biol
2016
;
42
:
80
93
.
13.
Swartz
MA
,
Lund
AW
. 
Lymphatic and interstitial flow in the tumour microenvironment: linking mechanobiology with immunity
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2012
;
12
:
210
9
.
14.
Hinz
B
. 
The extracellular matrix and transforming growth factor-beta1: tale of a strained relationship
.
Matrix Biol
2015
;
47
:
54
65
.
15.
Riching
KM
,
Cox
BL
,
Salick
MR
,
Pehlke
C
,
Riching
AS
,
Ponik
SM
, et al
3D collagen alignment limits protrusions to enhance breast cancer cell persistence
.
Biophys J
2014
;
107
:
2546
58
.
16.
Conklin
MW
,
Keely
PJ
. 
Why the stroma matters in breast cancer: insights into breast cancer patient outcomes through the examination of stromal biomarkers
.
Cell Adh Migr
2012
;
6
:
249
60
.
17.
Acerbi
I
,
Cassereau
L
,
Dean
I
,
Shi
Q
,
Au
A
,
Park
C
, et al
Human breast cancer invasion and aggression correlates with ECM stiffening and immune cell infiltration
.
Integr Biol
2015
;
7
:
1120
34
.
18.
Mueller
MM
,
Fusenig
NE
. 
Friends or foes - bipolar effects of the tumour stroma in cancer
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2004
;
4
:
839
49
.
19.
Folkman
J
. 
Role of angiogenesis in tumor growth and metastasis
.
Semin Oncol
2002
;
29
(
6 Suppl 16
):
15
8
.
20.
Qian
BZ
,
Li
J
,
Zhang
H
,
Kitamura
T
,
Zhang
J
,
Campion
LR
, et al
CCL2 recruits inflammatory monocytes to facilitate breast-tumour metastasis
.
Nature
2011
;
475
:
222
5
.
21.
Coussens
LM
,
Werb
Z
. 
Inflammation and cancer
.
Nature
2002
;
420
:
860
7
.
22.
Porta
C
,
Subhra Kumar
B
,
Larghi
P
,
Rubino
L
,
Mancino
A
,
Sica
A
. 
Tumor promotion by tumor-associated macrophages
.
Adv Exp Med Biol
2007
;
604
:
67
86
.
23.
Albini
A
,
Sporn
MB
. 
The tumour microenvironment as a target for chemoprevention
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2007
;
7
:
139
47
.
24.
Whiteside
TL
. 
The tumor microenvironment and its role in promoting tumor growth
.
Oncogene
2008
;
27
:
5904
12
.
25.
Morgan
MM
,
Johnson
BP
,
Livingston
MK
,
Schuler
LA
,
Alarid
ET
,
Sung
KE
, et al
Personalized in vitro cancer models to predict therapeutic response: challenges and a framework for improvement
.
Pharmacol Ther
2016
;
165
:
75
92
.
26.
Heckman-Stoddard
BM
,
Gandini
S
,
Puntoni
M
,
Dunn
BK
,
DeCensi
A
,
Szabo
E
. 
Repurposing old drugs to chemoprevention: the case of metformin
.
Semin Oncol
2016
;
43
:
123
33
.
27.
Albini
A
,
DeCensi
A
,
Cavalli
F
,
Costa
A
. 
Cancer prevention and interception: a new era for chemopreventive approaches
.
Clin Cancer Res
2016
;
22
:
4322
7
.
28.
Rybinski
B
,
Franco-Barraza
J
,
Cukierman
E
. 
The wound healing, chronic fibrosis, and cancer progression triad
.
Physiol Genomics
2014
;
46
:
223
44
.
29.
Ingber
DE
. 
Can cancer be reversed by engineering the tumor microenvironment?
Semin Cancer Biol
2008
;
18
:
356
64
.
30.
Spill
F
,
Reynolds
DS
,
Kamm
RD
,
Zaman
MH
. 
Impact of the physical microenvironment on tumor progression and metastasis
.
Curr Opin Biotechnol
2016
;
40
:
41
8
.
31.
Dvorak
HF
. 
Tumors: wounds that do not heal. Similarities between tumor stroma generation and wound healing
.
N Engl J Med
1986
;
315
:
1650
9
.
32.
Høye
AM
,
Erler
JT
. 
Structural ECM components in the pre-metastatic and metastatic niche
.
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol
2016
;
310
:
C955
67
.
33.
Chang
JM
,
Moon
WK
,
Cho
N
,
Yi
A
,
Koo
HR
,
Han
W
, et al
Clinical application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast diseases
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2011
;
129
:
89
97
.
34.
Plodinec
M
,
Loparic
M
,
Monnier
CA
,
Obermann
EC
,
Zanetti-Dallenbach
R
,
Oertle
P
, et al
The nanomechanical signature of breast cancer
.
Nat Nanotechnol
2012
;
7
:
757
65
.
35.
Levental
KR
,
Yu
H
,
Kass
L
,
Lakins
JN
,
Egeblad
M
,
Erler
JT
, et al
Matrix crosslinking forces tumor progression by enhancing integrin signaling
.
Cell
2009
;
139
:
891
906
.
36.
Paszek
MJ
,
Zahir
N
,
Johnson
KR
,
Lakins
JN
,
Rozenberg
GI
,
Gefen
A
, et al
Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype
.
Cancer Cell
2005
;
8
:
241
54
.
37.
Chaudhuri
O
,
Koshy
ST
,
Branco da Cunha
C
,
Shin
JW
,
Verbeke
CS
,
Allison
KH
, et al
Extracellular matrix stiffness and composition jointly regulate the induction of malignant phenotypes in mammary epithelium
.
Nat Mater
2014
;
13
:
970
8
.
38.
Wei
SC
,
Yang
J
. 
Forcing through tumor metastasis: the interplay between tissue rigidity and epithelial–mesenchymal transition
.
Trends Cell Biol
2016
;
26
:
111
20
.
39.
Rhim
AD
,
Oberstein
PE
,
Thomas
DH
,
Mirek
ET
,
Palermo
CF
,
Sastra
SA
, et al
Stromal elements act to restrain, rather than support, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
.
Cancer Cell
2014
;
25
:
735
47
.
40.
Amakye
D
,
Jagani
Z
,
Dorsch
M
. 
Unraveling the therapeutic potential of the Hedgehog pathway in cancer
.
Nat Med
2013
;
19
:
1410
22
.
41.
Ozdemir
BC
,
Pentcheva-Hoang
T
,
Carstens
JL
,
Zheng
X
,
Wu
CC
,
Simpson
TR
, et al
Depletion of carcinoma-associated fibroblasts and fibrosis induces immunosuppression and accelerates pancreas cancer with reduced survival
.
Cancer Cell
2014
;
25
:
719
34
.
42.
Straub
JM
,
New
J
,
Hamilton
CD
,
Lominska
C
,
Shnayder
Y
,
Thomas
SM
. 
Radiation-induced fibrosis: mechanisms and implications for therapy
.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol
2015
;
141
:
1985
94
.
43.
Hayes
SC
,
Johansson
K
,
Stout
NL
,
Prosnitz
R
,
Armer
JM
,
Gabram
S
, et al
Upper-body morbidity after breast cancer: incidence and evidence for evaluation, prevention, and management within a prospective surveillance model of care
.
Cancer
2012
;
118
(
8 Suppl
):
2237
49
.
44.
Denlinger
CS
,
Ligibel
JA
,
Are
M
,
Baker
KS
,
Demark-Wahnefried
W
,
Dizon
D
, et al
Survivorship: screening for cancer and treatment effects, version 2.2014
.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw
2014
;
12
:
1526
31
.
45.
Hardee
JP
,
Porter
RR
,
Sui
X
,
Archer
E
,
Lee
IM
,
Lavie
CJ
, et al
The effect of resistance exercise on all-cause mortality in cancer survivors
.
Mayo Clin Proc
2014
;
89
:
1108
15
.
46.
Li
Y
,
Gu
M
,
Jing
F
,
Cai
S
,
Bao
C
,
Wang
J
, et al
Association between physical activity and all cancer mortality: Dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies
.
Int J Cancer
2016
;
138
:
818
32
.
47.
Coughlin
SS
,
Smith
SA
. 
The insulin-like growth factor axis, adipokines, physical activity, and obesity in relation to breast cancer incidence and recurrence
.
Cancer Clin Oncol
2015
;
4
:
24
31
.
48.
Sax
AT
,
Jenkins
DG
,
Devin
JL
,
Hughes
GI
,
Bolam
KA
,
Skinner
TL
. 
The insulin-like growth factor axis: a biological mechanism linking physical activity to colorectal cancer survival
.
Cancer Epidemiol
2014
;
38
:
455
9
.
49.
Koelwyn
GJ
,
Wennerberg
E
,
Demaria
S
,
Jones
LW
. 
Exercise in regulation of inflammation-immune axis function in cancer initiation and progression
.
Oncology
2015
;
29
:
908
20
.
50.
Idorn
M
,
Hojman
P
. 
Exercise-dependent regulation of NK cells in cancer protection
.
Trends Mol Med
2016
;
22
:
565
77
.
51.
Saxon
JM
. 
New insights into the immunomodulatory effects of exercise and potential impact on tumorigenesis
.
Oncology
2015
;
29
:
921
2
.
52.
Weiss
L
. 
Biomechanical interactions of cancer cells with the microvasculature during hematogenous metastasis
.
Cancer Metastasis Rev
1992
;
11
:
227
35
.
53.
Berrueta
L
,
Muskaj
I
,
Olenich
S
,
Butler
T
,
Badger
GJ
,
Colas
RA
, et al
Stretching impacts inflammation resolution in connective tissue
.
J Cell Physiol
2015
;
231
:
1621
7
.
54.
Bouffard
N
,
Cutroneo
K
,
Badger
G
,
White
S
,
Buttolph
T
,
Ehrlich
H
, et al
Tissue stretch decreases soluble TGF-beta1 and type-1 procollagen in mouse subcutaneous connective tissue: evidence from ex vivo and in vivo models
.
J Cell Physiol
2008
;
214
:
389
95
.
55.
Corey
SM
,
Vizzard
MA
,
Bouffard
NA
,
Badger
GJ
,
Langevin
HM
. 
Stretching of the back improves gait, mechanical sensitivity and connective tissue inflammation in a rodent model
.
PLoS One
2012
;
7
:
e29831
.
56.
Schander
A
,
Downey
HF
,
Hodge
LM
. 
Lymphatic pump manipulation mobilizes inflammatory mediators into lymphatic circulation
.
Exp Biol Med
2012
;
237
:
58
63
.
57.
Knox
LC
. 
The relationship of massage to metastasis in malignant tumors
.
Ann Surg
1922
;
75
:
129
42
.
58.
Tyzzer
EE
. 
Factors in the production and growth of tumor metastases
.
J Med Res
1913
;
28
:
309
32
.
59.
Weiss
L
,
Mayhew
E
,
Rapp
DG
,
Holmes
JC
. 
Metastatic inefficiency in mice bearing B16 melanomas
.
Br J Cancer
1982
;
45
:
44
53
.
60.
Diaz
NM
,
Vrcel
V
,
Centeno
BA
,
Muro-Cacho
C
. 
Modes of benign mechanical transport of breast epithelial cells to axillary lymph nodes
.
Adv Anat Pathol
2005
;
12
:
7
9
.
61.
Moore
KH
,
Thaler
HT
,
Tan
LK
,
Borgen
PI
,
Cody
HS
 III
. 
Immunohistochemically detected tumor cells in the sentinel lymph nodes of patients with breast carcinoma: biologic metastasis or procedural artifact?
Cancer
2004
;
100
:
929
34
.
62.
Bleiweiss
IJ
,
Nagi
CS
,
Jaffer
S
. 
Axillary sentinel lymph nodes can be falsely positive due to iatrogenic displacement and transport of benign epithelial cells in patients with breast carcinoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2006
;
24
:
2013
8
.
63.
Wang
JY
,
Wu
PK
,
Chen
PC
,
Yen
CC
,
Hung
GY
,
Chen
CF
, et al
Manipulation therapy prior to diagnosis induced primary osteosarcoma metastasis–from clinical to basic research
.
PLoS One
2014
;
9
:
e96571
.
64.
de Valois
BA
,
Young
TE
,
Melsome
E
. 
Assessing the feasibility of using acupuncture and moxibustion to improve quality of life for cancer survivors with upper body lymphoedema
.
Eur J Oncol Nurs
2012
;
16
:
301
9
.
65.
Ridner
SH
,
Fu
MR
,
Wanchai
A
,
Stewart
BR
,
Armer
JM
,
Cormier
JN
. 
Self-management of lymphedema: a systematic review of the literature from 2004 to 2011
.
Nurs Res
2012
;
61
:
291
9
.
66.
Ezzo
J
,
Manheimer
E
,
McNeely
ML
,
Howell
DM
,
Weiss
R
,
Johansson
KI
, et al
Manual lymphatic drainage for lymphedema following breast cancer treatment
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2015
:
CD003475
.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003475.pub2
67.
Pinell
XA
,
Kirkpatrick
SH
,
Hawkins
K
,
Mondry
TE
,
Johnstone
PA
. 
Manipulative therapy of secondary lymphedema in the presence of locoregional tumors
.
Cancer
2008
;
112
:
950
4
.
68.
Godette
K
,
Mondry
TE
,
Johnstone
PA
. 
Can manual treatment of lymphedema promote metastasis?
J Soc Integr Oncol
2006
;
4
:
8
12
.