Basic HTML Version
IMMUNE SYSTEMS OF BREAST CANCER PATIENTS
417
In comparing the patient populations of both experiments, partici-
pants were similar in age and breast cancer stage but differed in their
current use of medication. The Bakke et al. (2002) experiment analyzed
breast cancer patients who had received invasive treatments, such as
surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation, at least 6 months earlier and were
currently using therapies like tamoxifen, other medications, psycho-
therapy, or group support. The Hidderley and Holt (2004) trial studied
women who were at least 6 months postlumpectomy and adjuvant
radiotherapy and were not undergoing subsequent treatment. Because
the effects of hypnosis on the immune system can be difficult to dis-
cern with the concurrent use of treatments like psychotherapy, it is
optimal to study the immunological consequences of hypnosis in par-
ticipants who are not using other therapies, as was done in the Hidder-
ley and Holt study. However, it is more realistic that cancer patients
would use hypnosis simultaneously with other treatments, especially
since hypnosis is being considered as adjuvant therapy. Therefore,
there are convincing reasons for studying hypnosis in either setting.
Another difference between the two trials is that the Bakke et al.
experiment recorded a baseline measurement of “hypnotic susceptibil-
ity” (2002, p. 1133) in its participants while the Hidderley and Holt
trial (2004) did not. Because patients vary in their responsiveness to
hypnosis based on their motivation to undergo psychotherapy, fond-
ness of the hypnotic treatment, and—most important—hypnotizabil-
ity, these variables can influence the observed impact of hypnosis. It is
best to evaluate participants’ ability to experience hypnosis with
screening tests such as the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale:
Form C. In the Bakke et al. trial (2002), the Stanford Hypnotic Suscepti-
bility Scale was administered and demonstrated a mean score of 2.8
out of a 5-point scale for the 25 participants.
While the Bakke et al. (2002) study rightly employed a hypnotizabil-
ity test, its major design flaw was that the experiment lacked a control
group. All of its participants learned hypnotic-guided therapy, and
thus the results of hypnosis must be compared to the baseline results
of the patients rather than between treatment and control groups,
which is a more scientifically rigorous approach. On the other hand,
the Hidderley and Holt (2004) trial randomized its 31 patients into two
groups. Fifteen women in the control group received home visits only
and 16 women in the experimental group received home visits and
autogenic training.
The specific techniques of the hypnotic training in each trial dif-
fered, but at the core of each intervention was heightened mind-body
awareness. The hypnotic-guided therapy taught in the Bakke et al.
(2002) trial relied heavily on positive mental imagery. Participants
received individual 1-hour sessions each week from a physician using
guided imagery and hypnosis. At the sessions, patients learned about
Downloaded by [ ] at 04:46 26 March 2012