Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Static and Repetitive Magnetic Stimulation in Cancer Therapy: A Scoping Review

Stein D., Stieven A., Paludo RH., Fiuza KJ., Fraga LR., Fregni F.

Narrative Review, published in Biomedicines (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Biomedicines (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41898285
PMCID
PMC13024157
DOI
10.3390/biomedicines14030638

Abstract (original English)

Repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) and static magnetic stimulation (sMS) are currently employed as adjunctive therapies for specific neurological conditions. Despite substantial advances in cancer treatment, unfavorable prognoses and outcomes persist, especially for aggressive tumors, including glioblastoma and acute myeloid leukemia. The utilization of magnetic fields has shown antitumoral benefits in both in vitro and animal studies, suggesting its potential as an efficient non-invasive therapeutic approach; nevertheless, the precise mechanisms of action remain unclear. This scoping review intended to identify published research investigating the effects of sMS and rMS in in vitro and in vivo models to evaluate their impacts on morphological and molecular parameters. Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) were assessed; the search strategy was limited to the past twenty-five years of data publication. Studies utilizing rMS or sMS as a treatment for conditions other than cancers, as well as those not considering these therapies as adjunctive therapy, were eliminated. Nine articles using rMS were included: three in vitro, two employing animal models, and the remaining four including both cellular and animal-based analyses. Sixteen studies using sMS were identified: twelve in vitro, three in vivo, and one with both models. The findings show that both rMS

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.