Hydrogenology
Source-linked study record

Protective effects of hydrogen gas inhalation on radiation-induced bone marrow damage in cancer patients: a retrospective observational study

Hirano SI, Aoki Y, Li XK, Ichimaru N, Takahara S, Takefuji Y. · Medical Gas Research. 2021;11(3):104–109.

HumanInhaled H₂Published 2021Source checked
Study record, not medical adviceThis record reports what the source states. It is not medical advice and does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person.
Quick summary

Study at a glance

Evidence type

Human

Population or model

Adults with end-stage cancer receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy at Clinic C4 in Tokyo.

Intervention and dose

After each daily IMRT session, nasal-cannula gas was delivered inside a mild hyperbaric chamber at 1.35 atmospheres for 30 minutes. · 5% H₂ at 4 L/min inside the chamber; the article also expresses the pressure-adjusted exposure as equivalent to 6.8% H₂ at normal pressure.

Duration

Daily after IMRT for one to four weeks; radiation schedules ranged from 5 to 20 treatments.

Reported result

White-cell and platelet ratios favored the H₂ group, but red cells, hemoglobin and hematocrit were not significantly different. Tumor response was similar between groups. Fatigue, depression, sleep and gastrointestinal quality-of-life measures were also similar and were not improved by H₂.

Main limitation

Very small, non-randomized retrospective comparison with unequal groups, heterogeneous cancers and substantial confounding risk. Registration and ethics approval were retrospective. The authors declared no conflicts and no financial support, yet the first author was affiliated with MiZ Co., Ltd. and MiZ personnel were thanked for writing advice; this apparent commercial connection is displayed despite the declaration.

Evidence and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence type

Human

Reported design

Retrospective single-center observational comparison

Research topic

Cancer research

Administration form

Inhaled H₂

Information not yet classified

Some editorial classification fields are still pending. The source-reported outcomes and result are shown below; Hydrogenology does not infer a positive or negative signal from prose automatically.

Reported in the source

Methods

Population or model

Adults with end-stage cancer receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy at Clinic C4 in Tokyo.

Sample

26 registered; three were excluded because IMRT was incomplete. The analysis included 23 patients: 16 in the H₂ group and 7 controls.

Duration

Daily after IMRT for one to four weeks; radiation schedules ranged from 5 to 20 treatments.

Intervention

After each daily IMRT session, nasal-cannula gas was delivered inside a mild hyperbaric chamber at 1.35 atmospheres for 30 minutes.

Hydrogen form

H₂ diluted in air — H₂ as the experimental gas component, not Brown's gas.

Dose or H₂ specification

5% H₂ at 4 L/min inside the chamber; the article also expresses the pressure-adjusted exposure as equivalent to 6.8% H₂ at normal pressure.

H₂ flow

200 mL/min H₂, calculated from 5% of the reported 4,000 mL/min delivery flow.

O₂ delivered with H₂

Air was the carrier and control gas. No distinct O₂ intervention was reported; the article does not state a delivered O₂ percentage or O₂ flow, so neither is inferred.

Comparator

Seven patients received air through the same cannula and chamber procedure after IMRT. Treatment was not randomized.

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

Ratios of red and white blood cells, platelets, hemoglobin and hematocrit before and after radiotherapy, tumor response and quality-of-life symptoms.

Reported result

White-cell and platelet ratios favored the H₂ group, but red cells, hemoglobin and hematocrit were not significantly different. Tumor response was similar between groups. Fatigue, depression, sleep and gastrointestinal quality-of-life measures were also similar and were not improved by H₂.

Extraction completeness

The complete PMC article, supplementary patient table, exposure method, laboratory outcomes, tumor response, quality of life, funding and conflict statements were checked; favorable and null outcomes are both shown.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit.

Interpretation limits

Limitations and applicability

Main methodological cautions

Very small, non-randomized retrospective comparison with unequal groups, heterogeneous cancers and substantial confounding risk. Registration and ethics approval were retrospective. The authors declared no conflicts and no financial support, yet the first author was affiliated with MiZ Co., Ltd. and MiZ personnel were thanked for writing advice; this apparent commercial connection is displayed despite the declaration.

Applies directly to

People with end-stage cancer receiving this clinic-specific IMRT and chamber protocol; it does not establish that H₂ prevents marrow toxicity in routine cancer care.

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Read how records and evidence assessments are prepared.

Sources and status

Sources and record status

Identifiers

PMID: 33942780 · DOI: 10.4103/2045-9912.314329

Publisher access

Free full article on PubMed Central.

Extraction basis

PubMed metadata and complete PubMed Central article with supplementary material; full-text and article-status check completed 8 August 2026.

Last reviewed

10 August 2026

Help the next reader

Help people check the facts before they buy.

Hydrogenology keeps 665 source-checked records accessible without advertising or product promotion.

Support independent access
Help us correct the recordReport a discrepancy

Send the exact difference between this page and the linked source. The study reference is attached automatically.