Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use by Patients Enrolled Onto Phase I Clinical Trials

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (23) ◽  
pp. 4810-4815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace K. Dy ◽  
Lishan Bekele ◽  
Lorelei J. Hanson ◽  
Alfred Furth ◽  
Sumithra Mandrekar ◽  
...  

Purpose To describe the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and pattern of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients enrolled onto phase I trials. Patients and Methods Questionnaires were administered to 108 patients with advanced malignancies enrolled onto phase I chemotherapy trials at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (Rochester, MN). CAM was classified into two modalities, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic. Clinical and demographic data, including age, sex, and prior cancer treatment, were subsequently obtained from patient charts and examined for any correlation with CAM use, using χ2 analysis. Results One hundred two survey forms were returned. Among respondents, 88.2% (90 of 102) had used at least one CAM modality; 93.3% (84 of 90) and 53.3% (48 of 90) had used pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic CAM, respectively; and 46.7% (42 of 90) used both modalities. Vitamin and mineral preparations constituted 89.3% (75 of 84) of all pharmacologic CAM used. Intake was highest for vitamins E (48.8% [41 of 84]) and C (38.1% [32 of 84]), and 71.4% (60 of 84) of respondents took nonvitamin/mineral agents. Green tea (29.8% [25 of 84]), echinacea (13.1% [11 of 84]), and essiac (9.5% [8 of 84]) were the most popular. Prayer and spiritual practices were the most commonly used nonpharmacologic CAM, accounting for 52.1% (25 of 48). Chiropractors, the most frequently visited nontraditional medicine practitioners, were consulted by only 10% (9 of 90) of those who practiced CAM. Both CAM modalities were used more frequently by women (53.5% [23 of 43]) than men (40.4% [19 of 47]). Conclusion CAM use is common among patients in phase I trials and should be ascertained by investigators, because some of the agents used may interact with investigational agents and affect adverse effects and/or efficacy.

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia L. Judson ◽  
Reem Abdallah ◽  
Yin Xiong ◽  
Judith Ebbert ◽  
Johnathan M. Lancaster

Purpose: To define the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in individuals presenting for care at a comprehensive cancer center. Patients and Methods: A total of 17 639 individuals presenting to an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (and consortium sites) completed a questionnaire regarding CAM use. Data were analyzed using the univariate χ2 test to assess CAM use associated with a number of variables, including cancer status, age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, race, employment, and education level. Results: Eighty-seven percent of individuals who completed the CAM survey acknowledged CAM therapy use within the previous 12 months. Of the 5 broad categories of CAM, the most commonly used were biologically based approaches (14 759/17 639 [83.67%]), mind-body interventions (4624/17 485 [26.45%]), manipulative and body-based therapies (3957/17 537 [22.56%]), alternative medical systems (429/15 952 [2.69%]), and energy therapies (270/15 872 [1.7%]). CAM use was more prevalent among women, non-Hispanics, Caucasians, patients 60 to 69 years of age, and those who are married, have a higher level of education, and are employed ( P < .005). Conclusions: This is the largest report of CAM use in individuals presenting for care at a comprehensive cancer center. Our analysis revealed that a very high percentage of patients utilize CAM. Because many of these CAM interventions are not studied in oncology patients, additional research on safety, efficacy, and mechanisms of action are essential. Furthermore, it is important that oncologists understand CAM modalities and counsel their patients about their use.


2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 1724-1730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reem Abdallah ◽  
Yin Xiong ◽  
Johnathan M. Lancaster ◽  
Patricia L. Judson

ObjectiveWe evaluated complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practices among women presenting to a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center with a gynecologic malignancy.MethodsWomen with a gynecologic malignancy who had consented to enrollment in our institutional prospective clinical registry between January 2003 and January 2014 and who had completed a questionnaire assessing sociodemographic characteristics, medical histories, quality of life, and CAM use were considered for analysis.ResultsAmong the 2508 women identified, responses to questions on CAM use were provided by 534 (21.3%). The majority of CAM question respondents were white (93.5%) and older than 50 years (76%). Overall, 464 women (87% of CAM question respondents) used at least 1 CAM therapy during the previous 12 months. The most commonly used CAM categories were biologically based approaches (83.5%), mind and body interventions (30.6%), and manipulative and body-based therapies (18.8%). The most commonly used individual CAM therapies were vitamins and minerals (78%), herbal supplements (27.9%), spiritual healing and prayer (15.1%), and deep breathing relaxation exercises (13.1%). Complementary and alternative medicine use was greatest in age groups 20 to 30 years and older than 65 years and was more prevalent among those who were widowed (P< 0.005), retired (P= 0.02), and with a higher level of education (P< 0.01). There was no association with cancer type, race, or ethnicity.ConclusionsComplementary and alternative medicine use is common among women being treated for gynecologic malignancy. Given the potential interactions of some CAM modalities with conventional treatment and the possible benefits in controlling symptoms and improving quality of life, providers should discuss CAM with their patients.


2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (14_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8053-8053
Author(s):  
S. Mandrekar ◽  
G. K. Dy ◽  
A. Furth ◽  
L. Bekele ◽  
L. Hanson ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 153473542098391
Author(s):  
Chieh-Ying Chin ◽  
Yung-Hsiang Chen ◽  
Shin-Chung Wu ◽  
Chien-Ting Liu ◽  
Yun-Fang Lee ◽  
...  

Background Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is becoming more common in medical practice, but little is known about the concurrent use of CAM and conventional treatment. Therefore, the aim was to investigate the types of CAM used and their prevalence in a regional patient cohort with breast cancer (BC). Methods BC patients were interviewed with a structured questionnaire survey on the use of CAM in southern Taiwan at an Integrative Breast Cancer Center (IBCC). The National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) classification was used to group responses. Over a period of 8 months, all patients receiving treatment for cancer at the IBCC were approached. Results A total of 106 BC patients completed the survey (response rate: 79.7%). The prevalence of CAM use was 82.4%. Patients who were employed, were receiving radiotherapy and hormone therapy, and had cancer for a longer duration were more likely to use CAM ( P < .05). Multivariate analysis identified employment as an independent predictor of CAM use (OR = 6.92; 95% CI = 1.33-36.15). Dietary supplementation (n = 69, 82.1%) was the type of CAM most frequently used, followed by exercise (n = 48, 57.1%) and traditional Chinese medicine (n = 29, 34.5%). The main reason for using CAM was to ameliorate the side effects of conventional therapies. Almost half (46.4%) of these CAM users did not disclose that they were using it in medical consultations with their physicians. Most chose to use CAM due to recommendations from family and friends. Conclusion A large portion of BC patients at the IBCC undergoing anti-cancer treatment courses used CAM, but less than half discussed it with their physicians. Given the high prevalence of CAM, it would be justifiable to direct further resources toward this service so that cancer patients can benefit from a holistic approach to their treatment.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522098763
Author(s):  
Faruk Tas ◽  
Ebru Cinar ◽  
Kayhan Erturk

Background Only a few studies assessed the prevalence and the predictors of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use specifically in melanoma patients. The aim of this study was to assess the extent of CAM use in Turkish melanoma patients. Objective To assess the extent of CAM use and to compare sociodemographic and clinical characteristics between users and non-users in melanoma patients. Methods One hundred melanoma patients who were seen in outpatient clinics were included in a survey using questionnaire on CAM use. Results Twenty-seven patients used at least one type of CAM, the majority of which were herbs (73%). Turmeric (curcumin) was the most popular herb that was used alone or in conjunction with various other herbs (41%). Living in rural areas was significantly associated with CAM use (p = 0.02). The most common reason for CAM use was intent to cure of the disease (52%). The primary source of information about CAM was a close friend or a family contact (44%). CAMs were generally used together with conventional anticancer treatment modalities (64%) and they were ingested on a regular base (72%). CAMs could easily be acquired at regular herbal stores (88%). The patients experienced almost no adverse effects with CAM use; and most cases (71%) had confidence in CAM. About half of the patients consulted with their physicians about CAM use. Conclusion Minority, nearly one fourth of the melanoma cases used at least one type of CAM, the majority of which were herbs and turmeric (curcumin) was the most popular agent.


2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 1172-1182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Horneber ◽  
Gerd van Ackeren ◽  
Felix Fischer ◽  
Herbert Kappauf ◽  
Josef Birkmann

Purpose. To report on a telephone consultation service with cancer patients and their relatives about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) between 1999 and 2011. Methods. We offered a Germany-wide, free-of-charge telephone consultation service about CAM led by oncology clinicians from a comprehensive cancer center. The consultations followed a patient-centered approach with the aim to provide guidance and evidence-based information. Sociodemographic, disease-related data as well as information about the consultations’ content were collected in a standardized manner, and feedback questionnaires were sent out immediately after the consultations. Results. Overall, 5269 callers from all over Germany used the service (57% patients, 43% relatives). The “big 4” cancer types (breast, gastrointestinal, prostate, and lung) accounted for 55% of all calls. In 67% of calls, patients had just received the diagnosis or commenced anticancer therapy; 69% of patients had advanced or metastatic diseases. More than half of the callers (55%) had vague concerns like “what else can I do?” rather than specific questions related to CAM. The consultations covered a broad spectrum of issues from CAM therapies to cancer treatment and measures supportive of health, nutrition, and psychosocial support. Callers highly valued the service. Conclusions. Consulting about CAM addresses important unmet needs from cancer patients and their relatives. It provides clinicians with the opportunity to engage in open and supportive dialogues about evidence-based CAM to help with symptom management, psychological support, and individual self-care. Consulting about CAM cannot be separated from consulting about conventional care and should be provided from the beginning of the cancer journey.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document