PURPOSE: We determine the prevalence and patterns of the use of complementary therapies among patients with and those at high risk for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed of men presenting to 2 urban tertiary urology clinics for prostate cancer evaluation or followup, and those attending a prostate cancer support group. All men diagnosed with and those at high risk (positive family history or abnormal prostate specific antigen) for prostate cancer were eligible for study. A 9-item self-administered, anonymous questionnaire about complementary therapies was administered. RESULTS: Of 357 patients who received the survey 155 from the urology clinics and 113 from the support group responded, for a total response rate of 75%. Of the patients presenting to urology clinics and the support group 27.4 and 38.9% with and 25.8 and 80% at high risk for prostate cancer, respectively, used some form of complementary therapy. The use significantly differed according to disease status (p = 0.001), and was highest among men who were clinically disease-free after radical therapy. Of the patients 24% did not inform the urologist of using alternative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of the use of complementary therapy among patients with or at increased risk for prostate cancer was high and dependent on the disease state. Urologists should be aware of this pattern of use, and consider the potential effects when assessing patients for and with prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: We determine the prevalence and patterns of the use of complementary therapies among patients with and those at high risk for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed of men presenting to 2 urban tertiary urology clinics for prostate cancer evaluation or followup, and those attending a prostate cancer support group. All men diagnosed with and those at high risk (positive family history or abnormal prostate specific antigen) for prostate cancer were eligible for study. A 9-item self-administered, anonymous questionnaire about complementary therapies was administered. RESULTS: Of 357 patients who received the survey 155 from the urology clinics and 113 from the support group responded, for a total response rate of 75%. Of the patients presenting to urology clinics and the support group 27.4 and 38.9% with and 25.8 and 80% at high risk for prostate cancer, respectively, used some form of complementary therapy. The use significantly differed according to disease status (p = 0.001), and was highest among men who were clinically disease-free after radical therapy. Of the patients 24% did not inform the urologist of using alternative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of the use of complementary therapy among patients with or at increased risk for prostate cancer was high and dependent on the disease state. Urologists should be aware of this pattern of use, and consider the potential effects when assessing patients for and with prostate cancer.
Authors: Sarah M Rausch; Frankie Winegardner; Kelly M Kruk; Vaishali Phatak; Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler; Brent Bauer; Ann Vincent Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: C J Paller; Y M Kanaan; D A Beyene; T J Naab; R L Copeland; H L Tsai; N F Kanarek; T S Hudson Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Christina M Bauer; Miriam B Ishak; Emilie K Johnson; Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Kathleen A Cooney Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Wolfgang Spiegel; Thomas Zidek; Christian Vutuc; Manfred Maier; Karin Isak; Michael Micksche Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2003-10-31 Impact factor: 1.704