OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by prostate cancer patients and to characterize CAM-users in this population. METHODS: Prostate cancer patients who underwent routine follow-up at urological practices completed an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire on lower urinary tract function, sexuality, quality of life and use of CAM. All patients with biopsy proven cancer irrespective of age, stage and therapy were eligible. RESULTS: 822 men (69+/-8.5 years; range: 45-95) entered this survey. 245 men (29.8%) used at least one form of CAM, most frequent forms were fat-reduced diet (13.3%), selenium (10.8%) and vitamin E (9.3%). CAM-users did not differ regarding age (68.6 vs. 69.2 years), time interval between diagnosis and current evaluation (4.4 vs. 3.8 years) and PSA at diagnosis (24.9 vs. 18.5 ng/ml) from non-users. CAM-use was dependent on primary therapy (radical prostatectomy: 23.3%, radiotherapy: 31.6%, endocrine therapy: 38.8%) and disease progression. CAM-users were generally less satisfied with their treatment and rated health status and quality of life lower than those not using CAM (all p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CAM is used by almost 1/3 of prostate cancer patients in Austria, particularly by those with disease progression, impaired quality of life and treatment satisfaction. Urologists have to be aware of this fact and require a detailed knowledge on this issue to provide objective and evidence-based information.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by prostate cancerpatients and to characterize CAM-users in this population. METHODS:Prostate cancerpatients who underwent routine follow-up at urological practices completed an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire on lower urinary tract function, sexuality, quality of life and use of CAM. All patients with biopsy proven cancer irrespective of age, stage and therapy were eligible. RESULTS: 822 men (69+/-8.5 years; range: 45-95) entered this survey. 245 men (29.8%) used at least one form of CAM, most frequent forms were fat-reduced diet (13.3%), selenium (10.8%) and vitamin E (9.3%). CAM-users did not differ regarding age (68.6 vs. 69.2 years), time interval between diagnosis and current evaluation (4.4 vs. 3.8 years) and PSA at diagnosis (24.9 vs. 18.5 ng/ml) from non-users. CAM-use was dependent on primary therapy (radical prostatectomy: 23.3%, radiotherapy: 31.6%, endocrine therapy: 38.8%) and disease progression. CAM-users were generally less satisfied with their treatment and rated health status and quality of life lower than those not using CAM (all p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CAM is used by almost 1/3 of prostate cancerpatients in Austria, particularly by those with disease progression, impaired quality of life and treatment satisfaction. Urologists have to be aware of this fact and require a detailed knowledge on this issue to provide objective and evidence-based information.
Authors: Jennifer S Yates; Karen M Mustian; Gary R Morrow; Leslie J Gillies; Devi Padmanaban; James N Atkins; Brian Issell; Jeffrey J Kirshner; Lauren K Colman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Steven B Zeliadt; David K Blough; Catherine R Fedorenko; Megan E Fairweather; Cara L McDermott; David F Penson; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Ann S Hamilton; Neeraj K Arora Journal: Urology Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.649