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 chi2 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.
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 chi2 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.
Authors: T Zeller; K Muenstedt; C Stoll; J Schweder; B Senf; E Ruckhaeberle; S Becker; H Serve; J Huebner Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Rashmi S Bismark; Hongbin Chen; Grace K Dy; Elizabeth A Gage-Bouchard; Martin C Mahoney Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Andrew K L Goey; Irma Meijerman; Hilde Rosing; Jacobus A Burgers; Marja Mergui-Roelvink; Marianne Keessen; Serena Marchetti; Jos H Beijnen; Jan H M Schellens Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Gowhar Shafi; Anjana Munshi; Tarique N Hasan; Ali A Alshatwi; A Jyothy; David K Y Lei Journal: Cancer Cell Int Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 5.722