Lesson from comparison of CAM use by women with female-specific cancers to others: it's time to focus on interaction risks with CAM therapies.

There has been no examination as to whether the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, as well as personal factors associated with CAM use and predictive of CAM use for women with female-specific cancers, is similar to those in other diagnostic groups. The purpose of this review is to compare CAM use and personal factors associated with and predictive of CAM use by women with female-specific cancers to samples of other diagnostic groups. If it is the case that CAM use is similar across various types of samples, then it may be unnecessary to continue to study detailed CAM use by those in separate diagnostic groups and instead focus energies on the examination of CAM therapies that may have risks for interaction with conventional therapies, such as biologically based therapies. The researcher concludes that we are now in an era in which we need to use our restricted time, human resources, and finances to examine biologically based CAM use that may carry high risks for interactions or toxicities for specific groups under examination, rather than examine global CAM use, unless the situation warrants such all-inclusive study.