| Literature DB >> 28088871 |
Teresa Rojas Rojas1, Geneviève Bourdy2, Eloy Ruiz3, Juan-Pablo Cerapio4, Pascal Pineau5,6, Jacques Gardon7, Franco Doimi3, Xavier Deparis1, Eric Deharo2, Stéphane Bertani2.
Abstract
RATIONALE: The highest burden of liver cancer occurs in developing countries, where the use of herbal medicine (HM) is still widespread. Despite this trend, few studies have been conducted to report HM practices of patients with a hepatic tumor in the developing world. Hence, this study aimed to document the use of HM among patients with liver cancer in Peru. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A comparative behavioral epidemiological survey was conducted among liver cancer patients attending the National Cancer Institute of Peru. Information was obtained by direct interviews based on a semistructured questionnaire. The use of HM in Peruvian liver cancer patients was reported, first, regarding general consumption prior to the onset of disease, and second, after the appearance of symptoms that patients would relate to their tumor. In parallel, general consumption of HM in noncancerous people was assessed as a comparative figure. A correspondence analysis was performed to reveal potential associations between the symptoms of cancer and the specific use of HM.Entities:
Keywords: Indigenous people; Latin America; behavioral epidemiological survey; cancer; complementary and alternative medicine; developing world; ethnobotany; integrative medicine; liver disease; traditional medicine
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28088871 PMCID: PMC5950939 DOI: 10.1177/1534735416681642
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Integr Cancer Ther ISSN: 1534-7354 Impact factor: 3.279
Questions Included in the Category 4 Questionnaire.
| Question | Questioning Type | Group(s) |
|---|---|---|
| In general, do you take plants on a regular basis to treat your health problems? (regular herbal medicine [HM]) | Closed-ended (yes vs no) | Patient, comparative |
| If so, what plants do you take? | Open-ended | Patient, comparative |
| Which disease(s) you take these plants to treat? | Open-ended | Patient, comparative |
| Could you describe the complete recipe? (plant parts, mode of preparation, and administration) | Open-ended | Patient, comparative |
| Who informed you about these plants? | Open-ended | Patient, comparative |
| What symptoms have you experienced before coming to the hospital? (to complete the checklist given by the physician) | Closed- and open-ended | Patient, comparative |
| Did you take plants to specifically treat the symptoms for which you are attending the hospital? (symptomatic HM) | Closed-ended (yes vs no) | Patient |
| If so, what plants did you take to treat these symptoms? | Open-ended | Patient |
| What did you take these plants for? | Open-ended | Patient |
| For how long did you take these plants? | Open-ended | Patient |
| Could you describe the complete recipe? (plant parts, mode of preparation, and administration) | Open-ended | Patient |
| Who informed you about these plants? | Open-ended | Patient |
Figure 1.Map of the regional headcounts for both patient and comparative groups.
Sociodemographic Features of the Individuals Interviewed.
| Overall | Patient Group | Comparative Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cohort | |||
| Headcount | 205 | 88 | 117 |
| Age (years) | |||
| Mean ± standard deviation | 38.9 ± 17.2 | 44.7 ± 22.5 | 34.6 ± 9.9 |
| Median | 36 | 41 | 34 |
| Interquartile range | 20 | 38.5 | 14.5 |
| Gender | |||
| Female | 77 | 33 | 44 |
| Male | 128 | 55 | 73 |
| 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | |
| Income[ | |||
| Less than 100 | 21 | 19 | 3 |
| Between 100 and 200 | 55 | 38 | 17 |
| Between 200 and 500 | 67 | 25 | 42 |
| Between 500 and 1500 | 48 | 6 | 42 |
| More than 1500 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
Incomes are indicated as household income per month and are estimates converted from Peruvian currency (Nuevo Sol).
Symptom Pattern in Both Patient and Comparative Groups.
| Symptom Name[ | Patient group (%) | Comparative Group (%) [Confidence Interval] (n = 117) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Anorexia | 48.9 [38.5-59.3] | 2.6 [0-5.5] | <.001 |
| Anxiety | 61.4 [51.2-71.6] | 23.1 [15.5-30.7] | <.001 |
| Aphonia | 5.7 [0.9-10.5] | 0 | <.01 |
| Asthenia | 19.3 [11.1-27.5] | 0 | <.001 |
| Back pain | 20.5 [12.1-28.9] | 16.2 [9.5-22.9] | ns |
| Bloating | 12.5 [5.6-19.4] | 7.7 [2.9-12.5] | ns |
| Cephalgia | 14.8 [7.4-22.2] | 6.8 [2.2-11.4] | ns |
| Cramp | 10.2 [3.9-16.5] | 1.7 [0-4] | <.001 |
| Dehydration | 7.9 [2.3-13.5] | 0 | <.001 |
| Depression | 61.4 [51.2-71.6] | 4.3 [0.6-8] | <.001 |
| Diarrhea | 7.9 [2.3-13.5] | 0 | <.001 |
| Digestive disorders | 53.4 [43-63.8] | 5.1 [1.1-9.1] | <.001 |
| Dyspepsia | 60.3 [50.1-70.5] | 0.9 [0-2.6] | <.001 |
| Dyspnea | 5.7 [0.9-10.5] | 0.9 [0-2.6] | ns |
| Erythema | 6.8 [1.5-12.1] | 6 [1.7-10.3] | ns |
| Epistaxis | 3.4 [0-7.2] | 4.3 [0.6-8] | ns |
| Fatigue | 54.5 [44.1-64.9] | 5.1 [1.1-9.1] | <.001 |
| Hematuria | 1.1 [0-3.3] | 0 | ns |
| Hemoptysis | 3.4 [0-7.2] | 0 | ns |
| Icterus | 22.7 [13.9-31.5] | 0 | <.001 |
| Insomnia | 45.4 [35-55.8] | 10.3 [4.8-15.8] | <.001 |
| Irritation | 1.1 [0-3.3] | 2.3 [0-5] | ns |
| Nausea | 34.1 [24.2-44] | 4.3 [0.6-8] | <.001 |
| Paresthesia | 2.3 [0-5.4] | 0.9 [0-2.6] | ns |
| Pyrexia | 12.5 [5.6-19.4] | 0 | <.001 |
| Rash | 3.4 [0-7.2] | 0.9 [0-2.6] | ns |
| Sore throat | 11.4 [4.8-18] | 7.7 [2.9-12.5] | ns |
| Weight loss | 59.1 [48.8-69.4] | 0.9 [0-2.6] | <.001 |
| Other symptoms | 18.2 [10.1-26.3] | 9.4 [4.1-14.7] | ns |
Abbreviation: ns, nonsignificant.
Symptoms are presented in alphabetical order. Percentages are expressed as the proportion of the total patient (n = 88) and comparative (n = 117) population group for the considered symptom. P values are indicated for symptoms that are significantly, positively correlated with the patient group.
Figure 2.Set diagrams of the plant species listed during the survey. (A) Overall number of plant species listed by the patient group (n = 78) and the comparative group (n = 53) [n∩ = 28]. (B) Number of plant species listed as regular herbal medicine (HM) by the patient group (n = 48) and the comparative group (n = 53) [n∩ = 25]. (C) Number of plant species listed in symptomatic HM treatments by the patient group (n = 46) and in regular HM by both the patient and comparative groups (n = 76) [n∩ = 19].
Proportion of Use of Each Plant Species for Cancer-Related Symptoms (Symptomatic HM) and for Other Health Purposes (Regular HM).
| Plant Species[ | Proportion (%) of Use for General Health (Regular HM) | Proportion (%) of Use for Liver Cancer–Related Symptoms (Symptomatic HM) | Overall Ranking [Citation Number] | Distributional Range in Peru[ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 3.6 | 20 | 10 [15] | Introduced | |
| 10 | 0 | 11 [14] | Indigenous | |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 2.1 | 0 | 25 [3] | Indigenous | |
| 2.8 | 14 | 15 [11] | Introduced | |
| 2.1 | 0 | 25 [3] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 2 | 32 [2] | Introduced | |
| 1.4 | 0 | 32 [2] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 3.6 | 4 | 17 [7] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
|
| 2.1 | 0 | 25 [3] | Introduced |
| 1.4 | 0 | 32 [2] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 30.7 | 4 | 1 [45] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
|
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Introduced |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 1.4 | 0 | 32 [2] | Indigenous | |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 0 | 4 | 32 [2] | Indigenous | |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 20.7 | 0 | 2 [29] | Indigenous | |
| 2.1 | 6 | 19 [6] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 3.6 | 0 | 21 [5] | Introduced | |
| 13.6 | 2 | 6 [20] | Indigenous | |
| 1.4 | 0 | 32 [2] | Indigenous | |
| 8.6 | 0 | 14 [12] | Introduced | |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 10 | 8 | 9 [18] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 12.8 | 8 | 5 [22] | Introduced | |
| 1.4 | 0 | 32 [2] | Introduced | |
| 3.6 | 0 | 21 [5] | Introduced | |
| 1.4 | 0 | 32 [2] | Introduced | |
| 1.4 | 0 | 32 [2] | Introduced | |
| 4.3 | 0 | 19 [6] | Introduced | |
| 12.8 | 4 | 6 [20] | Indigenous | |
| 0 | 14 | 17 [7] | Introduced | |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 7.8 | 4 | 12 [13] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
|
| 0 | 4 | 32 [2] | Introduced |
| 14.3 | 18 | 2 [29] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 2 | 32 [2] | Indigenous | |
| 4.3 | 10 | 15 [11] | Indigenous | |
| 16.4 | 4 | 4 [25] | Introduced | |
| 3.6 | 0 | 21 [5] | Indigenous | |
| 9.3 | 14 | 6 [20] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 2 | 32 [2] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 2 | 32 [2] | Indigenous | |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Indigenous | |
| 2.8 | 0 | 24 [4] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0 | 6 | 25 [3] | Indigenous | |
| 0 | 2 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| UI | 9.3 | 22.2 | n/a | n/a |
| 4.3 | 14 | 12 [13] | Indigenous | |
| 0.7 | 0 | 44 [1] | Introduced | |
| 2.1 | 0 | 25 [3] | Indigenous | |
| 2.1 | 0 | 25 [3] | Indigenous |
Abbreviations: n/a, not applicable; UI, unidentified plant species.
Plants are presented in alphabetical order according to their scientific name.[33] For further details on the vernacular name and collected data of the unidentified plant species, see Supplemental Table S1. Percentages are expressed as the proportion of interviewees that listed the considered plant species as part of their treatment allocation; that is, regular and/or symptomatic HM. Number of interviewees (patients + comparatives) using regular HM (n = 140); number of interviewees (patients) taking symptomatic HM (n = 50).