Ted Gansler1, Sara Strollo2, Elizabeth Fallon2, Corinne Leach2. 1. Intramural Research, American Cancer Society, 250 Williams Street, Atlanta, GA, 30303-1002, USA. ted.gansler@cancer.org. 2. Behavioral and Epidemiology Research Group, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many cancer survivors use complementary and alternative health methods (CAM). Because we are unaware of high-level evidence supporting CAM for preventing cancer recurrence, we studied post-treatment survivors who use CAM to assess (1) the percentage who included preventing recurrence as a motive for using CAM, (2) characteristics of survivors who use CAM intended to prevent recurrence, and (3) CAM domains associated with use for recurrence prevention. METHODS: We studied participants in the American Cancer Society's Study of Cancer Survivors-I (nationwide study of adult survivors) who used CAM (excluding osteopathy, yoga, tai chi, or qi gong users, as well as anyone whose only reported CAM was prayer/meditation). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations of independent variables with CAM use for recurrence prevention. RESULTS: Among 1220 survivors using CAM, 14.8% reported recurrence prevention as a reason for CAM use (although only 0.4% indicated this was their only reason). The following were independently associated with odds of CAM use to prevent recurrence: not being married/in a marriage-like relationship (OR = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.23), using mind-body (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.08-2.51) or biologically based (OR = 4.11, 95% CI 1.96-8.59) CAM and clinically relevant fear of recurrence (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.38-2.78). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1/7 of survivors who use CAM have unrealistic expectations about CAM reducing recurrence risk. This expectation is strongly associated with the use of biologically based CAM. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patient education should support informed decisions and realistic expectations regarding any complementary/integrative or mainstream/conventional clinical intervention.
PURPOSE: Many cancer survivors use complementary and alternative health methods (CAM). Because we are unaware of high-level evidence supporting CAM for preventing cancer recurrence, we studied post-treatment survivors who use CAM to assess (1) the percentage who included preventing recurrence as a motive for using CAM, (2) characteristics of survivors who use CAM intended to prevent recurrence, and (3) CAM domains associated with use for recurrence prevention. METHODS: We studied participants in the American Cancer Society's Study of Cancer Survivors-I (nationwide study of adult survivors) who used CAM (excluding osteopathy, yoga, tai chi, or qi gong users, as well as anyone whose only reported CAM was prayer/meditation). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations of independent variables with CAM use for recurrence prevention. RESULTS: Among 1220 survivors using CAM, 14.8% reported recurrence prevention as a reason for CAM use (although only 0.4% indicated this was their only reason). The following were independently associated with odds of CAM use to prevent recurrence: not being married/in a marriage-like relationship (OR = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.23), using mind-body (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.08-2.51) or biologically based (OR = 4.11, 95% CI 1.96-8.59) CAM and clinically relevant fear of recurrence (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.38-2.78). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1/7 of survivors who use CAM have unrealistic expectations about CAM reducing recurrence risk. This expectation is strongly associated with the use of biologically based CAM. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patient education should support informed decisions and realistic expectations regarding any complementary/integrative or mainstream/conventional clinical intervention.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer recurrence; Cancer survivorship; Complementary and alternative methods; Integrative oncology; Questionnaire
Authors: Gary E Deng; Barrie R Cassileth; Lorenzo Cohen; Jyothirmai Gubili; Peter A S Johnstone; Nagi Kumar; Andrew Vickers; Donald Abrams; David Rosenthal; Stephen Sagar; Debu Tripathy Journal: J Soc Integr Oncol Date: 2007
Authors: Tenbroeck Smith; Kevin D Stein; C Christina Mehta; Chiewkwei Kaw; James L Kepner; Trent Buskirk; Jeremy Stafford; Frank Baker Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael S Goldstein; E Richard Brown; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Hal Morgenstern; Roshan Bastani; Jennifer Lee; Nicole Gatto; Anita Ambs Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2005-10-25 Impact factor: 2.629