Mathilde Gras1, Alexis Vallard2, Christelle Brosse1, Aurélie Beneton1, Sandrine Sotton2, Denis Guyotat3, Pierre Fournel4, Elisabeth Daguenet3, Nicolas Magné2, Stéphanie Morisson5. 1. Department of Supportive Care in Oncology, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France. 3. Department of Hematology, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France. 5. Department of Supportive Care in Oncology, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France, Stephanie.morisson@icloire.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is usual for cancer patients to use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and yet the literature evaluating their efficacy in cancer patients is very limited. The objective of the present study was to report on the nature, frequency of use, and patient-reported outcome of CAMs in a single-center study. METHODS: All the consecutive patients treated between November 2017 and June 2018 at the Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute (France) were screened. Their reasons for using CAMs and their usage habits were collected. Patients evaluated their benefit. RESULTS: Of the 209 patients screened, 200 patients were included. CAMs ranged from osteopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, healing touch, magnetism, naturopathy, suction cups, Chinese medicine, reflexology, to hypnosis. CAMs were widely used (n = 166, 83%), the first being osteopathy (n = 99, 49.5%), the second homeopathy (n = 78, 39.0%), and finally acupuncture (n = 76, 38.0%). Whatever the CAM, high satisfaction rates were reported (median satisfaction: 61-81%). CAMs were mainly used to prevent/treat side effects of anticancer treatments (81.2% for healing touch), increase well-being (55.4% for naturopathy), improve the immune system (16.9% for homeopathy), and treat cancer (n = 3, 5.1% for homeopathy). Patients could easily consider using CAMs, as up to 50.8% would have accepted a consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for using CAMs differed among patients. They praised CAMs and kept asking for more information although there is limited evidence about their efficacy in the literature. Thus, prospective randomized controlled trials exploring the safety and efficacy of CAMs in cancer patients are needed.
PURPOSE: It is usual for cancerpatients to use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and yet the literature evaluating their efficacy in cancerpatients is very limited. The objective of the present study was to report on the nature, frequency of use, and patient-reported outcome of CAMs in a single-center study. METHODS: All the consecutive patients treated between November 2017 and June 2018 at the Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute (France) were screened. Their reasons for using CAMs and their usage habits were collected. Patients evaluated their benefit. RESULTS: Of the 209 patients screened, 200 patients were included. CAMs ranged from osteopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, healing touch, magnetism, naturopathy, suction cups, Chinese medicine, reflexology, to hypnosis. CAMs were widely used (n = 166, 83%), the first being osteopathy (n = 99, 49.5%), the second homeopathy (n = 78, 39.0%), and finally acupuncture (n = 76, 38.0%). Whatever the CAM, high satisfaction rates were reported (median satisfaction: 61-81%). CAMs were mainly used to prevent/treat side effects of anticancer treatments (81.2% for healing touch), increase well-being (55.4% for naturopathy), improve the immune system (16.9% for homeopathy), and treat cancer (n = 3, 5.1% for homeopathy). Patients could easily consider using CAMs, as up to 50.8% would have accepted a consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for using CAMs differed among patients. They praised CAMs and kept asking for more information although there is limited evidence about their efficacy in the literature. Thus, prospective randomized controlled trials exploring the safety and efficacy of CAMs in cancerpatients are needed.
Authors: Ravikiran B Humbare; Joyita Sarkar; Anjali A Kulkarni; Mugdha G Juwale; Sushil H Deshmukh; Dinesh Amalnerkar; Manohar Chaskar; Maria C Albertini; Marco B L Rocchi; Swapnil C Kamble; Seeram Ramakrishna Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) Date: 2022-05-20
Authors: Tolulope O Afolaranmi; Zuwaira I Hassan; Esosa J Uwadiae; Uchechukwu E Nwokolo; Ijeoma B Nwaemelu; Kainechukwu G Ugwu; Obinna J Ugwu; Kayode K Bello; Akinyemi O Ofakunrin Journal: Int J Prev Med Date: 2022-04-05
Authors: Karolina Kasprzycka; Marta Kurzawa; Malgorzata Kucharz; Monika Godawska; Marta Oleksa; Marta Stawowy; Katarzyna Slupinska-Borowka; Wiktoria Sznek; Iwona Gisterek; Agnieszka Boratyn-Nowicka; Monika Rucinska; Karolina Osowiecka; Sergiusz Nawrocki Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Clara Foucré; Steffen Schulz; Wiebke Stritter; Irina von Mackensen; Jacqueline Luchte; Pune Ivaki; Andreas Voss; Pirus Ghadjar; Georg Seifert Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2022 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.077