| Literature DB >> 32089722 |
Ming-Hsien Yeh1,2, Hung-Pin Chiu3, Mei-Chun Wu3, Malcolm Koo4,5, Nai-Wei Lin6, Kou-Kai Liao3, Chia-Chou Yeh2,7, Te-Mao Li1.
Abstract
Recent studies suggested that Traditional Chinese Medicine could play a beneficial role in conventional cancer treatment. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the effect of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) combined with Western medicine on the survival of patients with colorectal cancer. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer identified from the Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital Cancer Registry Database in 2004-2014. Combining with the medical records of the study hospital, patients were classified into CHM users and CHM nonusers. Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to investigate the survival between CHM users and CHM nonusers. A total of 535 patients with colorectal cancer were included in the study with 147 of them were CHM users. The log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier survival curve revealed a statistically significant difference between the survival of CHM users and CHM nonusers (P=0.006). Results from multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that CHM use was significantly associated with better survival (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.77). In addition, the CHM formulae Jia Wei Xiao Yao San, Zhi Bah Di Huang Wan, Ping Wei San, and Qui Pi Tang were significantly associated with better survival. In conclusion, findings from this retrospective cohort study indicated that integrated CHM and Western medicine could improve survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Additional research on integrating TCM with Western medicine to improve cancer survival is warranted.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32089722 PMCID: PMC7021463 DOI: 10.1155/2020/4561040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Comparison of age and sex distribution of the 1,209 patients with colorectal cancer identified from the Taiwan Cancer Registry and the 535 patients included in this study.
| Variable | Source population ( | Study sample ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | No. | % | ||
| Age (years) | 0.110 | ||||
| ≤45 | 93 | 7.7 | 43 | 8.0 | |
| 46–65 | 442 | 36.5 | 192 | 35.9 | |
| ≥66 | 674 | 55.7 | 300 | 56.1 | |
| Sex | 0.969 | ||||
| Male | 643 | 53.2 | 284 | 53.1 | |
| Female | 566 | 46.8 | 251 | 46.9 | |
Characteristics of patients with colorectal cancer (N = 535).
| Variable | CHM users ( | CHM nonusers ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | No. | % | ||
| Age (years) | 0.075 | ||||
| ≤45 | 10 | 6.8 | 33 | 8.5 | |
| 46–65 | 64 | 43.5 | 128 | 33.0 | |
| ≥66 | 73 | 49.7 | 227 | 58.5 | |
| Sex | 0.851 | ||||
| Male | 79 | 53.7 | 205 | 52.8 | |
| Female | 68 | 46.3 | 183 | 47.2 | |
| Clinical stage | 0.774 | ||||
| I | 30 | 20.4 | 71 | 18.3 | |
| II | 22 | 15.0 | 67 | 17.3 | |
| III | 64 | 43.5 | 158 | 40.7 | |
| IV | 31 | 21.1 | 92 | 23.7 | |
| Treatment | |||||
| Surgery | 137 | 93.2 | 359 | 92.5 | 0.790 |
| Radiotherapy | 49 | 33.3 | 105 | 27.1 | 0.153 |
| Chemotherapy | 115 | 78.2 | 273 | 70.4 | 0.069 |
| Distant metastases | 31 | 21.1 | 92 | 23.7 | 0.520 |
| Comorbidity score 1 | 18 | 12.2 | 22 | 5.7 | 0.010 |
| Comorbidity score 2 | 8 | 5.4 | 20 | 5.2 | 0.894 |
| Comorbidity score 6 | 9 | 6.1 | 18 | 4.6 | 0.659 |
CHM : Chinese herbal medicine. Comorbidity score 1: myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, dementia, chronic pulmonary disease, rheumatologic disease, peptic ulcer disease, mild liver disease, and diabetes. Comorbidity score 2: diabetes with chronic complication, hemiplegia or paraplegia, renal disease, and malignancy (including leukemia and lymphoma). Comorbidity score 6: metastases solid tumor and acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
Figure 1Kaplan–Meier survival curves for patients with colorectal cancer by Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) use.
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier survival curves for patients with colorectal cancer by Chinese herbal medicine use: (a) stage (I), (b) stage II, (c) stage III, and (d) stage IV.
Survival of patients with colorectal cancer (N = 535).
| Variable | Unadjusted analysis | Adjusted analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| Adjusted HR | 95% CI |
| |
| Chinese herbal medicine use | ||||||
| Nonusers (<30d) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Users (≥30 d) | 0.62 | 0.44–0.88 | 0.007 | 0.54 | 0.38–0.77 | 0.001 |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| ≤45 | 1.00 | — | — | — | ||
| 46–65 | 0.52 | 0.31–0.88 | 0.014 | — | — | — |
| >65 | 0.95 | 0.59–1.52 | 0.820 | — | — | — |
| Sex | ||||||
| Female | 1.00 | — | — | — | ||
| Male | 1.29 | 0.97–1.72 | 0.076 | — | — | — |
| Clinical stage | ||||||
| I | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| II | 3.25 | 1.58–6.70 | 0.001 | 2.98 | 1.44–6.18 | 0.003 |
| III | 3.30 | 1.69–6.42 | <0.001 | 4.28 | 2.18–8.42 | <0.001 |
| IV | 15.26 | 7.93–29.36 | <0.001 | 17.49 | 8.90–34.38 | <0.001 |
| Surgery | 0.18 | 0.12–0.26 | <0.001 | 0.29 | 0.19–0.43 | <0.001 |
| Radiotherapy | 0.82 | 0.60–1.12 | 0.215 | — | — | — |
| Chemotherapy | 0.76 | 0.56–1.02 | 0.069 | 0.47 | 0.34–0.65 | <0.001 |
| Distant metastases | 5.69 | 4.27–7.57 | <0.001 | — | — | — |
| Comorbidity score 1 | 1.04 | 0.61–1.75 | 0.896 | — | — | — |
| Comorbidity score 2 | 0.59 | 0.28–1.24 | 0.165 | — | — | — |
| Comorbidity score 6 | 1.48 | 0.86–2.55 | 0.161 | — | — | — |
CI: confidence interval; HR: hazards ratio. Comorbidity score 1: myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, dementia, chronic pulmonary disease, rheumatologic disease, peptic ulcer disease, mild liver disease, and diabetes. Comorbidity score 2: diabetes with chronic complication, hemiplegia or paraplegia, renal disease, and malignancy (including leukemia and lymphoma). Comorbidity score 6: metastases solid tumor and acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
Top 10 commonly used Chinese herbal medicine formulae in patients with colorectal cancer (N = 147).
| Formula | Ingredients | Function | No. of patients | % | Total dosage (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liu Wei Di Huang Wan |
| Kidney yin deficient | 40 | 27.2 | 14,328 |
|
| |||||
| Jia Wei Xiao Yao San |
| Clears liver Qi stagnation and heat | 74 | 50.3 | 41,437 |
|
| |||||
| Ban Xia Xie Xin Tang |
| Harmonize the stomach and descend the rebellious Qi | 45 | 30.6 | 17,617 |
|
| |||||
| Ping Wei San |
| Dries dampness and harmonizes spleen-stomach relationship | 70 | 47.6 | 22,445 |
|
| |||||
| Zhi Gan Cao Tang |
| Anemic and yang deficient syndrome | 31 | 21.1 | 12,498 |
|
| |||||
| Zhi Bai Di Huang Wan |
| Yin deficient and heat is high | 34 | 23.1 | 13,274 |
|
| |||||
| Li Zhong Tang |
| Spleen deficient | 56 | 38.1 | 22,413 |
|
| |||||
| Du Huo Ji Sheng Tang |
| Gets rid of wind dampness, pain due to Qi and blood stasis, tonic for Qi and blood | 15 | 10.2 | 13,182 |
|
| |||||
| Qui Pi Tang |
| Spleen deficient, blood deficient | 46 | 31.3 | 14,676 |
|
| |||||
| Huo Xiang Zhen Qi San |
| Relieves dampness | 54 | 36.7 | 14,821 |
Effects of 10 most commonly used Chinese herbal medicine formulae on the survival of patients with colorectal cancer (N = 535).
| Formula (n) | Unadjusted analysis | Adjusted analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| Adjusted HR | 95% CI |
| |
| Jia Wei Xiao Yao San | ||||||
| Not used(476) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Low dose (29) | 0.77 | 0.40–1.51 | 0.446 | 0.40 | 0.20–0.79 | 0.009 |
| High dose (30) | 0.34 | 0.14–0.82 | 0.017 | 0.38 | 0.16–0.93 | 0.035 |
| Liu wei Di huang Wan | ||||||
| Not used (503) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Low dose (16) | 0.44 | 0.14–1.37 | 0.158 | 0.64 | 0.20–2.01 | 0.443 |
| High dose (16) | 0.12 | 0.02–0.89 | 0.038 | 0.18 | 0.02–1.28 | 0.086 |
| Zhi Bai Di Huang Wan | ||||||
| Not used (507) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Low dose (15) | 0.74 | 0.30–1.79 | 0.497 | 0.46 | 0.20–1.13 | 0.091 |
| High dose (13) | 0.15 | 0.02–1.09 | 0.061 | 0.15 | 0.02–1.05 | 0.056 |
| Ban Xia Xie Xin Tang | ||||||
| Not used (500) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Low dose (19) | 0.72 | 0.32–1.62 | 0.424 | 0.49 | 0.21–1.14 | 0.096 |
| High dose (16) | 0.41 | 0.13–1.28 | 0.126 | 0.32 | 0.10–1.00 | 0.049 |
| Ping Wei San | ||||||
| Not used (475) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Low dose (41) | 0.83 | 0.47–1.45 | 0.505 | 0.56 | 0.32–1.01 | 0.054 |
| High dose (19) | 0.45 | 0.17–1.20 | 0.110 | 0.31 | 0.11–0.84 | 0.022 |
| Zhi Gan Cao Tang | ||||||
| Not used (508) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Low dose (13) | 0.18 | 0.03–1.28 | 0.086 | 0.19 | 0.03–1.36 | 0.099 |
| High dose (14) | 0.45 | 0.14–1.40 | 0.165 | 0.48 | 0.15–1.50 | 0.204 |
| Li Zhong Tang | ||||||
| Not used (491) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Low dose (20) | 0.63 | 0.26–1.52 | 0.302 | 0.47 | 0.19–1.16 | 0.101 |
| High dose (24) | 0.42 | 0.17–1.03 | 0.057 | 0.50 | 0.20–1.22 | 0.130 |
| Du Huo Ji Sheng Tang | ||||||
| Not used (527) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Low dose (2) | NC | NC | NC | NC | NC | NC |
| High dose (6) | 0.31 | 0.04–2.20 | 0.240 | 0.47 | 0.07–3.38 | 0.453 |
| Qui Pi Tang | ||||||
| Not used (500) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Low dose (17) | 1.21 | 0.54–2.73 | 0.650 | 1.27 | 0.56–2.87 | 0.571 |
| High dose (18) | 0.78 | 0.34–1.75 | 0.544 | 0.26 | 0.11–0.59 | 0.001 |
| Huo Xiang Zhen Qi San | ||||||
| Not used (494) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Low dose (22) | 1.31 | 0.67–2.56 | 0.428 | 1.08 | 0.55–2.14 | 0.819 |
| High dose (19) | 0.48 | 0.18–1.29 | 0.145 | 0.66 | 0.24–1.78 | 0.407 |
CI: confidence interval; HR: hazards ratio; NC: not calculable.
Daily dosage and duration of Chinese herbal medicine administration.
| Formula | Dose | Daily dosagea (g) | Durationb (days) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jia Wei Xiao Yao San | High | 4.59 | 63 |
| Low | 4.09 | 25 | |
| Zhi Bai Di Huang Wan | High | 4.50 | 57 |
|
| |||
| Ping Wei San | High | 2.92 | 58 |
| Qui Pi Tang | High | 4.68 | 33 |
Patients taking dosage above and below the median were classified as high- or low-dose group, respectively. aThe daily dosage of the Chinese herbal medicine administration was calculated as follows: total dosage/total days. bThe duration of the Chinese herbal medicine administration required for the high- and low-dose groups was calculated as follows: (median dose/daily dosage of the high-dose group) and (total dosage/daily dosage of the low-dose group).