Dataset Information

Complementary and alternative medicines in prostate cancer: from bench to bedside?

ABSTRACT: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common among adults, and recent reports suggest that 25%-50% of prostate cancer (PCa) patients use at least one CAM modality. The most common CAM modalities used by PCa patients are vitamin and herbal preparations with purported antitumor effects despite only modest underlying preclinical or clinical evidence of efficacy. In this review we provide a brief overview of the basic scientific and clinical studies underlying the most common herbal and vitamin preparations including common antioxidants, pomegranate extract, green tea, turmeric, resveratrol, silibinin, and herbal combination preparations. When available, prostate cancer clinical trial data are reviewed. Importantly, we have compared the concentration of these agents used in in vitro experiments to that likely to be achievable in humans. From the available data we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of CAMs for the treatment of prostate cancer patients outside of a clinical trial. The purpose of this review is to more rigorously evaluate CAM therapy in prostate cancer and educate oncologists and patients. This review focuses on examples from the general classes of agents in common use.

SUBMITTER: Klempner SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3380882 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Complementary and alternative medicines in prostate cancer: from bench to bedside?

Klempner Samuel J SJ Bubley Glenn G

The oncologist 20120522 6

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common among adults, and recent reports suggest that 25%-50% of prostate cancer (PCa) patients use at least one CAM modality. The most common CAM modalities used by PCa patients are vitamin and herbal preparations with purported antitumor effects despite only modest underlying preclinical or clinical evidence of efficacy. In this review we provide a brief overview of the basic scientific and clinical studies underlying the most common herbal an ...[more]

PMID: 22618569

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntegrative and complementary health approaches (ICHA) are often pursued by patients facing chronic illnesses. Most of the studies that investigated the factors associated with ICHA consumption have considered that the propensity to use ICHA is a stable or fixed characteristic of an individual. However, people may prefer using ICHA in some situations and not in others, depending on the characteristics of the illness to face. Moreover, the attitude toward ICHA may differ within a single individual and between individuals so that ICHA can be used either in addition to (i.e., complementary attitude) or in place of (i.e., alternative attitude). The present study aimed at examining distinct patterns of attitudes toward ICHA in people hypothetically facing chronic illnesses that differed according to severity and clinical expression.MethodsWe conducted a web-based study including 1807 participants who were asked to imagine that they had a particular chronic illness based on clinical vignettes (mental illnesses: depression, schizophrenia; somatic illnesses: rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis). Participants were invited to rate their perceived distress and social stigma associated with each illness as well as its perceived treatability. They also rated their belief in treatment effectiveness, and their treatment preference. Four patterns of treatment choice were determined: strictly conventional, weak or strong complementary, and alternative. Bayesian methods were used for statistical analyses.ResultsICHA were selected as complementary treatment option by more than 95% of people who hypothetically faced chronic illness. The complementary attitude towards ICHA (in addition to conventional treatment) was more frequent than the alternative one (in place of conventional treatment). Factors driving this preference included employment status, severity of illness, age and perceived distress, social stigma and treatability of the illness. When the label of illnesses was included in the vignettes, patterns of treatment preference were altered.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence that "medical pluralism" (i.e., the integration of ICHA with conventional treatment) is likely the norm for people facing both mental or somatic illness. However, our result must be interpreted with caution due to the virtual nature of this study. We suggest that taking attitudes toward ICHA into account is crucial for a better understanding of patients' motivation to use ICHA.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether the use of complementary and alternative medicines therapies (CAMs) for prostate cancer and/or its treatment side effects by long-term survivors is associated with selected socio-demographic, clinical, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and/or psychological factors.Design, setting and participantsThe Prostate Cancer Care and Outcomes Study (PCOS) is a population-based cohort study of men with prostate cancer who were aged less than 70 years at diagnosis in New South Wales, Australia. Included in these analyses were men who returned a 10-year follow-up questionnaire, which included questions about CAM use.MethodsValidated instruments assessed patient's HRQOL and psychological well-being. Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used to estimate the adjusted relative risks of current CAM use for prostate cancer according to socio-demographic, clinical, HRQOL and psychological factors.Results996 of 1634 (61%) living PCOS participants completed the 10-year questionnaire. Of these 996 men, 168 (17%) were using CAMs for prostate cancer and 525 (53%) were using CAMs for any reason (including prostate cancer). Those using CAM for prostate cancer were more likely to be regular or occasional support group participants (vs. no participation RR = 2.02; 95%CI 1.41-2.88), born in another country (vs. Australian born RR = 1.59; 95%CI 1.17-2.16), have received androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) since diagnosis (RR = 1.60; 95%CI 1.12-2.28) or in the past two years (RR = 2.34; 95%CI 1.56-3.52). CAM use was associated with greater fear of recurrence (RR = 1.29; 95%CI 1.12-1.48), cancer-specific distress (RR = 1.15; 95%CI 1.01-1.30), cancer-specific hyperarousal (RR = 1.17; 95%CI 1.04-1.31), cancer locus of control (RR = 1.16; 95%CI 1.01-1.34) and less satisfaction with medical treatments (RR = 0.86; 95%CI 0.76-0.97), but not with intrusive thinking, cognitive avoidance, depression, anxiety or any HRQOL domains.ConclusionsIn this study, about one in six long term prostate cancer survivors used CAMs for their prostate cancer with use centred around ADT, country of birth, distress, cancer control, fear of recurrence and active help seeking.

Dataset Information

Complementary and alternative medicines in prostate cancer: from bench to bedside?

Publications

Complementary and alternative medicines in prostate cancer: from bench to bedside?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets