Erratum. Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Use of Integrative Therapies as Supportive Care in Patients Treated for Breast Cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Greenlee H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7301470 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Erratum. Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Use of Integrative Therapies as Supportive Care in Patients Treated for Breast Cancer.
Greenlee Heather H Balneaves Lynda G LG Carlson Linda E LE Cohen Misha M Deng Gary G Hershman Dawn D Mumber Matthrew M Perlmutter Jane J Seely Dugald D Sen Amanda A Zick Suzanna M SM Tripathy Debu D
Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs 20150501 51
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe majority of breast cancer patients use complementary and/or integrative therapies during and beyond cancer treatment to manage symptoms, prevent toxicities, and improve quality of life. Practice guidelines are needed to inform clinicians and patients about safe and effective therapies.MethodsFollowing the Institute of Medicine's guideline development process, a systematic review identified randomized controlled trials testing the use of integrative therapies for supportive care in patients receiving breast cancer treatment. Trials were included if the majority of participants had breast cancer and/or breast cancer patient results were reported separately, and outcomes were clinically relevant. Recommendations were organized by outcome and graded based upon a modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading system.ResultsThe search (January 1, 1990-December 31, 2013) identified 4900 articles, of which 203 were eligible for analysis. Meditation, yoga, and relaxation with imagery are recommended for routine use for common conditions, including anxiety and mood disorders (Grade A). Stress management, yoga, massage, music therapy, energy conservation, and meditation are recommended for stress reduction, anxiety, depression, fatigue, and quality of life (Grade B). Many interventions (n = 32) had weaker evidence of benefit (Grade C). Some interventions (n = 7) were deemed unlikely to provide any benefit (Grade D). Notably, only one intervention, acetyl-l-carnitine for the prevention of taxane-induced neuropathy, was identified as likely harmful (Grade H) as it was found to increase neuropathy. The majority of intervention/modality combinations (n = 138) did not have sufficient evidence to form specific recommendations (Grade I).ConclusionsSpecific integrative therapies can be recommended as evidence-based supportive care options during breast cancer treatment. Most integrative therapies require further investigation via well-designed controlled trials with meaningful outcomes.
| S-EPMC4411539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Patients with breast cancer commonly use complementary and integrative therapies as supportive care during cancer treatment and to manage treatment-related side effects. However, evidence supporting the use of such therapies in the oncology setting is limited. This report provides updated clinical practice guidelines from the Society for Integrative Oncology on the use of integrative therapies for specific clinical indications during and after breast cancer treatment, including anxiety/stress, depression/mood disorders, fatigue, quality of life/physical functioning, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, lymphedema, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, pain, and sleep disturbance. Clinical practice guidelines are based on a systematic literature review from 1990 through 2015. Music therapy, meditation, stress management, and yoga are recommended for anxiety/stress reduction. Meditation, relaxation, yoga, massage, and music therapy are recommended for depression/mood disorders. Meditation and yoga are recommended to improve quality of life. Acupressure and acupuncture are recommended for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Acetyl-L-carnitine is not recommended to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy due to a possibility of harm. No strong evidence supports the use of ingested dietary supplements to manage breast cancer treatment-related side effects. In summary, there is a growing body of evidence supporting the use of integrative therapies, especially mind-body therapies, as effective supportive care strategies during breast cancer treatment. Many integrative practices, however, remain understudied, with insufficient evidence to be definitively recommended or avoided. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:194-232. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
| S-EPMC5892208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIt is unclear how NCCN guidelines recommend "supportive care" and "best supportive care" in oncology practice. We examined the usage of "supportive care" and "best supportive care" in NCCN guidelines and compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines.MethodsWe reviewed all updated NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer in October 2019. We documented the frequency of occurrence, definition, and timing of introduction of each term. We compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines.ResultsWe identified a total of 37 solid tumor and 16 hematologic guidelines. Thirty-seven (70%) guidelines mentioned "supportive care" and 36 (68%) mentioned "best supportive care." Hematologic guidelines were significantly more likely than solid tumor guidelines to use the term "supportive care" (median occurrence 19 vs. 2; P = 0.001) and to describe "supportive care" as management of cancer-related complications (N = 11/15, 73% vs. N = 2/22, 9%; P < 0.001). Domains of specialist palliative care were infrequently mentioned (N = 10/37, 27%). In contrast, solid tumor guidelines were significantly more likely than hematologic guidelines to mention "best supportive care" (median occurrence 6 vs. 0; P = 0.016). This term was rarely defined and mostly used in the advanced disease setting.Conclusion"Supportive care" and "best supportive care" were frequently used in NCCN guidelines, with significant variations in usage between solid tumor and hematologic oncologists. "Supportive care" was mostly limited to management of cancer-related complications and treatment adverse effects in NCCN guidelines, highlighting the need to go beyond the traditional biomedical model to more a patient-centered care model with greater integration of palliative care.
| S-EPMC8641046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:[This corrects the article on p. 34 in vol. 59.].
| S-EPMC5547881 | biostudies-other
Project description:PURPOSE:Integrative oncology (IO) services provide complementary/integrative medicine (CIM) therapies to patients as part of their supportive cancer care. In this study, we examine and compare the structural, operational, financial and academic/research-related aspects of IO services in Israeli oncology centers. METHODS:The medical directors of seven Israeli IO programs completed questionnaires which explored the objectives and organizational features of their service within the context of supportive cancer care. RESULTS:All participating IO services addressed patient-reported concerns related to quality of life and function, within the context of conventional supportive cancer care. The centers shared similar characteristics regarding the procedure of referral to their service and emphasized research and teaching initiatives within an academic framework, as part of their clinical practice. A number of obstacles to integration were identified, primarily those related to financial considerations, such as the need for patients to carry the cost of the CIM treatments. CONCLUSIONS:IO services situated within conventional oncology departments in Israel share a number of characteristics, as well as obstacles to their incorporation into standard care. All participating centers described both clinical and academic activities, including research initiatives and the promotion of CIM in an academic setting. Further research is needed in order to better understand the place of CIM in the oncology setting and prioritize the allocation of resources in order to advance the inclusion of CIM in standard supportive cancer care.
| S-EPMC6142087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Providing evidence-based supportive care for children with cancer has the potential to optimize treatment outcomes and improve quality of life. The Children's Oncology Group (COG) Supportive Care Guidelines Subcommittee conducted a systematic review to identify current supportive care clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) relevant to childhood cancer or pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Only 22 papers met the 2011 Institute of Medicine criteria to be considered a CPG. The results highlight the paucity of CPGs available to pediatric oncology healthcare professionals and the pressing need to create CPGs using current methodological standards.
| S-EPMC6249051 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8382480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImplementation tools (iTools) may enhance uptake of guidelines. However, little evidence exists on their use by primary care clinicians. This study explored which iTools clinicians used and how often; how satisfied clinicians were with the tools; whether tool use was associated with practice changes; and identified mediators for practice change(s) related to breast cancer screening (BCS).MethodsCanadian primary care providers who are members of the Practice-Based Small Group Learning Program (n = 1464) were invited to participate in this mixed methods study. An educational module was discussed in a small group learning context, and data collection included an on-line survey, practice reflection tools (PRTs), and interviews. The module included both the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care revised guideline on BCS and iTools for clinician and/or patient use. After discussing the module and at 3 months, participants completed PRTs identifying their planned practice change(s) and documenting implementation outcome(s). Use of the iTools was explored via online survey and individual interviews.ResultsSeventy participants agreed to participate. Of these, 48 participated in the online survey, 43 completed PRTs and 14 were interviewed. Most survey participants (77%) reported using at least one of seven tools available for implementing BCS guideline. Of these (78%) reported using more than one tool. Almost all participants used tools for clinicians (92%) and 62% also used tools for patients. As more tools were used, more practice changes were reported on the survey and PRTs. Interviews provided additional findings. Once information from an iTool was internalized, there was no further need for the tool. Participants did not use tools (23%) due to disagreements with the BCS guideline, patients' expectations, and/or experiences with diagnosis of breast cancer.ConclusionThis study found that clinicians use tools to implement practice changes related to BCS guideline. Tools developed for clinicians were used to understand and consolidate the recommendations before tools to be used with patients were employed to promote decision-making. Mediating factors that impacted tool use confirmed previous research. Finally, use of some iTools decreased over time because information was internalized.
| S-EPMC5992659 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8078368 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8478365 | biostudies-literature