Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Treated with Mistletoe and Hyperthermia in Addition to Palliative Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.

This retrospective analysis investigated the influence of integrative therapies in addition to palliative chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, treated at a single institution specialized in integrative oncology between January 2015 and December 2019. In total, 206 consecutive patients were included in the study, whereof 142 patients (68.9%) received palliative chemotherapy (gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel 33.8%; FOLFIRINOX 35.9%; gemcitabine 30.3%) while the remainder were treated with best supportive and integrative care. Integrative therapies were used in 117 of 142 patients (82.4%) in addition to conventional chemotherapy, whereby mistletoe was used in 117 patients (82.4%) and hyperthermia in 74 patients (52.1%). A total of 107/142 patients (86.3%) died during the observation period, whereby survival times differed significantly depending on the additional use of integrative mistletoe or hyperthermia: chemotherapy alone 8.6 months (95% CI 4.7-15.4), chemotherapy and only mistletoe therapy 11.2 months (95% CI 7.1-14.2), or a combination of chemotherapy with mistletoe and hyperthermia 18.9 months (95% CI 15.2-24.5). While the survival times observed for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy alone are consistent with pivotal phase-III studies and German registry data, we found significantly improved survival using additional mistletoe and/or hyperthermia.

Network Oncology (NO)--a clinical cancer register for health services research and the evaluation of integrative therapeutic interventions in anthroposophic medicine.

BACKGROUND: Concepts of integrative oncology (IO), as have been offered by anthroposophic medicine (AM) for decades, are gaining increasing interest and acceptance. Central aspects are multimodal therapeutic interventions, health-related quality of live, and patients' preference as well as therapeutic relationship and clinical outcome. Despite its broad application, IO lacks evaluation in clinical practice and complementary therapies are not monitored by any cancer registries. METHODS: To close this gap we established 'Network Oncology' (NO), a conjoint registry of German outpatient AM practitioners and AM hospitals. In this paper we present the project and a first data overview and compare it to epidemiological registers and current literature. RESULTS: NO has collected 10,405 cancer patients' records in 6 years. Compared to epidemiological registers our data show minor differences in disease entity distribution, age, and gender. There is an overproportional amount of young breast cancer patients in NO institutions indicating a demand for integrative therapies in this group. There is no difference between the UICC (Union for International Cancer Control) stages at first diagnosis and at admission to a NO facility. According to our data conventional therapies were less frequently administered after admission to a NO facility. Nevertheless, one third of the patients received their first conventional therapy in a NO facility. 80% of the patients received mistletoe preparations and 63% had nonpharmacotherapeutic, complementary interventions. CONCLUSION: Integrative oncological approaches attract a great number of patients visiting AM institutions. The NO provides an infrastructure to evaluate integrative interventions in AM, allows comparison to other clinical registers, and thus can contribute to health service research in this field.