Pros and Cons of Dietary Strategies Popular Among Cancer Patients.

As many as 48% of cancer patients pursue popular diets, including the alkaline, Paleolithic, ketogenic, vegan, and macrobiotic diets, with the hope that they will improve survival and prevent recurrence. These diets have positive aspects consistent with the dietary guidelines proposed by the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR). All of the diets emphasize eating vegetables, all but the ketogenic diet encourage eating fruit, and all but the vegan diet limit refined grains and alcohol. Both the macrobiotic and the alkaline diets meet the majority of the ACS and AICR guidelines. Negative aspects of these diets include pseudo-scientific rationales for their anti-cancer properties, limited evidence that they improve cancer outcomes, the possibility for nutrient insufficiencies, and elimination of food groups proven beneficial for cancer prevention and general health. Moreover, with nutritional counseling, nutrient insufficiencies and misalignment with cancer clinical guidelines can often be addressed. Clinicians should consider strategies to encourage evidence-based dietary changes that encourage positive features of popular cancer diets, while minimizing negative aspects.

Integrative Oncology Scholars Program: A Model for Integrative Oncology Education.

OBJECTIVES: Oncology providers are often confronted by patients who use complementary or alternative therapies, but have limited knowledge or confidence on how to advise patients on appropriate use. Despite this, there are few opportunities for oncology providers to learn about complementary or alternative therapies, while at the same time there is a high demand for integrative oncology (IO) training. To address a gap in IO educational opportunities, and particularly for nonphysicians, we created the Integrative Oncology Scholars (IOS) Program. The program's goal is to train 100 IO leaders and facilitate partnerships between them and complementary practitioners. DESIGN: Four iterations of a year-long National Cancer Institute-funded educational program that combines in-person team-based learning and eLearning to teach the evidence, application, and philosophy supporting IO. SETTINGS: In-person sessions take place at the University of Michigan, and eLearning is implemented using a Canvas website (Instructure, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT). SUBJECTS: Nurses, social workers, physician assistants, psychologists, physicians, pharmacists, and physical/occupational therapists with active oncology practices. Educational intervention: Four cohorts of 25 oncology providers per year will learn the evidence base for complementary and alternative approaches to a wide number of oncology topics, including symptom control, dietary supplements commonly used by cancer patients, diet, and the utility of specific integrative approaches for common oncology side-effects such as fatigue. OUTCOME MEASURES: A mixed methods approach will be used to evaluate overall IOS Program progress and individual scholar's impact on IO research, education, and clinical endeavors. RESULTS: The first cohort of 25 IOS has been recruited and their education will begin in Summer 2018. Scholars come from 13 states and represent 23 different healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: The IOS Program has the potential to increase the number of trained IO providers, educators, and researchers in the United States.