Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cancer Patient Exposure, Perceptions, and Trust in Information Sources Regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use during cancer treatment is controversial. We aim to evaluate contemporary CAM use, patient perceptions and attitudes, and trust in various sources of information regarding CAM. METHODS: A multi-institutional questionnaire was distributed to patients receiving cancer treatment. Collected information included respondents' clinical and demographic characteristics, rates of CAM exposure/use, information sources regarding CAM, and trust in each information source. Comparisons between CAM users and nonusers were performed with chi-squared tests and one-way analysis of variance. Multivariable logistic regression models for trust in physician and nonphysician sources of information regarding CAM were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 749 respondents, the most common goals of CAM use were management of symptoms (42.2%) and treatment of cancer (30.4%). Most CAM users learned of CAM from nonphysician sources. Of CAM users, 27% reported not discussing CAM with their treating oncologists. Overall trust in physicians was high in both CAM users and nonusers. The only predictor of trust in physician sources of information was income >$100,000 in US dollars per year. Likelihood of trust in nonphysician sources of information was higher in females and lower in those with graduate degrees. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of patients with cancer are using CAM, some with the goal of treating their cancer. Although patients are primarily exposed to CAM through nonphysician sources of information, trust in physicians remains high. More research is needed to improve patient-clinician communication regarding CAM use.

Complementary Medicine, Refusal of Conventional Cancer Therapy, and Survival Among Patients With Curable Cancers.

Importance: There is limited information on the association among complementary medicine (CM), adherence to conventional cancer treatment (CCT), and overall survival of patients with cancer who receive CM compared with those who do not receive CM. Objectives: To compare overall survival between patients with cancer receiving CCT with or without CM and to compare adherence to treatment and characteristics of patients receiving CCT with or without CM. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational study used data from the National Cancer Database on 1 901 815 patients from 1500 Commission on Cancer-accredited centers across the United States who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013. Patients were matched on age, clinical group stage, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, insurance type, race/ethnicity, year of diagnosis, and cancer type. Statistical analysis was conducted from November 8, 2017, to April 9, 2018. Exposures: Use of CM was defined as "Other-Unproven: Cancer treatments administered by nonmedical personnel" in addition to at least 1 CCT modality, defined as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and/or hormone therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival, adherence to treatment, and patient characteristics. Results: The entire cohort comprised 1 901 815 patients with cancer (258 patients in the CM group and 1 901 557 patients in the control group). In the main analyses following matching, 258 patients (199 women and 59 men; mean age, 56 years [interquartile range, 48-64 years]) were in the CM group, and 1032 patients (798 women and 234 men; mean age, 56 years [interquartile range, 48-64 years]) were in the control group. Patients who chose CM did not have a longer delay to initiation of CCT but had higher refusal rates of surgery (7.0% [18 of 258] vs 0.1% [1 of 1031]; P < .001), chemotherapy (34.1% [88 of 258] vs 3.2% [33 of 1032]; P < .001), radiotherapy (53.0% [106 of 200] vs 2.3% [16 of 711]; P < .001), and hormone therapy (33.7% [87 of 258] vs 2.8% [29 of 1032]; P < .001). Use of CM was associated with poorer 5-year overall survival compared with no CM (82.2% [95% CI, 76.0%-87.0%] vs 86.6% [95% CI, 84.0%-88.9%]; P = .001) and was independently associated with greater risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.50-2.90) in a multivariate model that did not include treatment delay or refusal. However, there was no significant association between CM and survival once treatment delay or refusal was included in the model (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.83-2.33). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients who received CM were more likely to refuse additional CCT, and had a higher risk of death. The results suggest that mortality risk associated with CM was mediated by the refusal of CCT.

Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival.

There is limited available information on patterns of utilization and efficacy of alternative medicine (AM) for patients with cancer. We identified 281 patients with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer who chose AM, administered as sole anticancer treatment among patients who did not receive conventional cancer treatment (CCT), defined as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and/or hormone therapy. Independent covariates on multivariable logistic regression associated with increased likelihood of AM use included breast or lung cancer, higher socioeconomic status, Intermountain West or Pacific location, stage II or III disease, and low comorbidity score. Following 2:1 matching (CCT = 560 patients and AM = 280 patients) on Cox proportional hazards regression, AM use was independently associated with greater risk of death compared with CCT overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.88 to 3.27) and in subgroups with breast (HR = 5.68, 95% CI = 3.22 to 10.04), lung (HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.42 to 3.32), and colorectal cancer (HR = 4.57, 95% CI = 1.66 to 12.61). Although rare, AM utilization for curable cancer without any CCT is associated with greater risk of death.