Use of complimentary and alternative medicine by breast cancer patients: prevalence, patterns and communication with physicians

Abstract

This study examined the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies by breast cancer patients and the communication of their CAM use to their physicians relative to lymphedema symptoms and other factors. Breast cancer patients ( N = 148) in the State of Vermont were interviewed 2-3 years after their primary surgery using computer-aided telephone interviewing methods. Questionnaire items included demographic information, treatment, CAM use, lymphedema symptoms, and other measures. A large proportion (72.3%) reported using at least one CAM treatment after surgery. The most frequently used treatments were vitamins and nonfood supplements (72.3%), with herbal treatments, meditation, and traditional massage each being reported by about one-fifth of the women. Age, education, adjuvant chemotherapy, and extremity swelling were associated with use of more CAM treatments in a regression model. A large proportion (73.8%) of CAM users reported their CAM use to their physicians. Correlations between patients' income, adjuvant radiation therapy, and adjuvant tamoxifen use with communication of CAM use to their physicians were sought in a logistic regression model. CAM use is high among breast cancer patients in Vermont, and the number of CAM therapies used is related to demographic factors, adjuvant treatment, and lymphedema symptoms. Communication of CAM use to physicians appears to be multifaceted.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine use and Its Association with Quality of Life Among Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy in Ethiopia: A Cross Sectional Study

“…This is comparable to the 32.7% reported in an earlier study of Korean cancer patients and 29.6% in Malaysian patients with cancer [32,34]. However, it is much lower than the 71% reported by breast cancer patients in USA [36]. A systematic review of the characteristics of CAM use among breast cancer patients indicated that more than half of patients do not disclose CAM use to their doctors [37].…”

Lesson From Comparison of CAM Use by Women With Female-Specific Cancers to Others: It's Time to Focus on Interaction Risks With CAM Therapies

“…Six of these, published in 1999 to 2001, [14][15][16][17][18][19] are summarized in an article by Lengacher et al 20 An additional review of 13 studies published from 2002 to 2006 is summarized in Table 1. [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Upon review, certain patterns, associations, and predictors of CAM use emerge as commonalities for women with breast cancer. In all of the studies that examined demographic associations with CAM use, women were younger 14,21 and had more education.…”

“…[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Upon review, certain patterns, associations, and predictors of CAM use emerge as commonalities for women with breast cancer. In all of the studies that examined demographic associations with CAM use, women were younger 14,21 and had more education. 33 When demographic predictors of CAM use were studied, it was consistently found that women were younger, 7,22,26,27 more educated, 17,22,26,27,29,31,33 and insured.…”

“…One of the predictors of CAM use for women with breast cancer was younger age (coefficient = -.037, SE = 1.336, P = .019). 21 Income Women with female-specific cancers who use CAM have higher incomes. In a study of 113 women with gynecologic cancer, 39 annual incomes greater than $30 000 per year were associated with CAM use (67.4% vs 32.6%, P = .01).…”

Potential health risks of complementary alternative medicines in cancer patients

“…More recent studies have reported an even higher prevalence of between 70 and 80% (Richardson et al, 2000;Bernstein and Grasso, 2001;Ashikaga et al, 2002). The nature of CAMs used, for example, vitamins and other supplements, herbal remedies, physical and psychological treatments, also varies greatly (Risberg et al, 1998;Richardson et al, 2000;Sparber et al, 2000;Bernstein and Grasso, 2001;Ashikaga et al, 2002).…”