Assessing the landscape of integrative oncology at US comprehensive cancer centers (CCC).

Abstract

e13565 Background: Interest in integrative oncology (IO) has grown among patients and its availability has expanded within CCCs. This study assesses the availability of IO programs in U.S. CCCs. Methods: In 2023, a cross-sectional survey was sent to CCCs including NCI-designated CCCs by email regarding IO programs. Participants were asked to describe the importance of IO within their cancer center, the programs and services offered, and how the programs are provided. Results: Of ninety-four survey invitations sent, fifty-eight completed surveys were returned (response rate 62%). Three-fourths of completed surveys (74%) came from NCI-designated CCCs. Over half of respondents (57%) rated IO services to be important (or very important) at their center with 53% stating that their center has a formal IO clinical program. Univariate analysis showed that non-NCI centers were more likely to perceive IO services as being important compared to NCI-designated centers (100% vs. 77%, p=0.04). Respondents stated that their IO program has been in existence for ≥10 years (40%), 5-9 years (26%), and 0-4 years (34%). Among the surveyed cancer centers, availability of IO program was 33% (adult and pediatric) vs. 49% (adult only). The IO programs are available to patients with active cancer (91%), patients in survivorship off-treatment (81%), and healthy patients without a history of cancer (22%). The IO services were offered in an outpatient clinic on the main campus (76%), community sites (29%), or inpatient settings (40%). The most common oncology specific services reported were nutrition (51%), exercise counseling (42%), mind-body medicine (38%), and acupuncture (33%). The clinicians who provided integrative medicine consultations were primarily in internal medicine (31%), family medicine (26%), and medical oncology (19%). In inpatient and outpatient settings, insurance was billed for physical therapy (50% vs. 67%) and diet/nutrition (36% vs. 50%) services, whereas acupuncture (47%) and massage (43%) services were charged by cash/card in an outpatient setting only. Music therapy (33% vs. 47%) and pet therapy (34% vs. 43%) services were offered for free most commonly in both inpatient and outpatient settings, respectively. The highest average out of pocket fee service was acupuncture ($42±27) followed by integrative medicine consultations ($34±29). Conclusions: Despite increasing patient interest and established benefits of integrative therapies as noted by recently published ASCO clinical guidelines, only half of CCCs reported having a formal IO program. More research is needed to understand the gap between patient interest, the growing evidence-base, and how to expand integrative oncology services within existing cancer centers.