Utilization of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by women with breast cancer or gynecological cancer.

Abstract

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has become increasingly popular among cancer patients. The prevalence of CAM use differs worldwide and depends on different sociodemographic and medical characteristics. Findings on predictors for CAM use and its benefits for quality of Life (QoL) have been inconclusive in recent studies. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence and methods of CAM use in breast cancer (BC) and gynecological cancer (GC) patients, to compare CAM users vs. non-CAM users regarding their sociodemographic and medical characteristics, and to investigate the relationship between CAM use and QoL. In a sub-analysis from a multicenter, cross-sectional study in Germany, we examined 1,214 female cancer patients (897 with BC and 317 with GC). We obtained data from self-reports via standardized questionnaires and measured QoL with the EORTC QLQ-C30. In total, 565 of the 1,214 patients (46.5%) used some form of CAM. Its use was higher in BC than in GC patients (48.6% vs. 40.7%). In both cancer groups, the users evaluated CAM as being helpful (BC: 60.8%, GC: 59.6%) The most frequently used CAM methods were vitamins/minerals/micronutrients, homeopathy, and mistletoe therapy. CAM users are younger, more highly educated, and financially better off than non-CAM users. They are also characterized by having been diagnosed with cancer a longer time ago, being at more advanced stages of the disease, and experiencing higher distress levels. CAM use is significantly associated with a lower global health status/ QoL in GC patients. Predictors for CAM use are: high level of vocational education, middle or high monthly income, time span since diagnosis of more than 12 months, the status of currently ongoing chemotherapy or hormone therapy treatment, and distress. Our data support the findings of previous studies and highlight the need to develop a consistent CAM definition with respect to comparability and evaluation of CAM services. More longitudinal studies are desirable to establish viable associations between CAM use and relevant outcomes such as QoL or disease management.