Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1795–1806 | Cite as

Complementary and alternative medicine for cancer patients: results of the EPAAC survey on integrative oncology centres in Europe

  • Elio Rossi
  • Alessandra Vita
  • Sonia Baccetti
  • Mariella Di Stefano
  • Fabio Voller
  • Alberto Zanobini
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The Region of Tuscany Health Department was included as an associated member in WP7 “Healthcare” of the European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), initiated by the EU Commission in 2009.

Aims

The principal aim was to map centres across Europe prioritizing those that provide public health services and operating within the national health system in integrative oncology (IO).

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive survey design was used to collect data. A questionnaire was elaborated concerning integrative oncology therapies to be administered to all the national health system oncology centres or hospitals in each European country. These institutes were identified by convenience sampling, searching on oncology websites and forums. The official websites of these structures were analysed to obtain more information about their activities and contacts.

Results

Information was received from 123 (52.1 %) out of the 236 centres contacted until 31 December 2013. Forty-seven out of 99 responding centres meeting inclusion criteria (47.5 %) provided integrative oncology treatments, 24 from Italy and 23 from other European countries. The number of patients seen per year was on average 301.2 ± 337. Among the centres providing these kinds of therapies, 33 (70.2 %) use fixed protocols and 35 (74.5 %) use systems for the evaluation of results. Thirty-two centres (68.1 %) had research in progress or carried out until the deadline of the survey. The complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) more frequently provided to cancer patients were acupuncture 26 (55.3 %), homeopathy 19 (40.4 %), herbal medicine 18 (38.3 %) and traditional Chinese medicine 17 (36.2 %); anthroposophic medicine 10 (21.3 %); homotoxicology 6 (12.8 %); and other therapies 30 (63.8 %). Treatments are mainly directed to reduce adverse reactions to chemo-radiotherapy (23.9 %), in particular nausea and vomiting (13.4 %) and leucopenia (5 %). The CAMs were also used to reduce pain and fatigue (10.9 %), to reduce side effects of iatrogenic menopause (8.8 %) and to improve anxiety and depression (5.9 %), gastrointestinal disorders (5 %), sleep disturbances and neuropathy (3.8 %).

Conclusions

Mapping of the centres across Europe is an essential step in the process of creating a European network of centres, experts and professionals constantly engaged in the field of integrative oncology, in order to increase, share and disseminate the knowledge in this field and provide evidence-based practice.

Keywords

Complementary and alternative medicine Integrative oncology European centres Cancer patients EPAAC survey 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This publication arises from the European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), which has received funding from the European Union through the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers of the European Commission, in the framework of the Health Programme 2008–2013.

The European Commission is not responsible for the content of this publication and has had no role in the elaboration or the writing process of the document.

We would like to acknowledge and thank the following people for their contribution to this work: Emanuela Portalupi and Paolo Fedi; Laura Cignoni for her support in the English translation; and José Maria Borras Andres and Joan Lluís Prades Perez and all the associated and collaborating members of EPAAC for their collaboration.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. All the costs for this study were supported by the European Union and the Tuscany Region.

References

  1. 1.
    Ernst E, Cassileth BR (1998) The prevalence of complementary/alternative medicine in cancer. A systematic review. Cancer 83:777–782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Horneber M, Bueschel G, Dennert G et al (2012) How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Integr Cancer Ther 11:187–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega P, Pud D et al (2005) Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol 16:655–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sagar SM (2008) The integrative oncology supplement—a paradigm for both patient care and communication. Curr Oncol 15:166–7PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cassileth BR, Deng G, Vickers AJ et al (2005) Integrative oncology: complementary therapies in cancer care. BC Decker, Hamilton Ontario, Canada Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sagar SM (2006) Integrative oncology in North America. J Soc Integr Oncol 4:27–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deng GE, Frenkel M, Cohen L, on behalf of the Society for Integrative Oncology et al (2009) Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for integrative oncology: complementary therapies and botanicals. J Soc Integr Oncol 7:85–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gansler T, Kaw C, Crammer C, Smith T (2008) A population-based study of prevalence of complementary methods use by cancer survivors: a report from the American Cancer Society’s studies of cancer survivors. Cancer 113:1048–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ernst E, White A (2000) The BBC survey of complementary medicine use in UK. Complement Ther Med 8:32–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scott JA, Kearney N, Hummerston S (2005) Use of complementary and alternative medicine in patients with cancer: a UK survey. Eur J Oncol Nurs 9:131–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Egan B, Gage H, Hood J et al (2012) Availability of complementary and alternative medicine for people with cancer in the British National Health Service: results of a national survey. Complement Ther Clin Pract 18:75–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    CAM use in Europe—the patients’ perspective. Part I: a systematic literature review of CAM prevalence in EU. CAMbrella 2012. https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail_object/o:292161 (accessed in August 2014)
  13. 13.
    Legal status and regulation of CAM in Europe. Part I: CAM regulations in the European countries. CAMbrella 2012. https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail_object/o:291583 (accessed in August 2014)
  14. 14.
    Johannessen H, von Bornemann HJ, Pasquarelli E et al (2008) Prevalence in the use of complementary medicine among cancer patients in Tuscany, Italy. Tumori 94:406–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salomonsen LJ, Skovgaard L, La Cour S et al (2011) Use of complementary and alternative medicine at Norwegian and Danish hospitals. BMC Compl Alt Med 11:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    PubMed. Complementary and alternative medicine. Results by year. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=complementary+and+alternative+medicine (accessed in December 2013)
  17. 17.
    Boon H, Verhoef M, O’Hara D, Findlay B (2004) From parallel practice to integrative healthcare: a conceptual framework. BMC Health Services Research vol. 4, article 1Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ben-Arye E, Schiff E, Zollman C, Heusser P, Mountford P, Frenkel M, Bar-Sela G, Lavie O (2013) Integrating complementary medicine in supportive cancer care models across four continents. Med Oncol 30(2):511. doi:10.1007/s12032-013-0511-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cramer H, Cohen L, Dobos G, Witt CM (2013) Integrative oncology: best of both worlds—theoretical, practical and research issues. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2013:383142PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mittring N, Pérard M, Witt CM (2013) Corporate culture assessments in integrative oncology: a qualitative case study of two integrative oncology centres. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2013:316950CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elio Rossi
    • 1
  • Alessandra Vita
    • 1
  • Sonia Baccetti
    • 1
  • Mariella Di Stefano
    • 1
  • Fabio Voller
    • 2
  • Alberto Zanobini
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Research, Innovation and Human Resources, Regional Health Ministry of Region of Tuscany (Italy)Tuscan Network for Integrative MedicineFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Operative Unit of EpidemiologyTuscan Regional Agency for HealthcareFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.Department of Research, Innovation and Human ResourcesRegional Health Ministry of Region of TuscanyFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations