Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicines among Cancer Patients: A Single-Center Study

Authors: Gras Mathilde, Vallard Alexis, Brosse Christelle, Beneton Aurélie, Sotton Sandrine, Guyotat Denis, Fournel Pierre, Daguenet Elisabeth, Magné Nicolas, Morisson StéphanieJournal: OncologyPublished: January 1, 2019DOI: 10.1159/000499629

Limited EvidenceObservationaln=200 participants

Weakened Immunity Cancer Pain Management

In Plain Language: weakened immunity, explained

It is usual for cancer patients to use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and yet the literature evaluating their efficacy in cancer patients is very limited. The objective of the present study was to report on the nature, frequency of use, and patient-reported outcome of CAMs in a single-center study. All the consecutive patients treated between November 2017 and June 2018 at the Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute (France) were screened. Their reasons for using CAMs and their usage habits were collected. Patients evaluated their benefit. Of the 209 patients screened, 200 patients were included. CAMs ranged from osteopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, healing touch, magnetism, naturopathy, suction cups, Chinese medicine, reflexology, to hypnosis. CAMs were widely used (n = 166, 83%), the first being osteopathy (n = 99, 49.5%), the second homeopathy (n = 78, 39.0%), and finally acupuncture (n = 76, 38.0%). Whatever the CAM, high satisfaction rates were reported (median satisfaction: 61-81%). CAMs were mainly used to prevent/treat side effects of anticancer treatments (81.2% for healing touch), increase well-being (55.4% for naturopathy), improve the immune system (16.9% for homeopathy), and treat cancer (n = 3, 5.1% for homeopathy). Patients could easily consider using CAMs, as up to 50.8% would have accepted a consultation. The reasons for using CAMs differed among patients. They praised CAMs and kept asking for more information although there is limited evidence about their efficacy in the literature. Thus, prospective randomized controlled trials exploring the safety and efficacy of CAMs in cancer patients are needed.

Key Findings

✓Among 200 cancer patients at a single French cancer center, 83% used complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs), demonstrating widespread adoption of these practices.
✓Osteopathy was the most commonly used CAM (49.5% of patients), followed by homeopathy (39.0%) and acupuncture (38.0%).
✓Patients reported high satisfaction rates across all types of CAMs studied, including reflexology, despite limited evidence for their efficacy in cancer treatment.

What This Means for You

While most cancer patients in this study reported satisfaction with complementary therapies including reflexology, this research only measured what patients felt, not whether reflexology actually reduced side effects or improved health—so discuss realistic expectations with your reflexologist.

What This Means for Practitioners

This study documents high patient satisfaction with reflexology and other complementary therapies among cancer patients, providing evidence of demand and perceived benefit that can support patient conversations, though stronger clinical evidence of effectiveness is still needed.

Study Design: how this observational study was run

Sample Size

200 participants

Read Full Paper↗

Weakened immunity: common questions

What does this study say about weakened immunity?

What did this study find?

Among 200 cancer patients at a single French cancer center, 83% used complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs), demonstrating widespread adoption of these practices. Osteopathy was the most commonly used CAM (49.5% of patients), followed by homeopathy (39.0%) and acupuncture (38.0%). Patients reported high satisfaction rates across all types of CAMs studied, including reflexology, despite limited evidence for their efficacy in cancer treatment.

How strong is this evidence?

This is a observational study and we rate its evidence limited. It covers 200 participants. It was published in Oncology. This study is indexed here for context; it did not test reflexology itself.