Reasons to Use and Disclose Use of Complementary Medicine Use - An Insight from Cancer Patients.

Studies have shown a high prevalence (40-83%) of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients in the U.S.A cross-sectional, mixed-methods pilot study was completed. This paper focuses on the quantitative analysis conducted on demographic predictors of complementary medicine (CM) use, reasons to use CM, and disclosure to healthcare provider data. Surveys were interview-administered at the Loma Linda University Medical Center Cancer Center. Participants, 18 years or older, were selected from a convenient sample. Eighty-seven percent (87.9%) of participants reported to have used CM as a cancer treatment and most reported to have used it "to help fight the cancer." Women were eight-times more likely to use prayer. All non-Caucasian and Hispanic participants reported to use CM as a cancer therapy and none reported to use a CM provider. More women (72%) disclosed their CM use than men (53.3%). Different prevalences and predictors exist when differentiating CM modalities, reasons to use CM vary by gender, and disclosure proportions vary by gender.

Practices, attitudes, and beliefs associated with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: The high prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients (40%-83%) receiving conventional treatment and the complex relationship between the psychosocial factors that may contribute to or result from CAM use requires further understanding. The authors conducted a descriptive mixed-methods pilot study to understand CAM practices, attitudes, and beliefs among cancer patients at the Loma Linda University Medical Center. METHODS: This was the qualitative phase of the study, and no hypotheses were set. A total of 23 face-to-face interviews were conducted, and thematic coding was used to analyze 22 interview transcriptions. There were 14 CAM users (64%) and 8 nonusers (36%). FINDINGS: The themes present among those who used CAM were the following: physicians viewed as one aspect of health care options, a holistic view on well-being, satisfaction with CAM use, and 3 key coping methods (confrontive, supportive, and optimistic) to confront cancer. Themes were not independent of each other. Two themes were present among nonusers; nonusers trusted their physician and were more likely to express evasive coping methods. DISCUSSION: Perceptions and behavioral patterns are complex predictors of CAM use. A better understanding of CAM, medical pluralism, and the perceptions of patients would help health care providers deliver a better quality of care. The promotion of integrative care may help health care providers better identify medical pluralism and would shift focus to patient-centered care.

A dose escalation trial of biweekly docetaxel and gemcitabine with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim for the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A single-institution phase I trial to determine the feasibility of using filgrastim or pegfilgrastim to increase the dose intensity of biweekly docetaxel and gemcitabine. METHODS: Patients with metastatic solid tumors received gemcitabine 3,000 mg/m(2) and increasing doses of docetaxel (55 mg/m(2) in 10 mg/m(2) increments) every 14 days with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. RESULTS: 35 patients enrolled, median 2 prior therapies, 158 cycles of therapy. There was 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (sepsis) at docetaxel 55 mg/m(2), 1 DLT (sepsis/diarrhea) at docetaxel 65 mg/m(2), and no DLT at docetaxel 75 mg/m(2). At docetaxel 85 mg/m(2), 2/4 patients had DLT (fatigue/dyspnea, diarrhea). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of docetaxel was 75 mg/m(2). 1/12 patients treated at MTD experienced DLT (sepsis/dyspnea). The initial 25 patients received filgrastim (average 7 doses/cycle), the last 10 received pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD for docetaxel was 75 mg/m(2) with gemcitabine 3,000 mg/m(2) given every 14 days with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. This regimen was well tolerated with signs of clinical activity. We found no significant differences in toxicities or effectiveness between daily filgrastim and pegfilgrastim given 13 days before the next chemotherapy. The use of granulocyte growth factors allowed increased dose intensity of docetaxel and gemcitabine. This regimen warrants further study in chemotherapy-naïve patients and patients with earlier stages.

Difficult end-of-life treatment decisions: do other factors trump advance directives?

BACKGROUND: Advance directives are widely promoted as a means to plan for patients' decisional incapacity, yet there is little evidence of their effectiveness. We devised a study to assess physicians' compliance with hypothetical advance directives and further examine their clinical reasoning. METHODS: The study consisted of an analysis of a mailed written survey containing 6 hypothetical cases of seriously ill patients. Each case contained an explicit advance directive with potential conflict between the directive and (1) prognosis, (2) wishes of family or friends, or (3) quality of life. Data were collected on the clinical treatment decisions made by physicians and the reasons for those decisions. Study participants were all internal medicine faculty and resident physicians from a single academic institution. RESULTS: A total of 47% analyzable surveys (117/250) were returned. Decisions by faculty and residents were not consistent with the advance directive in 65% of cases. This inconsistency was similar for faculty and residents (68% and 61%, respectively; P>.05). When physicians made decisions inconsistent with the advance directive, they were more likely to list reasons other than the directive for their decisions (89%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Internists frequently made treatment decisions that were not consistent with an explicit advance directive. In difficult clinical situations, internists appear to consider other factors such as prognosis, perceived quality of life, and the wishes of family or friends as more determinative than the directive. Future work needs to explore the generalizability of these findings and examine how strictly patients desire their advance directives to be followed.