Acupuncture in cancer care: recommendations for safe practice (peer-reviewed expert opinion).

BACKGROUND: Up-to-date recommendations for the safe practice of acupuncture in integrative oncology are overdue with new cancer treatments and an increase in survivors with late effects of disease; 17 years have elapsed since Filshie and Hester's 2006 guidelines. During 2022/2023 an expert panel assembled to produce updated recommendations aiming to facilitate safe and appropriate care by acupuncturists working with people with cancer. METHODS: A core development team comprising three integrative oncology professionals comprehensively updated pre-existing unpublished recommendations. Twelve invited international experts (senior acupuncturists with and without experience of working in oncology settings, oncologists, physicians and nurses trained in integrative oncology, researchers, academics, and professional body representatives) reviewed the recommendations. In multiple iterations, the core team harmonised comments for final ratification. To aid dissemination and uptake the panel represents national and international integrative oncology associations and major cancer treatment centres in Europe, USA, Australia, and the Middle East. RESULTS: These recommendations facilitate safe care by articulating contra-indications, cautions, and risks for patients both on and off treatment (surgery, SACT, radiotherapy). Situations where acupuncture may be contra-indicated or practices need adapting are identified. "Red and Amber Flags" highlight where urgent referral is essential. CONCLUSION: These are the first international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed recommendations for safe acupuncture practice in integrative oncology. Concerns about safety remain a significant barrier to appropriate referral from oncology teams, to use by acupuncturists and to uptake by patients. Disseminating trustworthy, widely accessible guidance should facilitate informed, confident practice of acupuncture in and outside of oncology healthcare settings.

"What Should I Eat?"-Addressing Questions and Challenges Related to Nutrition in the Integrative Oncology Setting.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to assess how nutrition can be addressed in the integrative oncology setting, taking into account cancer patients' unmet needs as they relate to nutrition in cancer care and the evidence-based information that is available on this topic. RECENT FINDINGS: During and after cancer treatment, nutrition is an important component of supportive care, for patients and their family members. Current scientific data consistently show that poor nutrition can reduce survival and decrease adherence to cancer treatments. Unfortunately, the limited availability of dietitians makes access to individualized nutrition counseling challenging, and many cancer patients still do not receive adequate nutritional support. As a result, one of the main unmet needs of patients and their families through the whole cancer trajectory is accessible and up-to-date evidence-based nutritional counseling that emphasizes basic healthy nutrition. The popularity of complementary and integrative medicine among patients with cancer makes the integrative oncology setting an excellent avenue for providing such support. A suggested simple approach that utilizes World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research and American Cancer Society basic information is described. This approach can be easily incorporated into integrative oncology settings, while reserving the role for the registered dietician to address underweight patients, patients with malnutrition, and patients with more complicated dietary situations. The integrative oncology setting is in a unique place in oncology that can be utilized for enhancing dissemination of healthy nutrition information and addressing the unmet needs expressed by patients and families.

From COVID-19 adversity comes opportunity: teaching an online integrative medicine course.

BACKGROUND: We examine the impact of a 5-day online elective course in integrative medicine (IM) taking place during the COVID-19 pandemic, attended by 18 medical students from two faculties of medicine in Israel. METHODS: The course curriculum addressed effectiveness and safety of IM practices highlighting supportive and palliative care, demonstrated the work of integrative physicians (IPs) in designing patient-tailored treatments and taught practical skills in communication regarding IM. Group discussions were conducted via Zoom with 32 physicians, healthcare practitioners and IM practitioners working in integrative academic, community and hospital-based settings, in Israel, Italy, UK and Germany. An 18-item questionnaire examined student attitudes and perceived acquisition of skills for implementing what was learned in clinical practice. Student narratives were analysed using ATLAS.Ti software for systematic coding, identifying barriers and advantages of the online learning methodology. RESULTS: Students reported a better understanding of the benefits of IM for specific outcomes (p=0.012) and of potential risks associated with these therapies (p=0.048). They also perceived the acquisition of skills related to the IM-focused history (p=0.006), learnt to identify effectiveness and safety of IM treatments (p=0.001), and internalised the referral to IPs for consultation (p=0.001). Student narratives included reflections on the tools provided during the course for assessing effectiveness and safety, enhancing communication with patients, enriching their patient-centred perspective, raising awareness of available therapeutic options, and personal and professional growth. CONCLUSIONS: Online clinical electives in IM are feasible and can significantly increase students' awareness and modify attitudes towards acquirement of patient-centred perspectives.

Impact of Penny Brohn UK's Living Well Course on Informal Caregivers of People with Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the change in the concerns, wellbeing, and lifestyle behaviors of informal caregivers of people with cancer attending Penny Brohn UK's Living Well Course (LWC), a self-management education intervention. DESIGN: A pre-postcourse design collected self-reported quantitative and qualitative data from informal caregivers attending a LWC. SETTING/LOCATION: Penny Brohn UK is a United Kingdom-based charity (not-for-profit) providing specialist integrative, whole person support, free of charge, to people affected by cancer. SUBJECTS: Informal caregivers taking part in a Penny Brohn UK LWC between June 2014 and May 2016 attending alongside the person with cancer. INTERVENTION: The LWC is a structured 15 h, multimodal group self-management educational course, designed to help people affected by cancer learn tools and techniques to help build resilience. Trained facilitators deliver LWCs to around 12 people with various types and stages of cancer and their informal caregivers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Measure Yourself Concern and Wellbeing (MYCaW) completed precourse and at 6 weeks postcourse; and bespoke 6-week follow-up Patient Reported Experience Measure. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty informal caregivers attended a LWC June 2014 to May 2016. One hundred eighteen completed a 6-week follow-up MYCaW: MYCaW Concerns 1 and 2 showed statistically significant improvements (p < 0.0001), there was no significant improvement in wellbeing. Informal caregivers' most reported concerns relating to themselves were psychological and emotional issues (59%). The primary concern of the caregiver for the care recipient was related to the physical health of the person with cancer (40%). Eighty-seven percent of responding informal caregivers stated that the LWC enabled health self-management. CONCLUSIONS: The LWC was followed by an improvement in informal caregivers' concerns, and increased self-management of their own health needs. More studies, with larger sample size, are needed to explore if better self-management by informal caregivers may also lead to improvements in patients' health and wellbeing.

Integrative Whole-Person Oncology Care in the UK.

The term "whole-person cancer care"-an approach that addresses the needs of the person as well as treating the disease-is more widely understood in the United Kingdom than its synonym "integrative oncology." The National Health Service (NHS) provides free access to care for all, which makes it harder to prioritize NHS funding of whole-person medicine, where interventions may be multimodal and lacking in cost-effectiveness data. Despite this, around 30% of cancer patients are known to use some form of complementary or alternative medicine (CAM). This is virtually never medically led, and usually without the support or even the knowledge of their oncology teams, with the exception of one or two large cancer centers. UK oncology services are, however, starting to be influenced from three sides; first, by well-developed and more holistic palliative care services; second, by directives from central government via the sustainable health care agenda; and third, by increasing pressure from patient-led groups and cancer charities. CAM remains unlikely to be provided through the NHS, but nutrition, physical activity, mindfulness, and stress management are already becoming a core part of the NHS "Living With and Beyond Cancer" agenda. This supports cancer survivors into stratified pathways of care, based on individual, self-reported holistic needs and risk assessments, which are shared between health care professionals and patients. Health and well-being events are being built into cancer care pathways, designed to activate patients into self-management and support positive lifestyle change. Those with greater needs can be directed toward appropriate external providers, where many examples of innovative practice exist. These changes in policy and vision for the NHS present an opportunity for integrative oncology to develop further and to reach populations who would, in many other countries, remain underserved or hard to reach by whole-person approaches.

Using a Whole Person Approach to Support People With Cancer: A Longitudinal, Mixed-Methods Service Evaluation.

Introduction Improved models of care are needed to meet all the support needs of people with cancer, which encompass psychological, emotional, physical, spiritual, sexual, occupational, social and existential needs. The aim of this article is to (a) evaluate short- and long-term impacts of using a whole person approach to support people with cancer on the Living Well with the Impact of Cancer Course (LWC) and (b) use these data to inform strategic decisions about future service provision at Penny Brohn UK. Methods Longitudinal mixed-methods service evaluation (n = 135). Data collected included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (FACIT-SpEx); Concerns (types and severity-MYCaW); lifestyle behavior (bespoke questionnaire), and participants' experiences over 12 months postcourse. Results Statistically and clinically significant improvements from baseline to 12 months in severity of MYCaW Concerns (n = 64; P < .000) and mean total HRQoL (n = 66; P < .000). The majority of MYCaW concerns were "psychological and emotional" and about participants' well-being. Spiritual, emotional, and functional well-being contributed most to HRQoL improvements at 12 months. Barriers to maintaining healthy lifestyle changes included lack of support from family and friends, time constraints, and returning to work. Three to 6 months postcourse was identified as the time when more support was most likely to be needed. Conclusions Using a whole person approach for the LWC enabled the needs of participants to be met, and statistically and clinically significant improvements in HRQoL and MYCaW Concerns were reported. Qualitative data analysis explored how experiencing whole person support enabled participants to make and sustain healthy lifestyle changes associated with improved survivorship. Barriers experienced to making health behavior change were also identified. These data then informed wider and more person-centered clinical provision to increase the maintenance of positive long-term behavior changes. Comparison of whole person approaches to cancer treatment and support and standard care are now urgently needed.

Integrating complementary medicine in supportive cancer care models across four continents.

The need to integrate complementary medicine (CM) consultation in supportive care of patients with cancer is acknowledged by oncologists owing to the ongoing research on CM efficacy and awareness of its potential risks. In this article, we aim to provide oncologists with models for CM integration within supportive care. Descriptive analysis of key elements which facilitate CM integration is presented by physicians leading six integrative cancer care programs across four continents. Perspectives of integration are supplemented by a literature review, quantitative data on the clinical activity in each center, and qualitative narrative-based citations of seven oncology patients and healthcare providers. It is recommended that CM consultation be provided by physicians with extensive CM training. The following key elements were identified as essential for integrative program design within oncological supportive care: (1) Location of the integrative physician (IP) room within the oncology department area, (2) Required oncologist referral to CM consultation, (3) Allocated time to IP-oncologist communication, (4) Research-based integrative practice, (5) Inclusion of paid professional CM practitioners, (6) Institutional cost covered service. Integration of CM consultation within oncological supportive care needs to take in account six key elements that ensure high-quality evidence-based concomitant integrative practice.

Acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care: large, pragmatic, randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of a policy of "use acupuncture" on headache, health status, days off sick, and use of resources in patients with chronic headache compared with a policy of "avoid acupuncture." DESIGN: Randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: General practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 401 patients with chronic headache, predominantly migraine. Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to receive up to 12 acupuncture treatments over three months or to a control intervention offering usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Headache score, SF-36 health status, and use of medication were assessed at baseline, three, and 12 months. Use of resources was assessed every three months. RESULTS: Headache score at 12 months, the primary end point, was lower in the acupuncture group (16.2, SD 13.7, n = 161, 34% reduction from baseline) than in controls (22.3, SD 17.0, n = 140, 16% reduction from baseline). The adjusted difference between means is 4.6 (95% confidence interval 2.2 to 7.0; P = 0.0002). This result is robust to sensitivity analysis incorporating imputation for missing data. Patients in the acupuncture group experienced the equivalent of 22 fewer days of headache per year (8 to 38). SF-36 data favoured acupuncture, although differences reached significance only for physical role functioning, energy, and change in health. Compared with controls, patients randomised to acupuncture used 15% less medication (P = 0.02), made 25% fewer visits to general practitioners (P = 0.10), and took 15% fewer days off sick (P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture leads to persisting, clinically relevant benefits for primary care patients with chronic headache, particularly migraine. Expansion of NHS acupuncture services should be considered.