METHODS: A prospective, non-randomised longitudinal study was conducted in two government integrated hospitals over an 8-month period. Early-stage breast cancer patients who were (1) either already using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or not and (2) who were on a regime of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide were included in the study. Patients who agreed to receive CHM were assigned to receive individualised CHM prescriptions deemed suitable for the individual at a particular time. Those who were not willing to take Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) were assigned to the non-CHM control group. Blood profile and chemotherapy-induced AE were recorded whilst HRQOL assessment was done using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire on first, third, and sixth cycles.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients [32 female vs. 1 male, p = 0.31; mean year of age: 52.2(SD = 7.6), p = 0.28)}] were recruited during the study period. Demographics of both groups were comparable. Fifty percent of respondents reported using some kind of CAM before chemotherapy. Diet supplements (40.6%) were the most common CAM used by the respondents. The study showed that patients using CHM had significantly less fatigue (p = 0.012), nausea (p = 0.04), and anorexia (p = 0.005) during chemotherapy. There were no significant differences in patients' HRQOL (p = 0.79). There were no AEs reported during the study.
CONCLUSION: The use of CHM as an adjunct treatment with conventional chemotherapy have been shown to reduce fatigue, nausea, and anorexia in breast cancer patients but did not reduce chemotherapy-associated hematologic toxicity. The sample size of this study was not powered to assess the significance of HRQOL between two groups of patients.
Methods: Systemic searches will perform on online databases (English and Chinese) to identify papers from inception until December 2019 for inclusion into the review. The search strategy will be following PRISMA Scoping Reviews Checklist as a quality assurance step. All records retrieved will be screened by 2 independent reviewers. The preclinical studies and clinical studies that involve in assessing the concurrent use of CHM and PtC will be considered. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses will be used as scoping review framework.
Discussion: This scoping review will explore the compatibility or combination rule of CHM-PtC and assist in understanding HDI in CHM-PtC co-treatment. Identification of active properties in CHM's HDI and understanding pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic of the CHM alone or as co-treatment are essential for patients' safety profile. It will provide a new insight for future practice in cancer treatment.
Study registration: This protocol has been registered in the Research Register (https://www.researchregistry.com/) with an unique registration number: reviewregistry790.
METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted on 6 databases (English and Chinese). Studies published up till May 2017 were considered for inclusion.
RESULTS: A final 14 RCTs (total 994 head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy) compared Chinese herbs with no herbs, were included in analysis. Very low to moderate quality of evidence found Chinese herbal treatment may relief radiotherapy-induced xerostomia and other related complications (such as oral mucositis and loss of appetite) in head and neck cancer patients.
CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence that Chinese herbal treatment may relief radiotherapy-induced xerostomia and other related complications in head and neck cancer patients.
METHODS: We searched three electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and CINAHL Plus) utilizing a systematic scoping review method. Two reviewers independently screened, applied inclusion criteria, reviewed, and synthesized findings. A mixed-method narrative approach combining the inductive thematic analysis and content analysis methodologies was used to synthesize and summarize the findings.
RESULTS: The review included 22 studies, leading to the conceptualization of 5 overarching themes and 17 sub-themes. Among these, the most frequently cited theme was treatment benefits, followed by treatment-related process, treatment-related risk, quality of life, and cost of treatment. Women with breast cancer highly value treatments that offer good effectiveness, prolong survival, prevent recurrence, and maintain quality of life. Patient concerns include treatment-related side effects, safety, the risk of secondary cancer, and direct or indirect out-of-pocket costs. Additionally, patients also consider treatment duration, mode of administration, physician recommendation, and treatment availability and accessibility when deciding on their preferred treatment.
CONCLUSION: The evidence synthesized in this review offers insights into refining breast cancer treatment strategies to align more closely with patient values. Recognizing and integrating patient perspectives in breast cancer care could potentially lead to improved treatment outcomes, enhanced patient compliance, and more personalized care. Healthcare professionals are encouraged to incorporate these key determinants in their treatment decision-making processes, aiming to deliver a patient-centered care that aligns with the unique preferences and values of each patient.