Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35274718›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2022

Complementary Medicine Use Amongst Patients with Metastatic Cancer Enrolled in Phase III Clinical Trials.

J Connor Wells, Aven Sidhu, Keyue Ding, Martin Smoragiewicz, Daniel Y C Heng, Frances A Shepherd, Peter M Ellis, Penelope A Bradbury, Derek J Jonker, Lillian L Siu and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

J Connor WellsQueen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7655-1405
Aven SidhuFraser Health and Veralife Health Centre, Surrey, BC, Canada.
Keyue DingCanadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Martin SmoragiewiczCanadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Daniel Y C HengTom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Frances A ShepherdPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Peter M EllisJuravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1590-2130
Penelope A BradburyThe Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Derek J JonkerBC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Lillian L SiuPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Karen A GelmonBC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4111-2757
Christos KarapetisFlinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Jeremy ShapiroCabrini Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Louise NottRoyal Hobart Hospital, Tasmania, Australia.
Christopher J O'CallaghanCanadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Wendy R ParulekarCanadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Lesley SeymourCanadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8081-0799
Jose G MonzonTom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComplementary medicines (CM) are frequently used by patients with cancer. Controversy exists over the effectiveness and risk that CM may add to conventional cancer therapy. The incidence of CM use among patients enrolled in phase III clinical trials is unknown.

methodsMedication lists from 6 international phase III clinical trials were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients using CM. Patients had metastatic breast, colorectal, or lung cancers. Quality of life, adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival were compared between CM users and non-users. Baseline differences between groups were adjusted with propensity score matching groups.

resultsSeven hundred and six of 3446 patients (20.5%) used at least one CM. CM use was highest among patients with breast cancer (35.6%). CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors (ECOG 0-1, non-smoking status, younger age, and fewer metastases). CM use was associated with lower rates of adverse events (50% vs. 62%, P = .002) and quality of life was similar between both groups. After adjustment with propensity score matching, CM use was also associated with longer overall survival in patients with lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.80, 95%CI, 0.68-0.94, P =.0054). However, several key control variables like EGFR status were not available.

conclusionOne in 5 patients in phase III clinical trials report using CM. CM was not associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes. However, CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors, and likely other confounders that may have contributed to improved outcomes observed in the lung cohort. Physicians should monitor for CM use and potential interactions with clinical trial drugs.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase III as TopicComplementary TherapiesNeoplasm MetastasisBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsQuality of LifeRetrospective Studiescancerclinical trialcomplementary medicine

Identifiers

PMID35274718
PMCPMC8914495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.