An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients

Abstract

Introduction: This article critically examines the systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) of complementary therapies for cancer patients to appraise the evidence level, and offers suggestions for future research and practice. Methods: The Cochrane Library and MEDLINE were searched from their inception to January 2018, to identify SR and MA of complementary therapies available for cancer patients. Final selected SR and MA were methodologically evaluated for their quality by applying the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) instrument. Data extraction and risk of quality assessments were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Results: A total of 104 studies were included in the analysis. The majority of the individual clinical trials included in the SR and MA were performed in China (48%) and the United States (26.9%). Breast cancer was the most studied cancer type (25%), and acupuncture was the most studied intervention (21%). Side effects of cancer such as pain, depression, and fatigue were effectively managed with complementary therapies. The methodologically problematic items included not listing the excluded studies and lack of protocol or protocol registration. Conclusions: With increasing interest in research, complementary therapies appear to be beneficial in reducing side effects and raising the quality of life of cancer patients. Complementary therapies have generally been studied for all cancers, with acupuncture being the most researched, regardless of the cancer type. Since AMSTAR2 is a stricter assessment tool than before, future studies need to consider the risk of methodological bias with caution and discuss appropriate overall quality assessment tools.

Keywords

Complementary therapies cancer Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 AMSTAR2

Introduction

Cancer is a major global public health concern and is the second leading cause of mortality in the United States of America.¹ Because of an aging population and population growth, there has been a 33% increase in cancer cases between 2005 and 2015.²

The World Health Organization statistics provided about 12.7 million cancer cases in 2008, and this number is expected to increase to 21 million by 2030. Cancer patients are challenged with various side effects, including fatigue, chemotherapy-induced pain, and depression, which induce severe impairment in their quality of life (QOL).³ According to the World Health Organization, one aim of cancer treatment is to considerably prolong the life of patients and ensure QOL for cancer survivors.⁴ Complementary therapies have emerged as adjuvant therapies that are able to increase the QOL of cancer patients. In recent times, the use of complementary therapies is much more prominent and popular than previously considered, as an efficacious segment of cancer treatments.⁵ Cancer patients use complementary therapies mainly for enhancing the immune system, relieving pain, and controlling adverse side effects caused by the disease or treatment.⁶ Complementary therapies contain a broad range of therapeutic approaches.⁷ Several studies state that complementary therapies promote the QOL of cancer patients during and after treatment by reducing adverse symptoms.^6,8 Recent research has reported that 60% of cancer patients have used at least one type of complementary therapy after being diagnosed with cancer.⁸ Furthermore, leading cancer centers in the United States offer evidence-based complementary therapies coupled with conventional medicine, a process known as integrative medicine.⁹ In addition, systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) for evaluating the effects of complementary therapies are also increasing. This study, therefore, critically reviews the SR and MA of complementary therapies in cancer patients to appraise the evidence level and provides suggestions for future research and practice.

Methods

Protocol and Registration

The protocol of this review was registered on PROSPERO 2018 (Registration Number: CRD42018090318).

Search Strategy

Two databases, The Cochrane Library and MEDLINE, were searched from their inception through January 2018.

The Cochrane Library

#1 MeSH descriptor: [Neoplasms] explode all trees in Cochrane Reviews

#2 MeSH descriptor: [Complementary Therapies] explode all trees in Cochrane Reviews

#3 #1 and #2 in Cochrane Reviews

MEDLINE

#1 systematic[sb] AND (neoplasms[MeSH] or neoplasm*)

#2 systematic[sb] AND (Complementary Therapies[MeSH] or Complementary Therapie*)

#3 #1 and #2

Study Selection

Types of Participants

All cancer patients treated with complementary therapies were included. There were no restrictions with respect to age, sex, ethnicity, or type of setting.

Types of Interventions

This review included all types of complementary therapies. We classified the interventions according to the guidelines set by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). These were natural products, mind and body practices, and other complementary health approaches. Since acupuncture belongs to 2 groups (mind and body practices and traditional Chinese medicine of other complementary health approaches), we added one more subgroup and classified it separately. Any control that is compared with complementary and alternative therapies is included.

Types of Outcome Measures

QOL, assessed by any validated instrument.

Overall survival, including survival rate or survival time or overall survival, assessed by any validated instrument.

Pain, assessed by any validated instrument.

Depression, assessed by any validated instrument.

Types of Study

SR and MA were included in this study.

Language Restriction

Only articles written in English were included.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Two independent reviewers extracted data using standardized data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality of each included study by applying Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2). Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer. The data extraction form comprised the name of author, publication year, publication country, sample size, study conducted country, search period, study design, type of cancer, interventions, and outcomes.

AMSTAR2 comprises 16 items for assessing the methodological quality of SR. It rates the overall confidence of the review results as high, moderate, low, and critically low.¹⁰ Appraisal is based on the number of critical or noncritical flaws: “critically low,” more than one critical flaw regardless of whether it has noncritical weaknesses; “low,” only one critical flaw regardless of the presence of noncritical weaknesses; “moderate,” more than one noncritical weakness with no critical flaws; and “high,” none or one noncritical weakness.

Results

Study Selection

A total of 601 studies were identified; 32 duplicated studies were deleted. After checking all titles and abstracts, 247 possible relevant studies were retained. After the second screening through full text review, 104 studies were finally selected for analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Flow chart of study selection.

Study Characteristic

Of the 104 studies, 17 studies were published in 2012, and 23 studies were published in 2016 (Table 1). The affiliation country of corresponding author for SR and MA were China (30%), Republic of Korea (15%), the United Kingdom (14%), and the United States (14%) (Table 1). On the other hand, most clinical trials included in the SR and MA were performed in China (48%, 748/1559) and the United States (26.9%, 419/1559) (Table 2). The most researched cancer types included all cancers (56%), followed by studies on breast cancer (25%) Figure 2). In addition, the most studied complementary therapy was acupuncture (21%), followed by herbal medicines (14%) Figure 3).

Table 1.

The Number of Studies by the Year and Lead Authors’ Affiliation^a.

Country of Lead Authors’ Affiliation	2003	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	Total
Country of Lead Authors’ Affiliation	2003	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	N	%
Australia									2 (2)		1 (1)	1 (1)	2 (2)		6	6
Brazil													1 (1)		1	1
China				1 (1)		2 (1)		1 (1)	7 (6.5)	2 (2)	8 (8)	1 (1)	9 (9)	2 (2)	33 (31.5)	32 (30)
Canada						(1)									(1)	1
France												1 (1)			1	1
Germany	(1)								2 (2)		2 (2)	1 (1)	1 (1)	1 (1)	7 (8)	7 (8)
Hong Kong						(1)									(1)	1
Iran													1 (1)		1	1
Ireland							1 (1)								1	1
Republic of Korea						1 (1)	3 (3)		2 (2)	1	2 (2)	5 (5)	2 (2)	1 (0.5)	17 (15.5)	15
The Netherlands						1 (1)			1 (1)						2	2
Taiwan						1						1 (1)	2 (2)	1 (1)	5	5
United Kingdom	1	1 (1)	2 (2)	3 (3)	1 (1)	2 (2)			1 (1)	1 (2)		2 (2)	1 (1)		15	14
United States			2 (2)						2 (2.5)	4 (4)		3 (3)	4 (4)	(0.5)	15	14
Total	1	1	4	4	1	7	4	1	17	8	13	15	23	5	104	100%

Numbers in parentheses represent corresponding authors; those outside parentheses are based on first authors.

Table 2.

Countries Where Clinical Trials of the Included studies Were Conducted.

Country	N	%
China	748	48.0%
United States	419	26.9%
United Kingdom	65	4.2%
Sweden	50	3.2%
Germany	33	2.1%
India	33	2.1%
Canada	32	2.1%
Australia/New Zealand	29	1.9%
Republic of Korea	28	1.8%
Taiwan	26	1.7%
Italy	14	0.9%
Norway	12	0.8%
Spain/Portugal	10	0.6%
Denmark	9	0.6%
France	8	0.5%
Brazil	5	0.3%
Israel	5	0.3%
Slovenia	5	0.3%
Iran	4	0.3%
The Netherlands	4	0.3%
Unknown	4	0.3%
Japan	3	0.2%
Other	13	0.8%
Total	1559	100.0%

Figure 2.

The cancer types of the included studies.

Figure 3.

The type of CAM intervention of the included studies.

Methodological and Reporting Quality

Studies were not rated moderate or high confidence if there were more than just one weakness in critical domain and high percentage of studies had difficulty in achieving every critical domain of AMSTAR2 evaluation. As a result, only 17 (16%) studies were rated high. Failure to provide a list of excluded studies (Item 7) was the main reason for being rated critically low. Furthermore, several studies lacked explicit statements of review methods established prior to performing the research, and failed to explain any modifications from previously published protocols (Item 2). Only 23 cases (22.1%) met the requirement of Item 2, and 20 (19.2%) studies provided Item 7.

Confirming noncritical items was relatively easy as compared with critical items, resulting in the absence of moderate grade. Overall, although AMSTAR2 has been simplified, it is more demanding to mark a study as high in methodological quality, as compared with the previous version (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Methodological and reporting quality: evaluation results of each AMSTAR2 question of included studies.

The Items of AMSTAR2 are as Below, and the Bold Items (Q2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15) are Critical Domains.

Q1	Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? (population, intervention, control group, and outcome)
Q2	Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?
Q3	Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
Q4	Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
Q5	Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
Q6	Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
Q7	Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
Q8	Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
Q9	Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?
Q10	Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
Q11	If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
Q12	If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?
Q13	Did the review authors account for RoB in primary studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
Q14	Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?
Q15	If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?
Q16	Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?

Outcomes of Included Studies

Overall, the included SR and MA suggest potential encouraging effects for each outcome. However, the studies also reveal low evidences or low numbers of methodologically rigorous trials. We present below the result of each outcome measurement.

Quality of Life

Systematic review

Among 91 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in 21 SRs,^11-31 58 reported beneficial aspects of complementary therapies on increasing the QOL for cancer patients (64%, 58/91). (Online appendix 1-1).

Meta-analyses

Among 33 MAs in 28 studies,^32-59 22 reported significant effects of complementary therapies on increasing the QOL for cancer patients (72%, 24/33). (Online appendix 1-2).

Overall Survival

Systematic review

Among 57 RCTs and CCTs in 7 SRs,^{14,17,22,28,30,34,55,60} 12 reported beneficial aspects of complementary therapies on the overall survival (OS) improvement for cancer patients (21%, 12/57). (Online appendix 2-1).

Meta-analysis

Among the 16 MA in 9 studies,^{23,40,45,61-66} 15 reported significant effects of complementary therapies on OS improvement for cancer patients (94%, 15/16). (Online appendix 2-2).

Pain

Systematic review

Among 62 RCTs and CCTs in 11 SRs,^{12,16,24,27,67-73} 53 reported beneficial aspects of complementary therapies on relieving pain for cancer patients (85%, 53/62). (Online appendix 3-1).

Meta-analysis

Among 20 MA in 19 studies,^{35,36,38,42,43,48,53,54,56,57,74-82} 16 reported significant effects of complementary therapies on relieving pain for cancer patients (80%, 16/20). (Online appendix 3-2).

Depression

Systematic review

Among 101 RCTs and CCTs in 14 SRs,^{12,13,15,17,18,25,29,30,35,55,69,71,72,83} 34 reported beneficial aspects of complementary therapies on relieving depression for cancer patients (34%, 34/101). (Online appendix 4-1).

Meta-analysis

Among 17 MA in 14 studies,^{23,32,33,36-38,41-43,54,57,84-86} 10 reported significant effects of complementary therapies on relieving depression for cancer patients (59%, 10/17). (Online appendix 4-2).

Discussion

This comprehensive review finally included a total of 104 SR and MA of complementary therapies for cancer patients. Considering the increase in number of studies, we could confirm the increased interest in application of complementary therapies for cancer patients.

Most of the SR and MA were published by lead authors affiliated to China, Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Ironically, approximately 75% clinical trials, including in SR and MA, were performed in China and the United States. The Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom were somewhat lacking in efforts to generate evidence by conducting primary research (ie, clinical studies) and were more focused toward evidence syntheses, as compared with China and the United States.

Meanwhile, we found that complementary therapies were generally applied to all cancers and the most studied complementary therapy was acupuncture. Breast cancer was the most investigated single cancer type. It is assumed that the purpose of complementary therapies for cancer patients is not to eradicate specific cancer cells, but to manage side effects and improve the QOL with the aid of biomedicine.

Similar to our findings, acupuncture (55.3%) was the most frequently provided complementary therapy in a survey of cancer centers across 26 European countries.⁸⁷ If the disease was not limited to cancer, the most commonly used complementary therapy was herbal medicine (data collected from SR of surveys) in the United Kingdom, and natural products in the US National Health Interview Survey in 2007.^88,89

The methodological and reporting quality of SR and MA were found to be low due to the absence of research protocols and failure to provide the list of excluded studies. Other articles assessed by AMSTAR2 were also rated critically low for similar reasons.^90,91 Because there is a limitation for the SR and MA conducted before the AMSTAR2 was published, further studies are required to carefully consider methodology from the protocol stage for being appraised high quality. Conversely, of the 17 methodologically high research studies, yoga (17.6%, 3/17)^32,33,84 and herbal medicines (17.6%, 3/17)^11,34,92 were most widely studied, and were indicative of bestowing a positive effect on the patients’ QOL. However, several research studies deferred a definitive conclusion due to paucity of high-quality evidence.

Many cancer patients experience one or more adverse side effects during their treatment period; 86% of patients report chemotherapy-associated side effects.⁹³ Complementary therapies have been used in the management of side effects caused by cancer or cancer treatment. Similarly, the outcomes of included SR and MA reveal that complementary therapies can be effective for improving the QOL and managing side effects of cancer patients.

We acknowledge that there are few limitations to this study. First, in most research on complementary therapies, the definition and scope of complementary therapies remains unclear; hence, it is difficult to set the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We therefore applied the complementary therapies classification of NCCIH. Second, despite every effort to provide a comprehensive and systematic review, language restrictions of our study might have resulted in omission of several studies conducted in Asian or other countries. However, China has published the most articles despite English-language restriction.

Conclusions

In our overview, we found that SR and MA on complementary therapies in cancer patients have increased in China and the United States. Although there are methodological and reporting quality limitations based on AMSTAR2, several complementary therapy interventions were used to manage side effects such as pain, fatigue, and depression in cancer patients. Therefore, future studies must treat the risk of methodological bias with caution. High-quality SR in which selection of high-quality studies is combined with adequate methodology, are needed to clarify the true efficacy of complementary therapies for cancer patients.

Supplemental Material

Appendix_1-1._Quality_of_life_in_SR – Supplemental material for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients

Supplemental material, Appendix_1-1._Quality_of_life_in_SR for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients by Seong Min Lee, Ho Cheol Choi and Min Kyung Hyun in Integrative Cancer Therapies

Supplemental Material

Appendix_1-2._Quality_of_life_in_MA – Supplemental material for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients

Supplemental material, Appendix_1-2._Quality_of_life_in_MA for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients by Seong Min Lee, Ho Cheol Choi and Min Kyung Hyun in Integrative Cancer Therapies

Supplemental Material

Appendix_2-1._Overall_survival_in_SR – Supplemental material for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients

Supplemental material, Appendix_2-1._Overall_survival_in_SR for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients by Seong Min Lee, Ho Cheol Choi and Min Kyung Hyun in Integrative Cancer Therapies

Supplemental Material

Appendix_2-2._Overall_Survival_in_MA – Supplemental material for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients

Supplemental material, Appendix_2-2._Overall_Survival_in_MA for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients by Seong Min Lee, Ho Cheol Choi and Min Kyung Hyun in Integrative Cancer Therapies

Supplemental Material

Appendix_3-1._Pain_in_SR – Supplemental material for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients

Supplemental material, Appendix_3-1._Pain_in_SR for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients by Seong Min Lee, Ho Cheol Choi and Min Kyung Hyun in Integrative Cancer Therapies

Supplemental Material

Appendix_4-1._Depression_in_SR – Supplemental material for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients

Supplemental material, Appendix_4-1._Depression_in_SR for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients by Seong Min Lee, Ho Cheol Choi and Min Kyung Hyun in Integrative Cancer Therapies

Supplemental Material

Appendix_4-2._Depression_in_MA – Supplemental material for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients

Supplemental material, Appendix_4-2._Depression_in_MA for An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients by Seong Min Lee, Ho Cheol Choi and Min Kyung Hyun in Integrative Cancer Therapies

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (Ministry of Science and ICT; No. 2016R1C1B3006806).

ORCID iD

Min Kyung Hyun

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Appendix 1-1. Quality of life in SR

Appendix 1-2. Quality of life in MA

Appendix 2-1. Overall survival in SR

Appendix 2-2. Overall survival in MA

Appendix 3-1. Pain in SR

Appendix 3-2. Pain in MA

Appendix 4-1. Depression in SR

Appendix 4-2. Depression in MA

References

Siegel

Miller

Jemal

Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7-30.

Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration; Fitzmaurice

Allen

, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:524-548.

Walsh

Donnelly

Rybicki

The symptoms of advanced cancer: relationship to age, gender, and performance status in 1000 patients. Support Care Cancer. 2000;8:175-179.

World Health Organization. Cancer. Diagnosis and treatment. http://www.who.int/cancer/treatment/en/. Accessed November 6, 2019.

Arthur

Belliard

Hardin

Knecht

Chen

Montgomery

Practices, attitudes, and beliefs associated with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients. Integr Cancer Ther. 2012;11:232-242.

Mansky

Wallerstedt

DB.

Complementary medicine in palliative care and cancer symptom management. Cancer J. 2006;12:425-431.

Koithan

Introducing complementary and alternative therapies. J Nurse Pract. 2009;5:18-20.

Buckner

Lafrenie

Dénommée

Caswell

Want

DA.

Complementary and alternative medicine use in patients before and after a cancer diagnosis. Curr Oncol. 2018;25:e275-e281.

Yun

Sun

Mao

JJ.

Growth of integrative medicine at leading cancer centers between 2009 and 2016: a systematic analysis of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center websites. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2017;2017(52). doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgx004

10.

Shea

Reeves

Wells

, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

11.

Zhang

Liu

Tripathy

Chinese medicinal herbs to treat the side-effects of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD004921.

12.

Campbell

LC.

A systematic review of cognitive behavioral interventions in advanced cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89:15-24.

13.

Harder

Parlour

Jenkins

Randomised controlled trials of yoga interventions for women with breast cancer: a systematic literature review. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:3055-3064.

14.

Ernst

Schmidt

Steuer-Vogt

MK.

Mistletoe for cancer? A systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Int J Cancer. 2003;107:262-267.

15.

Roffe

Schmidt

Ernst

A systematic review of guided imagery as an adjuvant cancer therapy. Psychooncology. 2005;14:607-617.

16.

Milazzo

Russell

Ernst

Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:282-289.

17.

Lee

Chen

Sancier

Ernst

Qigong for cancer treatment: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Acta Oncol. 2007;46:717-722.

18.

Lee

Pittler

Ernst

Is Tai Chi an effective adjunct in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Support Care Cancer. 2007;15:597-601.

19.

Lee

Choi

Ernst

Tai chi for breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120:309-316.

20.

Lee

Choi

Park

Lee

Ernst

Moxibustion for cancer care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:130.

21.

Chan

Wang

, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of Qigong exercise in supportive cancer care. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:1121-1133.

22.

Butow

Mullan

, et al. A critical review of the effects of medical Qigong on quality of life, immune function, and survival in cancer patients. Integr Cancer Ther. 2012;11:101-110.

23.

Bergenthal

Will

Streckmann

, et al. Aerobic physical exercise for adult patients with haematological malignancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(11):CD009075.

24.

Lian

Pan

Zhou

Zhang

ZJ.

Effectiveness of acupuncture for palliative care in cancer patients: a systematic review. Chin J Integr Med. 2014;20:136-147.

25.

Archer

Buxton

Sheffield

The effect of creative psychological interventions on psychological outcomes for adult cancer patients: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Psychooncology. 2015;24:1-10.

26.

Choi

Lee

Ernst

Moxibustion for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced leukopenia: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:1819-1826.

27.

Paley

Johnson

Tashani

Bagnall

AM.

Acupuncture for cancer pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(10):CD007753.

28.

Cao

Wang

Chen

Liu

JP.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials on oral Chinese herbal medicine for prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0160253.

29.

Hulett

Armer

JM.

A systematic review of spiritually based interventions and psychoneuroimmunological outcomes in breast cancer survivorship. Integr Cancer Ther. 2016;15:405-423.

30.

Salhofer

Will

Monsef

Skoetz

Meditation for adults with haematological malignancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(2):CD011157.

31.

van Die

Bone

Emery

Williams

Pirotta

Paller

CJ.

Phytotherapeutic interventions in the management of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review of randomised trials. BJU Int. 2016;117(suppl 4):17-34.

32.

Cramer

Lange

Klose

Paul

Dobos

Yoga for breast cancer patients and survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:412.

33.

Cramer

Lauche

Klose

Lange

Langhorst

Dobos

GJ.

Yoga for improving health-related quality of life, mental health and cancer-related symptoms in women diagnosed with breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(1):CD010802.

34.

Chen

Deng

Jiang

Chinese herbal medicine for oesophageal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(1):CD004520.

35.

Buffart

van Uffelen

Riphagen

, et al. Physical and psychosocial benefits of yoga in cancer patients and survivors, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:559.

36.

Pan

Yang

Wang

Zhang

Liang

HQ.

Massage interventions and treatment-related side effects of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2014;19:829-841.

37.

Carayol

Delpierre

Bernard

Ninot

Population-, intervention- and methodology-related characteristics of clinical trials impact exercise efficacy during adjuvant therapy for breast cancer: a meta-regression analysis. Psychooncology. 2015;24:737-747.

38.

Pan

Yang

Wang

Zhang

Liang

Could yoga practice improve treatment-related side effects and quality of life for women with breast cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017;13:e79-e95.

39.

Nie

Liu

Mao

Zhang

MM.

Effect of injection of Brucea javanica oil emulsion plus chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer: a review of clinical evidence. J Evid Based Med. 2012;5:216-225.

40.

Yang

Cui

Zhao

Gao

Zhu

HY.

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of Chinese and Western integrative medicine on medium and advanced lung cancer. Chin J Integr Med. 2012;18:862-867.

41.

Zhang

Yang

Tian

Wang

CM.

Effects of yoga on psychologic function and quality of life in women with breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Altern Complement Med. 2012;18:994-1002.

42.

Zhang

Wang

Yao

, et al. Music interventions for psychological and physical outcomes in cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:3043-3053.

43.

Puetz

Morley

Herring

MP.

Effects of creative arts therapies on psychological symptoms and quality of life in patients with cancer. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:960-969.

44.

Shneerson

Taskila

Gale

Greenfield

Chen

YF.

The effect of complementary and alternative medicine on the quality of life of cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Complement Ther Med. 2013;21:417-429.

45.

Chen

May

Zhou

Xue

Zhang

. FOLFOX 4 combined with herbal medicine for advanced colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Phytother Res. 2014;28:976-991.

46.

Lee

Jerng

Liu

Kang

Nam

Lee

JD.

The effectiveness and safety of moxibustion for treating cancer-related fatigue: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:1429-1440.

47.

Yan

Pan

Zhang

Sun

Cui

GH.

Lack of efficacy of Tai Chi in improving quality of life in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:3715-3720.

48.

Yanju

Yang

Hua

, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of traditional Chinese medicine compound Kushen injection for bone cancer pain. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:825-836.

49.

Zeng

Luo

Finnegan-John

Cheng

AS.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for cancer-related fatigue. Integr Cancer Ther. 2014;13:193-200.

50.

Zeng

Luo

Xie

Huang

Cheng

AS.

Health benefits of Qigong or Tai Chi for cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Complement Ther Med. 2014;22:173-186.

51.

Ezzo

Manheimer

McNeely

, et al. Manual lymphatic drainage for lymphedema following breast cancer treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(5):CD003475.

52.

Kim

Lee

, et al. Traditional herbal medicine as adjunctive therapy for breast cancer: a systematic review. Complement Ther Med. 2015;23:626-632.

53.

Tao

Luo

Cui

, et al. Practice of traditional Chinese medicine for psycho-behavioral intervention improves quality of life in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2015;6:39725-39739.

54.

Bradt

Dileo

Magill

Teague

Music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(8):CD006911.

55.

Klein

Schneider

Rhoads

CJ.

Qigong in cancer care: a systematic review and construct analysis of effective Qigong therapy. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:3209-3222.

56.

Lau

Chung

, et al. Acupuncture and related therapies for symptom management in palliative cancer care: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e2901.

57.

Lee

Tam

Yeh

WW.

Acupoint stimulation, massage therapy and expressive writing for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Complement Ther Med. 2016;27:87-101.

58.

Tao

Jiang

Tao

Jiang

Sha

Sun

XC.

Effects of acupuncture, Tuina, Tai Chi, Qigong, and traditional Chinese medicine five-element music therapy on symptom management and quality of life for cancer patients: a meta-analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;51:728-747.

59.

Wang

Lian

Sun

Luo

Guo

Efficacy of compound Kushen injection plus radiotherapy on nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther. 2016;12:1298-1306.

60.

Ernst

Schmidt

Baum

Complementary/alternative therapies for the treatment of breast cancer. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials and a critique of current terminology. Breast J. 2006;12:526-530.

61.

McCulloch

See

Shu

, et al. Astragalus-based Chinese herbs and platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:419-430.

62.

Dugoua

Eyawo

Mills

EJ.

Traditional Chinese medicines in the treatment of hepatocellular cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009;28:112.

63.

Deng

, et al. Adjuvant phytotherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Altern Complement Med. 2009;15:1347-1353.

64.

Sun

Gao

Zheng

Zhang

Peng

Meta-analysis: therapeutic effect of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization combined with compound Kushen injection in hepatocellular carcinoma. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med. 2012;9:178-188.

65.

Zhong

Chen

Cho

Meng

Tong

The efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine as an adjunctive therapy for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement Ther Med. 2012;20:240-252.

66.

Kim

Lee

Min

Lee

Cho

SH.

Traditional herbal medicine as adjunctive therapy for nasopharyngeal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Integr Cancer Ther. 2015;14:212-220.

67.

Bardia

Barton

Prokop

Bauer

Moynihan

TJ.

Efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine therapies in relieving cancer pain: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5457-5464.

68.

Wilkinson

Barnes

Storey

Massage for symptom relief in patients with cancer: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2008;63:430-439.

69.

Ernst

Massage therapy for cancer palliation and supportive care: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:333-337.

70.

Kassab

Cummings

Berkovitz

van Haselen

Fisher

Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(2):CD004845.

71.

Kim

Lee

Kang

Choi

Ernst

Reflexology for the symptomatic treatment of breast cancer: a systematic review. Integr Cancer Ther. 2010;9:326-330.

72.

Garcia

McQuade

Haddad

, et al. Systematic review of acupuncture in cancer care: a synthesis of the evidence. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:952-960.

73.

Cramer

Lauche

Paul

Langhorst

Kummel

Dobos

GJ.

Hypnosis in breast cancer care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Integr Cancer Ther. 2015;14:5-15.

74.

Choi

Lee

Kim

Zaslawski

Ernst

Acupuncture for the treatment of cancer pain: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:1147-1158.

75.

Chien

Liu

Chang

Fang

Hsu

CH.

Acupuncture for treating aromatase inhibitor-related arthralgia in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Altern Complement Med. 2015;21:251-260.

76.

Lee

Kim

Min

Lee

Cho

SH.

Traditional herbal medicine for cancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement Ther Med. 2015;23:265-274.

77.

Lee

Kim

Yeo

Kim

Lim

Meta-analysis of massage therapy on cancer pain. Integr Cancer Ther. 2015;14:297-304.

78.

Chung

, et al. Chinese herbal medicine for symptom management in cancer palliative care: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e2793.

79.

Kim

Son

GM.

Acupuncture for recovery after surgery in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acupunct Med. 2016;34:248-256.

80.

Shin

Seo

Lee

, et al. Massage with or without aromatherapy for symptom relief in people with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(6):CD009873.

81.

Yan

Liu

, et al. External application of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of bone cancer pain: a meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:11-17.

82.

Sheinfeld Gorin

Krebs

Badr

, et al. Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions to reduce pain in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:539-547.

83.

Chao

Zhang

Liu

Cheng

Lam

SK.

The efficacy of acupoint stimulation for the management of therapy-related adverse events in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;118:255-267.

84.

Felbel

Meerpohl

Monsef

Engert

Skoetz

Yoga in addition to standard care for patients with haematological malignancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD010146.

85.

Cramer

Lauche

Paul

Dobos

Mindfulness-based stress reduction for breast cancer-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Oncol. 2012;19:e343-e352.

86.

Kim

SH.

The effects of spiritual interventions in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014;41:E290-E301.

87.

Rossi

Vita

Baccetti

Di Stefano

Voller

Zanobini

Complementary and alternative medicine for cancer patients: results of the EPAAC survey on integrative oncology centres in Europe. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:1795-1806.

88.

Posadzki

Watson

Alotaibi

Ernst

Prevalence of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients/consumers in the UK: systematic review of surveys. Clin Med (Lond). 2013;13:126-131.

89.

Barnes

Bloom

Nahin

RL.

Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States, 2007. Natl Health Stat Report. 2008;(12):1-23.

90.

Zhang

Sun

Han

, et al. Acupuncture for primary dysmenorrhea: an overview of systematic reviews. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018;2018:8791538.

91.

Zuo

, et al. Acupuncture for treatment of insomnia: an overview of systematic reviews. Complement Ther Med. 2019;42:407-416.

92.

McCulloch

Broffman

See

Clemons

Chang

Chinese herbal medicine and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a quality-adjusted meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Integr Cancer Ther. 2016;15:285-307.

93.

Pearce

Haas

Viney

, et al. Incidence and severity of self-reported chemotherapy side effects in routine care: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0184360.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB

0.18 MB

0.15 MB

0.06 MB

0.16 MB

0.07 MB