Search

Simple Summary: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies include a wide range of procedures and products that are often used by cancer patients to directly combat cancer and to protect normal cells from the toxic effects of conventional therapies. Most often, their use is self-prescribed based on a collection of scattered information from websites and advice from relatives or friends. In this paper, we examined the potential known benefits and harms associated with the most commonly used alternative treatments to provide a practical guide for caregivers and patients. CAM is used by about 40% of cancer patients in Western Countries, with peaks of 80% for breast cancer patients. Cancer patients use CAM to boost immune function, to control cancer symptoms and treatment-related side effects, and to improve health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and survival. Unfortunately, self-prescription of natural remedies in cancer patients can lead to unexpected toxicities and can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapy. Although CAM usually refers to all the "natural or organic" products/methods that are generally considered less toxic, there are concerns about drug interactions, especially in patients participating in clinical trials with experimental agents. Despite the claims of the promising and potential benefits made by prescribers, many CAMs lack clear scientific evidence of their safety and efficacy. Given the widespread use of CAM—both clearly declared and overt—in this review, we focused on the most important known data on the risk of interactions between biologics and oncology drugs with the goal of opening up CAM in accordance with the meaning of integrative medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the foundational background of modern medical practice. They are considered the highest quality of evidence, and their results help inform decisions concerning drug development and use, preventive therapies, and screening programs. However, the inputs that justify an RCT to be conducted have not been studied.Methods: We reviewed the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases across six specialties (Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology (ENT), General Surgery, Psychiatry, Obstetrics-Gynecology (OB-GYN), and Internal Medicine) and randomly chose 25 RCTs from each specialty except for Otorhinolaryngology (20 studies) and Internal Medicine (28 studies). For each RCT, we recorded information relating to the justification for conducting RCTs such as average study size cited, number of studies cited, and types of studies cited. The justification varied widely both within and between specialties.Results: For Ophthalmology and OB-GYN, the average study sizes cited were around 1100 patients, whereas they were around 500 patients for Psychiatry and General Surgery. Between specialties, the average number of studies cited ranged from around 4.5 for ENT to around 10 for Ophthalmology, but the standard deviations were large, indicating that there was even more discrepancy within each specialty. When standardizing by the sample size of the RCT, some of the discrepancies between and within specialties can be explained, but not all. On average, Ophthalmology papers cited review articles the most (2.96 studies per RCT) compared to less than 1.5 studies per RCT for all other specialties.Conclusions: The justifications for RCTs vary widely both within and between specialties, and the justification for conducting RCTs is not standardized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Participant selection for first-in-human (FIH) trials involves complex decisions. The trial design makes it unlikely that participants will receive clinically relevant therapeutic benefit, but they are likely to experience risks of various magnitudes and types. The aim of the present paper was to describe and discuss the views of investigators and ethics committee members about the choice of trial participants for FIH trials in cancer nanomedicine. Methods We drew insights from an exploratory qualitative study involving thematic analysis of 46 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in Europe and North America involved in FIH nanomedicine trials. The present work draws on subset of 21 interviews with investigators and ethics committee members who have either conducted or reviewed a FIH cancer nanomedicine trial or are planning one. Results Investigators and ethics committee members are aware of the ethics standards for recruiting patients with end-stage cancer into FIH trials, but they nonetheless question the practice and provide reasons against it. Conclusions Although it is a standard and ethically accepted practice to enrol patients with end-stage cancer and no treatment options into FIH trials of investigational chemotherapeutic molecules, doing so can threaten the validity and generalizability of the trials, thereby weakening translational research. Another possibility is to stratify and include patients with less advanced disease who demonstrate certain biomarkers or cancer genotypes and who have a disease profile similar to that tested in preclinical studies. The latter approach could be a step toward personalized medical research and targeted drug development. Such a patient selection approach requires multi-stakeholder discussion to reach scientific and ethics consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]