Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2026
Complementary and alternative medicine use: impact on survival among patients with gastrointestinal cancers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ekenze Sebastian O, Charalampous Charalampos M, Zih-Shuo Jethro W, Bega Rabia, Pawlik Timothy M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A subset of patients uses complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) despite advances in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer treatment. Given that the impact of CAM usage on survival remains poorly defined, we sought to identify predictors of CAM use and characterize the association between CAM use and long-term survival among adults with GI cancer.
METHODS: Using data from 2010 to 2019 National Cancer Database, patients with GI cancer were identified and categorized based on receipt of traditional therapy, CAM only, combination CAM plus traditional therapy, or no treatment. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of CAM use and to estimate associations with overall survival.
RESULTS: Among 1526,482 patients, 1215,841 (79.6%) individuals received traditional therapy, 310,251 (20.3%) received no treatment, 197 (< 0.1%) received CAM alone, and 193 (< 0.1%) received combination CAM plus traditional therapy. Compared with traditional therapy, CAM alone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.37-2.51) and no treatment (aHR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.66-1.70) were associated with higher mortality, whereas combination therapy was not (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.27). CAM use was strongly associated with pancreatic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 10.22; 95% CI, 5.76-18.12) and liver cancers (aOR, 10.09; 95% CI, 5.11-19.90).
DISCUSSION: Across GI cancer types, survival differed by treatment category, with higher mortality observed among patients who used CAM alone. CAM use varied by cancer type, race, care setting, and stage. These findings can help inform patient-centered discussions in GI oncology care regarding CAM.
METHODS: Using data from 2010 to 2019 National Cancer Database, patients with GI cancer were identified and categorized based on receipt of traditional therapy, CAM only, combination CAM plus traditional therapy, or no treatment. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of CAM use and to estimate associations with overall survival.
RESULTS: Among 1526,482 patients, 1215,841 (79.6%) individuals received traditional therapy, 310,251 (20.3%) received no treatment, 197 (< 0.1%) received CAM alone, and 193 (< 0.1%) received combination CAM plus traditional therapy. Compared with traditional therapy, CAM alone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.37-2.51) and no treatment (aHR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.66-1.70) were associated with higher mortality, whereas combination therapy was not (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.27). CAM use was strongly associated with pancreatic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 10.22; 95% CI, 5.76-18.12) and liver cancers (aOR, 10.09; 95% CI, 5.11-19.90).
DISCUSSION: Across GI cancer types, survival differed by treatment category, with higher mortality observed among patients who used CAM alone. CAM use varied by cancer type, race, care setting, and stage. These findings can help inform patient-centered discussions in GI oncology care regarding CAM.