Jacobson J S, Workman S B, Kronenberg F
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA.
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Feb;18(3):668-83. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.3.668.
This article reviews English-language articles published in the biomedical literature from 1980 to 1997 that reported results of clinical research on complementary and alternative medical treatments (CAM) of interest to patients with breast cancer.
We searched 12 electronic databases and the bibliographies of the retrieved papers, review articles, and books on CAM and breast cancer. The retrieved articles were grouped by end point: breast cancer (eg, tumor size, survival), disease-related symptoms, side effects of treatment, and immune function. Within each end point, we organized the articles by modality and assessed study design, findings, and qualitative aspects.
Of the more than 1,000 citations retrieved, 51 fit our criteria for review. Of the articles reviewed, 17 were randomized clinical trials; three of these were trials of cancer-directed interventions, two of which involved the same treatment (melatonin). Seven articles described observational studies, and the remainder were reports of phase I or II trials. Relatively few CAM modalities reportedly used by many breast cancer patients were mentioned in articles retrieved by this process. Most articles had shortcomings.
Although many studies had encouraging results, none showed definitively that a CAM treatment altered disease progression in patients with breast cancer. Several modalities seemed to improve other outcomes (eg, acupuncture for nausea, pressure treatments for lymphedema). If CAM studies are well-founded, well-designed, and meticulously conducted, and their hypotheses, methods, and results are reported clearly and candidly, research in this controversial area should acquire credibility both in the scientific community and among advocates of unconventional medicine.
本文回顾了1980年至1997年发表在生物医学文献中的英文文章,这些文章报道了乳腺癌患者感兴趣的补充和替代医学疗法(CAM)的临床研究结果。
我们检索了12个电子数据库以及检索到的关于CAM和乳腺癌的论文、综述文章及书籍的参考文献。检索到的文章按终点分类:乳腺癌(如肿瘤大小、生存率)、疾病相关症状、治疗副作用和免疫功能。在每个终点内,我们按方式对文章进行组织,并评估研究设计、结果和定性方面。
在检索到的1000多条引文中,有51条符合我们的综述标准。在综述的文章中,17篇为随机临床试验;其中3篇是针对癌症的干预试验,其中2篇涉及相同的治疗方法(褪黑素)。7篇文章描述了观察性研究,其余为I期或II期试验报告。通过这个过程检索到的文章中,相对较少提及许多乳腺癌患者 reportedly 使用的CAM方式。大多数文章都有缺陷。
尽管许多研究有令人鼓舞的结果,但没有一项明确表明CAM治疗改变了乳腺癌患者的疾病进展。有几种方式似乎改善了其他结局(如针刺治疗恶心、压力疗法治疗淋巴水肿)。如果CAM研究有充分的依据、设计良好且精心实施,并且其假设、方法和结果得到清晰坦率的报告,那么在这个有争议的领域的研究应该在科学界和非传统医学倡导者中都获得可信度。