Loquai Carmen, Schmidtmann Irene, Garzarolli Marlene, Kaatz Martin, Kähler Katharina C, Kurschat Peter, Meiss Frank, Micke Oliver, Muecke Ralph, Muenstedt Karsten, Nashan Dorothee, Stein Annette, Stoll Christoph, Dechent Dagmar, Huebner Jutta
aDepartment of Dermatology bDepartment of Medical Biometrie, Epidemiology and Informatics, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz cDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Dresden, Dresden dDepartment of Dermatology, Wald Klinikum Gera, Gera eDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Kiel, Kiel fDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne gDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg hDepartment of Radio-Oncology, Franziskus Hospital Bielefeld, Bielefeld iDepartment of Radio-Oncology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum jDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Clinic Offenburg, Offenburg kDepartment of Dermatology, Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH, Dortmund lPractice of Dermatology, Dresden mClinic Herzoghoehe Bayreuth, Bayreuth nInstitute of Occupational Medicine, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen oDr. Senckenberg Chronomedical Insitute, J.W. Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Melanoma Res. 2017 Jun;27(3):238-242. doi: 10.1097/CMR.0000000000000339.
Biological-based (BbCAM) methods from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) may interact with cancer treatments, reduce efficacy, or enhance adverse effects. Although CAM usage has been evaluated well in other cancer entities, data on melanoma patients are still missing. The aim of this study was to determine CAM usage of melanoma patients using a standardized questionnaire to identify potential interactions with established and new systemic melanoma therapies. This multicenter study was carried out in seven German skin cancer centers. During routine care contact, CAM usage of former and current melanoma treatment was assessed in melanoma patients. The probability of interaction was classified into four categories ranging from 'interaction unlikely' (I), 'possible' (II), 'likely' (III), or 'no data' (IV). The questionnaire was filled out by 1157 patients, of whom 1089 were eligible for evaluation. CAM usage was reported by 41% of melanoma patients, of whom 63.1% took BbCAM such as vitamins, trace elements, supplements, or phytotherapeuticals. Of 335 patients with former or current therapy, 28.1% used BbCAM. The melanoma treatment included interferon, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, BRAF-inhibitor, or other tyrosine kinase inhibitors and ipilimumab. On the basis of our model of likelihood of interaction, we found that 23.9% of those on cancer therapy and 85.1% of those also using BbCAM were at some risk of interactions. The main limitation of our study is that no reliable and comprehensive database on clinical relevant interactions with CAM in oncology exists. Most patients receiving a melanoma-specific treatment and using BbCAM methods are at risk for interactions, which raises concerns on the safety and treatment efficacy of these patients. To protect melanoma patients from potential harm by the combination of their cancer treatment and CAM usage, patients should systematically be encouraged to report their CAM use, while oncologists should be trained on evidence of CAM, and patient guidance for saver CAM use.
补充和替代医学(CAM)中基于生物学的(BbCAM)方法可能与癌症治疗相互作用,降低疗效或增强不良反应。尽管CAM在其他癌症类型中的使用情况已得到充分评估,但黑色素瘤患者的数据仍然缺失。本研究的目的是使用标准化问卷确定黑色素瘤患者对CAM的使用情况,以识别与既定和新型系统性黑色素瘤治疗方法之间的潜在相互作用。这项多中心研究在德国的七个皮肤癌中心进行。在常规护理接触期间,评估黑色素瘤患者既往和当前黑色素瘤治疗中对CAM的使用情况。相互作用的可能性分为四类,从“不太可能相互作用”(I)、“可能”(II)、“很可能”(III)到“无数据”(IV)。1157名患者填写了问卷,其中1089名符合评估条件。41%的黑色素瘤患者报告使用了CAM,其中63.1%使用了BbCAM,如维生素、微量元素、补充剂或植物疗法。在335名接受过既往或当前治疗的患者中,28.1%使用了BbCAM。黑色素瘤治疗包括干扰素、放疗、化疗、BRAF抑制剂或其他酪氨酸激酶抑制剂以及伊匹单抗。根据我们的相互作用可能性模型,我们发现接受癌症治疗的患者中有23.9%以及同时使用BbCAM的患者中有85.1%存在某种相互作用风险。我们研究的主要局限性在于不存在关于肿瘤学中与CAM临床相关相互作用的可靠且全面的数据库。大多数接受黑色素瘤特异性治疗并使用BbCAM方法的患者存在相互作用风险,这引发了对这些患者安全性和治疗效果的担忧。为保护黑色素瘤患者免受癌症治疗与CAM联合使用带来的潜在危害,应系统地鼓励患者报告其对CAM的使用情况,同时肿瘤学家应接受关于CAM证据的培训以及关于更安全使用CAM的患者指导。