Assessment of outcomes at alternative medicine cancer clinics: a feasibility study

Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH): A Streamlined, Systematic, Phased Approach for Determining "What Works" in Healthcare

Background: Answering the question of “what works” in healthcare can be complex and requires the careful design and sequential application of systematic methodologies. Over the last decade, the Samueli Institute has, along with multiple partners, developed a streamlined, systematic, phased approach to this process called the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™). The SEaRCH process provides an approach for rigorously, efficiently, and transparently making evidence-based decisions about healthcare claims in research and practice with minimal bias.

Methods: SEaRCH uses three methods combined in a coordinated fashion to help determine what works in healthcare. The first, the Claims Assessment Profile (CAP), seeks to clarify the healthcare claim and question, and its ability to be evaluated in the context of its delivery. The second method, the Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL^©), is a streamlined, systematic review process conducted to determine the quantity, quality, and strength of evidence and risk/benefit for the treatment. The third method involves the structured use of expert panels (EPs). There are several types of EPs, depending on the purpose and need. Together, these three methods—CAP, REAL, and EP—can be integrated into a strategic approach to help answer the question “what works in healthcare?” and what it means in a comprehensive way.

Discussion: SEaRCH is a systematic, rigorous approach for evaluating healthcare claims of therapies, practices, programs, or products in an efficient and stepwise fashion. It provides an iterative, protocol-driven process that is customized to the intervention, consumer, and context. Multiple communities, including those involved in health service and policy, can benefit from this organized framework, assuring that evidence-based principles determine which healthcare practices with the greatest promise are used for improving the public's health and wellness.

Evaluating Integrative Cancer Clinics With the Claim Assessment Profile: An Example With the InspireHealth Clinic

Background: The evaluation of freestanding integrative cancer clinical programs is challenging and is rarely done. We have developed an approach called the Claim Assessment Profile (CAP) to identify whether evaluation of a practice is justified, feasible, and likely to provide useful information. Objectives: A CAP was performed in order to (1) clarify the healing claims at InspireHealth, an integrative oncology treatment program, by defining the most important impacts on its clients; (2) gather information about current research capacity at the clinic; and (3) create a program theory and path model for use in prospective research. Study Design/Methods: This case study design incorporates methods from a variety of rapid assessment approaches. Procedures included site visits to observe the program, structured qualitative interviews with 26 providers and staff, surveys to capture descriptive data about the program, and observational data on program implementation. Results: The InspireHealth program is a well-established, multi-site, thriving integrative oncology clinical practice that focuses on patient support, motivation, and health behavior engagement. It delivers patient-centered care via a standardized treatment protocol. There arehigh levels of research interest from staff and resources by which to conduct research. Conclusions: This analysis provides the primary descriptive and claims clarification of an integrative oncology treatment program, an evaluation readiness report, a detailed logic model explicating program theory, and a clinical outcomes path model for conducting prospective research. Prospective evaluation of this program would be feasible and valuable, adding to our knowledge base of integrative cancer therapies.

Sanguinaria canadensis: Traditional Medicine, Phytochemical Composition, Biological Activities and Current Uses

Sanguinaria canadensis, also known as bloodroot, is a traditional medicine used by Native Americans to treat a diverse range of clinical conditions. The plants rhizome contains several alkaloids that individually target multiple molecular processes. These bioactive compounds, mechanistically correlate with the plant’s history of ethnobotanical use. Despite their identification over 50 years ago, the alkaloids of S. canadensis have not been developed into successful therapeutic agents. Instead, they have been associated with clinical toxicities ranging from mouthwash induced leukoplakia to cancer salve necrosis and treatment failure. This review explores the historical use of S. canadensis, the molecular actions of the benzophenanthridine and protopin alkaloids it contains, and explores natural alkaloid variation as a possible rationale for the inconsistent efficacy and toxicities encountered by S.canadensis therapies. Current veterinary and medicinal uses of the plant are studied with an assessment of obstacles to the pharmaceutical development of S. canadensis alkaloid based therapeutics.

Surviving Against All Odds: Analysis of 6 Case Studies of Patients With Cancer Who Followed the Gerson Therapy

A considerable number of patients with cancer have used or are using the Gerson therapy, an alleged anticancer metabolic diet. However, there is almost no scientific support for this regimen. Hence, the present case review study of 6 patients with metastatic cancer who used the Gerson therapy aims at critically evaluating each case to derive some valid interpretations of its potential effect. All 6 cases had a cancer diagnosis with poor prognosis. Despite the presence of some confounding variables, it seems that the Gerson regimen has supported patients to some extent both physically and psychologically. More scientific attention needs to be directed to this area so that patients can practice safe and appropriate therapies that are based on evidence rather than anecdotes.

Cancer Outcomes at the Hufeland (Complementary/Alternative Medicine) Klinik: A Best-Case Series Review

Purpose: A best-case series review is an efficient tool with which to screen complex complementary and alternative treatments for cancer as candidates for further study. Study Design: The National Cancer Institute and other agencies have adopted the best-case series method to evaluate cancer treatments involving complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for further study. The authors conducted a best-case series review of the Hufeland Klinik. Established in 1985 in Bad Mergentheim, Germany, this facility treats more than 500 cancer patients per year. Hufeland treatment includes dietary modification, injections, ozone therapy, active fever therapy, psychotherapy, and sometimes hormone therapy and/or low-dose chemotherapy. The goal of the treatment is to prolong survival and to maintain good quality of life. Methods: The clinic provided summaries of 27 cases in which patients with longer than expected survival had agreed to make their medical records available for review. The review involved pathologic confirmation of disease and radiologic confirmation of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) not attributable to conventional treatment. Results: Based on the summaries and an exhaustive 2-year search for medical records, slides, and imaging data, 12 of 27 cases were selected for full review, and 5 (3 CRs and 2 PRs) were judged best cases. Conclusion: Most patients with common cancers receive conventional treatment before coming to Hufeland, and many are treated with chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy while there. Hence, only a few could be considered for review. With 5 of 12 patients showing a treatment response, the authors conclude that the Hufeland treatment merits further study. They also recommend the development of criteria with which to evaluate best-case series reviews of complex CAM treatments for patients with advanced cancer.

The Present State of Antineoplaston Research (1)

Antineoplastons work as molecular switches, which regulate expression of genes p53 and p21 through demethylation of promoter sequences and acetylation of histones. They also inhibit the uptake of growth-critical amino acids, such as 1- glutamine and 1-leucine in neoplastic cells. Phase II trials indicate efficacy of antineoplastons in low-grade glioma, brain stem glioma, high-grade glioma, adenocarcinoma of the colon, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The best results were observed in children with low-grade glioma, where 74% of patients obtained objective response, and in patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon with liver metastases whose survival rate of more than 5 years is 91% versus 39% in controls on chemotherapy. Gene array studies will explain antineoplaston-induced changes in gene expression.

The National Cancer Institute best case series program: a summary of cases of cancer patients treated with unconventional therapies in India

OBJECTIVES

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Best Case Series (BCS) Program provides an independent review of medical records, imaging, and pathology of cancer patients treated with unconventional therapies. The goal of the NCI BCS Program is to identify preliminary evidence of tumor regression and assess whether there is sufficient evidence to move forward with NCI-initiated research. The objective was to review case reports submitted by 4 practitioners from India who used ayurvedic and homeopathic therapies to treat cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of case reports of 4 practitioners from India who used ayurvedic and homeopathic therapies to treat cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 68 cases were submitted to the NCI BCS Program. Fifty-one percent of the cases represented homeopathy and 49% ayurveda. Of the 68 cases, 32 (47%) of the cases were collectively designated as "persuasive" (P) or "supportive"(S), and 36 (53%) as "not evaluable." Forty-one (60%) patients did not have any prior conventional treatment.

CONCLUSION

The challenge for submitters rests in their ability to supply sufficient documentation for the NCI BCS Program. The NCI BCS Program represents a unique avenue for the rigorous evaluation of "best cases" to identify complementary and alternative medicine modalities that are promising for prospective preclinical evaluation or prospective research.

Use of complementary and alternative medicine in children with cancer: effect on survival

The objective of the present study was to determine the type, frequency, the reason why complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments are used, the factors related with their use, and the effects of CAM usage on long-term survival. Families of a total of 120 children with cancer between 0-18 years of age, including 50 (41.7%) girls and 70 (58.3%) boys, participated in our study. The authors found that 88 patients (73.3%) used at least one CAM method, the most common (95.5%) of which was biologically based therapies. Most frequently used biologically based therapies were dietary supplements and herbal products. The most commonly used dietary supplement or herbal product was honey (43.2%) or stinging nettle (43.2%), respectively. We found that patients used such CAM methods as complementary to, but not instead of, conventional therapy. Sixty-nine out of 88 patient families (78.4%) shared the CAM method they used with their physicians. No statistically significant relation was found between socioeconomic, sociodemographic, or other factors or items and CAM use. The mean follow-up period of the CAM users and nonusers groups was 79.4 ± 36.7 (21.3-217.9) and 90.9 ± 50.3 (27.4-193.7) months, respectively. Five-year survival rates for CAM users and nonusers were found as 81.5% and 86.5%, respectively (P > .05). In conclusion, families of children with cancer use complementary and alternative treatment frequently. They do not attempt to replace conventional treatment with CAM. Higher rates of CAM use was found in families with higher educational level. CAM usage did not affect the long-term survival.

Survival impact of integrative cancer care in advanced metastatic breast cancer

Integrative cancer treatment is of substantial interest to many cancer patients. Research is needed to evaluate the effects of integrative treatment on patient outcomes. We report survival data for a consecutive case series of advanced metastatic breast cancer patients who received a comprehensive clinical program combining conventional treatments with nutrition and supplementation, fitness and mind-spirit instruction at the Block Center for Integrative Cancer Treatment. Treatment outcomes using integrative care for this disease have not previously been documented; survival data will thus contribute to decisions concerning future research directions and design. Ninety consecutive patients with metastatic breast cancer diagnosed during 1984-1997 who received chemotherapy at the integrative cancer center were included. Prognostic factors, treatments and survival from onset of metastases were determined from analysis of scans, labs, pathology and medical records. The log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used, and a Kaplan-Meier curve was calculated. All patients had metastatic disease at baseline, 96% were relapsed and 52% had received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Median age at onset of metastasis was 46 years. Median survival was 38 months (95% CI 27,48). Published literature on populations with somewhat more favorable prognostic factors treated in conventional clinics showed median survivals of 20 to 23 months. Through the 1990s, median survival reported in metastatic breast cancer trials or observations generally ranged from 12 to 24 months. Five-year survival was 27% for Center versus 17% for comparison patients. Despite a higher proportion of younger and relapsed patients, survival of metastatic breast cancer patients at the Center was approximately double that of comparison populations and possibly even higher compared to trials published during this period. Explanations for the advantage relative to conventional treatment alone may include the nutritional, nutraceutical, exercise and psychosocial interventions, individually or in combination; self-selection of patients cannot be ruled out. Further research to evaluate the impact of integrative breast cancer treatment on survival is warranted.

Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma

BACKGROUND

Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain. Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years. Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG). The objective of this report is to summarize the outcome of patients with HBSG treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials.

PATIENTS

The following group of 18 patients was evaluable: 4 patients with glioblastomas and 14 patients with anaplastic HBSG. Fourteen patients had diffuse intrinsic tumors. Twelve patients suffered from recurrence, and 6 patients did not have radiation therapy or chemotherapy.

METHODS

Antineoplastons, which consist of antineoplaston A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections, were given in escalating doses by intravenous injections. The median duration of antineoplaston administration was 5 months, and the average dosage of A10I was 9.22 g/kg/d and of AS2-1 was 0.31 g/kg/d. Responses were assessed by gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography.

RESULTS

The overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39% and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%. Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39%, and progressive disease in 39% of patients. Antineoplastons were tolerated very well with 1 case of grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia).

CONCLUSION

Antineoplastons contributed to more than a 5-year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients.

Patient perspectives: Tijuana cancer clinics in the post-NAFTA era

This article contains observations and historical considerations on cancer and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the Tijuana, Mexico, area. There are approximately 2 dozen such clinics in Tijuana, some of which have been treating international cancer patients since 1963. Among the first clinics to be established were the Bio-Medical Center (Hoxsey therapy), Oasis of Hope (a Laetrile-oriented clinic), and a series of clinics affiliated with the Gerson diet therapy. These original clinics were established mainly by American citizens in response to increased regulation of nonstandard therapies in the United States, particularly after passage of the Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act in 1962. In the 1970s, the Tijuana clinics proliferated with the upsurge of interest in Laetrile (amygdalin). By 1978, 70,000 US cancer patients had taken Laetrile for cancer treatment, and many of those had gone to Tijuana to receive it. The popularity of the Tijuana clinics peaked in the mid-1980s. Although many new clinics opened after then, a dozen have folded in the past 10 years alone. The turning point for the clinics came with passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which facilitated greater cooperation among the antifraud authorities of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. In 1994, the tripartite members of NAFTA formed the Mexico-United States-Canada Health Fraud Work Group, or MUCH, whose brief is to strengthen the 3 countries' ability to prevent cross-border health fraud. Under the auspices of MUCH and its members, regulatory crackdowns began in earnest early in 2001. The clinics were also badly affected by the general downturn in travel after 9/11. If these trends continue, many Tijuana clinics are unlikely to survive. Some suggestions are made for how the Tijuana clinics could be reorganized and reformed to minimize the likelihood of governmental actions and to maximize public support. Such reforms center on 5 main areas: (1) research, (2) physical plant, (3) finances, (4) ethics, and (5) education.

Approaching Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Patients With Cancer

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is becoming a significant factor in the arena of cancer care. There is an increasing body of research along with widespread popularity and use by patients with cancer. This article reviews current knowledge about the worldwide use of CAM in the treatment of cancer and patients' motives and reasoning for this use. Clinical research in CAM cancer treatments and physicians' attitudes toward this popular trend among patients with cancer are discussed as well. The physician-patient communication and its relevance to CAM use is emphasized. A step approach is suggested for primary care physicians including the discussion of CAM in the management of cancer in order to enrich the physician-patient dialogue and improve the quality of the clinical encounter.

Use of the best case series to evaluate complementary and alternative therapies for cancer: a systematic review

The best case series (BCS) is a retrospective chart review that describes a series of patients who all appear to have benefitted from the treatment under study. The BCS has been advocated as the first research step for evaluating complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments for cancer. However, the research value of the BCS has not been assessed. To address this deficiency, the present study evaluates the primary characteristics of the BCS process through a systematic review of the English language scientific literature. Twenty-four individual BCS investigating 16 unique CAM treatments for cancer were identified. About half of the BCS reported evidence of tumor regression in association with a particular CAM treatment, but only six contained documentation adequate for publication in peer-reviewed journals. For these six BCS the number of responders per BCS ranged from 2 to 12 (median, 3.5), the proportion of responders in the total number of evaluated cases varied from 6% to 100% (median, 40%), and the proportion of evaluated cases to identified cases ranged from 18% to 53% (median, 29%). The primary factors confounding the identified BCS were lack of documentation of disease and/or the use of concurrent or recent conventional treatment. Despite these general deficiencies, four BCS (antineoplastons, hydrazine sulfate, laetrile, and Kelly-Gonzalez) were sufficiently convincing to warrant follow-up clinical trials. These data suggest that while well-documented BCS do have an impact on the research agenda, in general, additional rigor is needed during their compilation.