The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Patients with a Urological Malignancy.
10.4111/kju.2006.47.6.620
- Author:
Choung Soo KIM
1
;
Sungchan PARK
;
Sang Bok LEE
;
Jung Min LEE
;
Han CHUNG
;
Moon Kee CHUNG
;
Duck Ki YOON
;
Jun CHEON
;
Wun Jae KIM
;
Byung Ha CHUNG
;
Sung Joon HONG
;
Jae Mann SONG
;
Sung Goo CHANG
;
Han Yong CHOI
;
Joung Sik RIM
;
Yong Hyun CHO
;
Kyung Hyun MOON
;
Bup Wan KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Alternative medicine;
Prevalence;
Prostate cancer;
Bladder cancer;
Renal cancer
- MeSH:
Ambulatory Care Facilities;
Complementary Therapies*;
Education;
Humans;
Immunotherapy;
Kidney Neoplasms;
Korea;
Occupations;
Prevalence;
Prostate;
Prostatic Neoplasms;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Urinary Bladder;
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2006;47(6):620-624
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is very common among patients with a urological malignancy. We assessed the prevalence and patterns of use of complementary therapies among patients with bladder, prostate and renal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May and July 2004, we conducted a survey to assess the use of CAM at 13 outpatient clinics in Korea. Seven hundred and eleven patients with bladder (269), prostate (300) or renal cancers (142) were selected to answer a self-administered questionnaire on CAM, which were then analyzed. RESULTS: Among 711 patients with urological malignancies, 279 (39.2%) had been treated with at least one type of CAM, in addition to conventional Western treatment. The cancer patients treated with radiation therapy or immunotherapy were more likely to employ CAM than those using other therapies. Age, gender, cancer type, occupations, religions, level of education and disease status (stable or progressive) were not associated with the prevalence of CAM. 44.3% of CAM users wanted to discuss CAM techniques with their doctors, but only 24.8% received an explanation of there use. CONCLUSIONS: CAM is used by a large number of patients with urological malignancies, particularly in those undergoing radiation therapy or immunotherapy. Urologists need to have an accurate knowledge and apprehension of CAM. The possible effects and side effects should be defined, with appropriate guidelines recommended for patients with a urological malignancy.
