Integrative oncology: really the best of both worlds?

• Published in: Nature reviews. Cancer Vol. 14; no. 10; pp. 692 - 700
• Main Author: Gorski, David H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 01-10-2014; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 631/67/1059; 692/700; Alternative medicine; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Cancer; Cancer Research; Care and treatment; Complementary Therapies - utilization; Forecasts and trends; Humans; Medical Oncology; Neoplasms - therapy; opinion-2
• ISSN: 1474-175X; 1474-1768
• DOI: 10.1038/nrc3822

'Integrative oncology', also known as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), is being increasingly accepted in cancer care and research. This Opinion article aims to define what is meant by CAM in cancer and argues that the vast majority of these treatments are supported by little, if any, scientific evidence. Furthermore, it asks the questions: is there any harm in these treatments, and are there any potential benefits?
Over the past two decades there has been a growing acceptance of 'integrative oncology', also known as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), in cancer care and research at academic medical centres and medical schools. Proponents of integrative oncology argue that it is based in science and provides the 'best of both worlds' by combining science-based treatments and 'holistic' medicine. However, a close examination of the methodologies indicates that, from a standpoint of basic science, the vast majority of 'integrative' treatments are supported by little, if any, scientific evidence. What are the consequences of this integration? Is there any harm? Are there any potential benefits?