'Alternative cancer cures': looking for common ground

Can treatment with Cocculine improve the control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in early breast cancer patients? A randomized, multi-centered, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial

Background

Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major problem that seriously impairs the quality of life (QoL) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy regimens. Complementary medicines, including homeopathy, are used by many patients with cancer, usually alongside with conventional treatment. A randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a complex homeopathic medicine, Cocculine, in the control of CINV in non-metastatic breast cancer patients treated by standard chemotherapy regimens.

Methods

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with non-metastatic breast cancer scheduled to receive 6 cycles of chemotherapy including at least three initial cycles of FAC 50, FEC 100 or TAC were randomized to receive standard anti-emetic treatment plus either a complex homeopathic remedy (Cocculine, registered in France for treatment of nausea and travel sickness) or the matching placebo (NCT00409071 clinicaltrials.gov). The primary endpoint was nausea score measured after the 1^st chemotherapy course using the FLIE questionnaire (Functional Living Index for Emesis) with 5-day recall. Secondary endpoints were: vomiting measured by the FLIE score, nausea and vomiting measured by patient self-evaluation (EVA) and investigator recording (NCI-CTC AE V3.0) and treatment compliance.

Results

From September 2005 to January 2008, 431 patients were randomized: 214 to Cocculine (C) and 217 to placebo (P). Patient characteristics were well-balanced between the 2 arms. Overall, compliance to study treatments was excellent and similar between the 2 arms. A total of 205 patients (50.9%; 103 patients in the placebo and 102 in the homeopathy arms) had nausea FLIE scores > 6 indicative of no impact of nausea on quality of life during the 1^st chemotherapy course. There was no difference between the 2 arms when primary endpoint analysis was performed by chemotherapy stratum; or in the subgroup of patients with susceptibility to nausea and vomiting before inclusion. In addition, nausea, vomiting and global emesis FLIE scores were not statistically different at any time between the two study arms. The frequencies of severe (Grade ≥ 2) nausea and vomiting were low in our study (nausea: P: 17.6% vs C: 15.7%, p=0.62; vomiting: P: 10.8% vs C: 12.0%, p=0.72 during the first course).

Conclusion

This double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomised Phase III study showed that adding a complex homeopathic medicine (Cocculine) to standard anti-emetic prophylaxis does not improve the control of CINV in early breast cancer patients.

Guided imagery for non-musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials

CONTEXT

Our previous review of the literature concluded that there is encouraging evidence that guided imagery alleviates musculoskeletal pain, but the value of guided imagery in the management of non-musculoskeletal pain remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of guided imagery as a treatment option for non-musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

Six databases were searched from their inception to February 2011. Randomized clinical trials were considered if they investigated guided imagery in human patients with any type of non-musculoskeletal pain in any anatomical location and assessed pain as a primary outcome measure. Trials of motor imagery and hypnosis were excluded. The selection of studies, data extraction, and validation were performed independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Their methodological quality was generally poor. Eleven trials found that guided imagery led to a significant reduction of non-musculoskeletal pain. Four studies found no change in non-musculoskeletal pain with guided imagery in comparison with progressive relaxation, standard care, or no treatment.

CONCLUSION

The evidence that guided imagery alleviates non-musculoskeletal pain is encouraging but remains inconclusive.

Complementary therapies in palliative cancer care

BACKGROUND

Complementary medicine has become an important aspect of palliative cancer care. This overview is primarily aimed at providing guidance to clinicians regarding some commonly used complementary therapies.

METHODS

Several complementary therapies were identified as particularly relevant to palliative cancer care. Exemplary studies and, where available, systematic reviews are discussed.

RESULTS

Promising results exist for some treatments, e.g. acupuncture, enzyme therapy, homeopathy, hypnotherapy, and relaxation techniques. Unfortunately, the author finds that the evidence is not compelling for any of these therapies.

CONCLUSION

These results point to some potential for complementary medicine in palliative care. They also demonstrate an urgent need for more rigorous research into the value (or otherwise) of such treatments in palliative and supportive cancer care.