Using a standardized procedure in integrative medicine allows a high quality level to be offered to patients. Overall, breast cancer patients report very high satisfaction with the integrative medicine consultancy service and state long-term treatment goals. Hence, long-term treatment with integrative medicine methods should be taken into consideration.

Purpose Despite patients’ widespread use and acceptance of complementary and integrative medicine (IM), few data are available regarding health-care professionals’ current implementation of it in clinical routine. A national survey was conducted to assess gynecologists’ attitudes to and implementation of complementary and integrative treatment approaches. Methods The Working Group on Integrative Medicine of the German Society of Gynecological Oncology conducted an online survey in collaboration with the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) in July 2019. A 29-item survey was sent to all DGGG members by email. Results Questionnaires from 180 gynecologists were analyzed, of whom 61 were working office-based in private practice and 95 were employed in hospitals. Seventy percent stated that IM concepts are implemented in their routine clinical work. Most physicians reported using IM methods in gynecological oncology. The main indications for IM therapies were fatigue (n = 98), nausea and vomiting (n = 89), climacteric symptoms (n = 87), and sleep disturbances (n = 86). The most commonly recommended methods were exercise therapy (n = 86), mistletoe therapy (n = 78), and phytotherapy (n = 74). Gynecologists offering IM were more often female (P = 0.001), more often had qualifications in anthroposophic medicine (P = 0.005) or naturopathy (P = 0.019), and were more often based in large cities (P = 0.016). Conclusions There is strong interest in IM among gynecologists. The availability of evidence-based training in IM is increasing. Integrative therapy approaches are being implemented in clinical routine more and more, and integrative counseling services are present all over Germany. Efforts should focus on extending evidence-based knowledge of IM in both gynecology and gynecological oncology.

Purpose. Although the demand from patients for integrative medicine is increasing, complementary medicine services are still quite heterogeneous and have not been incorporated into clinical routine. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate improvements in side effects and quality of life associated with a hospital-based integrative medicine program in the modern breast cancer patient care setting. Methods. In a cross-sectional study, integrative health counseling and treatment were evaluated in women with breast cancer. Over a 15-month period, data for 75 patients from an integrative medicine consultancy service with standardized operating procedures were collected at the University Breast Center for Franconia. At baseline, the patients answered a questionnaire on their medical history, symptoms, and the treatment goals they were hoping to achieve with integrative medicine. In the follow-up, patient-reported outcomes related to side effects of conventional cancer treatment and patients’ quality of life were analyzed. Results. Among 60 patients with the therapy goal of reducing the side effects of conventional treatment, 46 (76.7%) were successful. Among 57 patients hoping to improve disease-related quality of life, 46 (82%) reported success. Whereas patients with metastatic disease achieved a reduction in the side effects of conventional therapy, quality-of-life improvements were predominantly achieved by patients with a good treatment prognosis. Conclusions. Breast cancer patients benefit from the counseling and treatment provided with integrative medicine in all phases of tumor disease. Integrative treatment services should be included as part of patient care in clinical routine work to offer patients the maximum quality of care and safety with complementary therapies.

Background More and more information about complementary and integrative medicine is becoming available, especially among cancer patients. However, little is known about the use of herbal medicine by patients with gynecologic cancers. This study aimed to assess the use of herbal products by gynecologic cancer patients compared with healthy controls. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department for Gynecology and Obstetrics of Erlangen University Hospital and included 201 patients with gynecologic cancer and 212 healthy controls. Use of herbal medicines was evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. Medical information on cancer patients was collected from hospital records. Group comparisons were done using a logistic regression model. Risk ratios were assessed using a Poisson regression model. Results Gynecologic cancer patients used herbal medicine significantly less often than healthy persons. 69% of gynecologic cancer patients and 81% of healthy participants reported using herbal products. 40% of cancer patients and 56% of healthy persons reported using plants for medicinal purposes. Motives of cancer patients for using herbal medicine included treatment of cancer-related symptoms. The major source of information for both groups was family and friends. Conclusions Although herbal medicine was used less by patients with gynecologic cancer, herbal products were used by both cancer patients and healthy individuals. To provide cancer patients with optimal therapy, oncologists should be informed about the herbal products used by their patients as this will allow them to take their patientsʼ self-medication with herbal medicine into account. Counseling by oncologists on the use of herbal medicine should be encouraged.