Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Oncology: A Concise Review of Utilization, Evidence, and Integration Challenges

TL;DR

This paper reviews how cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the evidence for its effectiveness, and the challenges in integrating it into standard cancer care.

Contribution

The paper provides a concise review of CAM utilization in oncology and identifies system-level challenges and underrecognized mechanistic links for future integration.

Findings

CAM is widely used by cancer patients, often due to emotional distress and dissatisfaction with conventional treatments.

Selected CAM interventions like acupuncture and mind-body therapies show measurable clinical benefits with plausible biological mechanisms.

Integration of CAM into oncology requires structured consultation models, education, and improved research rigor.

Abstract

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used by cancer patients and increasingly shapes oncological care worldwide. This narrative review examines current evidence on utilization patterns, theoretical frameworks, clinical efficacy, and safety aspects of CAM in oncology. CAM use is primarily motivated by emotional distress, the desire for personal autonomy, and perceived limitations of conventional cancer treatments. Despite its prevalence, communication about CAM between patients and physicians remains insufficient, and potential risks, particularly herb–drug interactions, are often underestimated in clinical practice.

Evidence indicates that selected CAM interventions, including acupuncture, ginger, and mind‐body therapies, provide measurable clinical benefits and are supported by plausible biological mechanisms. In contrast, the majority of CAM modalities are characterized by heterogeneous evidence bases that frequently rely on preclinical data or methodologically limited clinical studies. Persistent challenges such as publication bias, inconsistent outcome measures, and inadequate standardization substantially limit the interpretability and generalizability of existing findings. These limitations complicate evidence‐based decision making and hinder responsible clinical integration.

Effective integration of CAM into oncology requires structured consultation models, systematic risk assessment strategies, and the inclusion of evidence‐based CAM education within medical training. In parallel, coordinated research initiatives and regulatory frameworks are essential to improve methodological rigor and ensure patient safety. This review concludes that only through scientific discipline, transparent evaluation processes, and interdisciplinary collaboration can CAM transition from a fragmented adjunct to a validated and ethically grounded component of comprehensive cancer care. Beyond summarizing existing evidence, the review highlights underrecognized mechanistic links and system‐level challenges that offer new perspectives on the future incorporation of CAM into modern oncology.

Figures