Life quality and subjective feeling with additional homeopathic treatment in cancer patients

Questions The purpose of the study was evaluation of quality of life (QoL) and subjective existential orientation of oncological patients making use of additive homeopathic treatment. Methods In total 90 patients with breast (35), colorectal (10), renal (7), cerebral (7), and pancreatic (6) cancer; sarcoma (5); bronchial (4) cancer; lymphoma (4); pharyngeal (3) cancer; and others (9) underwent an elaborate medical history including questions relating to social and private circumstances. Symptoms given by patients were correlated with the signs of homeopathic evaluation of remedies as recorded in repertories (Zandvoort, Complete Repertory; MacRepertory ® ). Patients received individually selected remedies including Pulsatilla (15), Phosphor (15), Lachesis (11), Acidum arsenicosum (7), Calcium carbonicum (3), Toxicodendron quercifolium (2) as the main first line homeopathic therapy in addition to regular conventional treatment. Patients were requested to complete visual analogue scales as well as a specially developed form evaluating subjective existential orientation and, finally, EORTC QLQ-C30 form version 3.0. Results With respect to the latter, the mean QoL improved by 0.31 points (4.33±1.54 before vs. 4.64±1.59 after additive homeopathic therapy; p =0.008, Student's- t -test for paired data) between first and last registered consultation which lay apart by a mean of 24 weeks. This result corresponded to an improvement of 11.6% in a seven part-series. Similar results were found for the specially developed form: the visual analogue scale showed a difference of 0.71 (5.60±2.06 before vs. 6.31±2.3 at the third consultation, p =0.043; corresponding to an improvement of 16.1% in a 10 part-series), and a difference of 0.59 (5.56±2.15 vs. 6.15±2.31, p =0.007; 13.3% improvement in a 10 part-series) between first and last consultation. Following the fourth consultation, analysis in 45 participants revealed that 80% ( n =36) felt an improvement of the general condition, while 20% ( n =9) experienced no effect. In total 24.4% ( n =11) sensed the improvement mainly physically; 51.1% ( n =23) physically as well as psychologically; 2.2% ( n =1) only psychologically; the remaining one patient did not comment. Improvement was ascribed to combination of homeopathy and conventional therapy by 23/36 (63.9%) of the improved patients; 10 (27.8%) ascribed improvement to homeopathic treatment only, 1 patient (2.8%) to oncologic therapy only, 1 to the season, 1 patient remained without comment. All patients were interested in continuing homeopathic treatment. Conclusion In summary, homeopathy was well accepted by the investigated patients. Improvement in QoL as well as in subjective existential orientation warrants further investigations. Oncologists may want to receive information about the use of homeopathy and other forms of complementary medicine in patients undergoing treatment for cancer.