The increase in cancer incidence and mortality is challenging current cancer care delivery globally, disproportionally affecting low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) when it comes to receiving evidence‐based cancer prevention, treatment, and palliative and survivorship care. Patients in LMICs often rely on traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) that is more familiar, less costly, and widely available. However, spheres of influence and tensions between conventional medicine and TCIM can further disrupt efforts in evidence‐based cancer care. Integrative oncology provides a framework to research and integrate safe, effective TCIM alongside conventional cancer treatment and can help bridge health care gaps in delivering evidence‐informed, patient‐centered care. This growing field uses lifestyle modifications, mind and body therapies (eg, acupuncture, massage, meditation, and yoga), and natural products to improve symptom management and quality of life among patients with cancer. On the basis of this review of the global challenges of cancer control and the current status of integrative oncology, the authors recommend: 1) educating and integrating TCIM providers into the cancer control workforce to promote risk reduction and culturally salient healthy life styles; 2) developing and testing TCIM interventions to address cancer symptoms or treatment‐related adverse effects (eg, pain, insomnia, fatigue); and 3) disseminating and implementing evidence‐based TCIM interventions as part of comprehensive palliative and survivorship care so patients from all cultures can live with or beyond cancer with respect, dignity, and vitality. With conventional medicine and TCIM united under a cohesive framework, integrative oncology may provide citizens of the world with access to safe, effective, evidence‐informed, and culturally sensitive cancer care.

PURPOSE: The aim of this joint guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and other health care providers on integrative approaches to managing pain in patients with cancer. METHODS: The Society for Integrative Oncology and ASCO convened an expert panel of integrative oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative oncology, social sciences, mind-body medicine, nursing, and patient advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2021. Outcomes of interest included pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 227 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Among adult patients, acupuncture should be recommended for aromatase inhibitor–related joint pain. Acupuncture or reflexology or acupressure may be recommended for general cancer pain or musculoskeletal pain. Hypnosis may be recommended to patients who experience procedural pain. Massage may be recommended to patients experiencing pain during palliative or hospice care. These recommendations are based on an intermediate level of evidence, benefit outweighing risk, and with moderate strength of recommendation. The quality of evidence for other mind-body interventions or natural products for pain is either low or inconclusive. There is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients. More research is needed to better characterize the role of integrative medicine interventions in the care of patients with cancer. Additional information is available at https://integrativeonc.org/practice-guidelines/guidelines and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Chronic pain is a prevalent, disabling condition that costs the United States up to $635 billion in health care expenditures and lost productivity every year.¹ Cancer survivors, defined as those living with a past diagnosis of cancer, are a rapidly expanding population with greater pain burden than the general public.² Nearly 1 in 2 survivors are undertreated for pain,^3,4 which contributes to poor quality of life, impaired physical function, and worse cancer-related outcomes.⁵ The opioid crisis has exacerbated the challenges of pain management, highlighting a need for nonpharmacological treatment options.^6,7

BACKGROUND: Arthralgia is common in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors (BCS) who are receiving aromatase inhibitors (AIs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the perceived onset, characteristics, and risk factors for AI‐related arthralgia (AIA).METHODS: In a cross‐sectional survey of postmenopausal BCS who were receiving adjuvant AI therapy at a university‐based oncology clinic, patient‐reported attribution of AIs as a cause of joint pain was used as the primary outcome. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors.RESULTS: Among 300 survey respondents, 139 (47%) attributed AI as a cause of their current arthralgia. Of those patients, 74% recognized the onset of AIA within 3 months of starting medication, and 67% rated joint pain as moderate or severe in the previous 7 days. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, the time since last menstrual period (LMP) was the only significant predictor of AIA. Controlling for covariates, the women who had their LMP within 5 years had the highest probability of reporting AIA (73%), whereas those who had their LMP ≥10 years previously had the lowest probability of reporting AIA (35%; adjusted odds radio, 3.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.21‐9.44; P = .02). Wrists/hands, ankles/feet, elbows, and knees appeared to be associated more strongly with AI‐related symptoms than non‐AI–related joint symptoms (all P < .01).CONCLUSIONS: AIA was common, began within the first 3 months of therapy in most patients, and appeared to be related inversely to the length of time since cessation of menstrual function. These findings suggest that estrogen withdrawal may play a role in the mechanism of this disorder. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

Background: Insomnia is a common and debilitating disorder experienced by cancer survivors. Although cancer survivors express a preference for using nonpharmacological treatment to manage insomnia, the comparative effectiveness between acupuncture and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) for this disorder is unknown.Methods: This randomized trial compared 8 weeks of acupuncture (n = 80) and CBT-I (n = 80) in cancer survivors. Acupuncture involved stimulating specific points on the body with needles. CBT-I included sleep restriction, stimulus control, cognitive restructuring, relaxation training, and education. We measured insomnia severity (primary outcome), pain, fatigue, mood, and quality of life posttreatment (8 weeks) with follow-up until 20 weeks. We used linear mixed-effects models for analyses. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: The mean age was 61.5 years and 56.9% were women. CBT-I was more effective than acupuncture posttreatment (P < .001); however, both acupuncture and CBT-I produced clinically meaningful reductions in insomnia severity (acupuncture: −8.31 points, 95% confidence interval = −9.36 to −7.26; CBT-I: −10.91 points, 95% confidence interval = −11.97 to −9.85) and maintained improvements up to 20 weeks. Acupuncture was more effective for pain at the end of treatment; both groups had similar improvements in fatigue, mood, and quality of life and reduced prescription hypnotic medication use. CBT-I was more effective for those who were male (P < .001), white (P = .003), highly educated (P < .001), and had no pain at baseline (P < .001).Conclusions: Although both treatments produced meaningful and durable improvements, CBT-I was more effective and should be the first line of therapy. The relative differences in the comparative effectiveness between the two interventions for specific groups should be confirmed in future adequately powered trials to guide more tailored interventions for insomnia.

BACKGROUND: Although fatigue, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety are associated with pain in breast cancer patients, it is unknown whether acupuncture can decrease these comorbid symptoms in cancer patients with pain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of electroacupuncture (EA) on fatigue, sleep, and psychological distress in breast cancer survivors who experience joint pain related to aromatase inhibitors (AIs).METHODS: The authors performed a randomized controlled trial of an 8‐week course of EA compared with a waitlist control (WLC) group and a sham acupuncture (SA) group in postmenopausal women with breast cancer who self‐reported joint pain attributable to AIs. Fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression were measured using the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The effects of EA and SA versus WLC on these outcomes were evaluated using mixed‐effects models.RESULTS: Of the 67 randomly assigned patients, baseline pain interference was associated with fatigue (Pearson correlation coefficient [r]=0.75; P < .001), sleep disturbance (r=0.38; P=.0026), and depression (r=0.58; P < .001). Compared with the WLC condition, EA produced significant improvements in fatigue (P=.0095), anxiety (P=.044), and depression (P=.015) and a nonsignificant improvement in sleep disturbance (P=.058) during the 12‐week intervention and follow‐up period. In contrast, SA did not produce significant reductions in fatigue or anxiety symptoms but did produce a significant improvement in depression compared with the WLC condition (P=.0088).CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, EA produced significant improvements in fatigue, anxiety, and depression; whereas SA improved only depression in women experiencing AI‐related arthralgia. Cancer 2014;120:3744–3751. © 2014 American Cancer Society.