Search

Background: Most individuals affected by cancer who are treated with certain chemotherapies suffer of CIPN. Therefore, there is a high patient and provider interest in complementary non-pharmacological therapies, but its evidence base has not yet been clearly pointed out in the context of CIPN. Methods: The results of a scoping review overviewing the published clinical evidence on the application of complementary therapies for improving the complex CIPN symptomatology are synthesized with the recommendations of an expert consensus process aiming to draw attention to supportive strategies for CIPN. The scoping review, registered at PROSPERO 2020 (CRD 42020165851), followed the PRISMA-ScR and JBI guidelines. Relevant studies published in Pubmed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PEDro, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL between 2000 and 2021 were included. CASP was used to evaluate the methodologic quality of the studies. Results: Seventy-five studies with mixed study quality met the inclusion criteria. Manipulative therapies (including massage, reflexology, therapeutic touch), rhythmical embrocations, movement and mind–body therapies, acupuncture/acupressure, and TENS/Scrambler therapy were the most frequently analyzed in research and may be effective treatment options for CIPN. The expert panel approved 17 supportive interventions, most of them were phytotherapeutic interventions including external applications and cryotherapy, hydrotherapy, and tactile stimulation. More than two-thirds of the consented interventions were rated with moderate to high perceived clinical effectiveness in therapeutic use. Conclusions: The evidence of both the review and the expert panel supports a variety of complementary procedures regarding the supportive treatment of CIPN; however, the application on patients should be individually weighed in each case. Based on this meta-synthesis, interprofessional healthcare teams may open up a dialogue with patients interested in non-pharmacological treatment options to tailor complementary counselling and treatments to their needs.

Background: Patients with cancer receiving tumor therapy often suffer from oral mucositis. Objectives: The aim of this project was to summarize experiences with nursing procedures by experts in integrative oncology and to establish recommendations for nursing interventions that can prevent or cure mucositis. Methods: The study design was an interdisciplinary consensus process based on a systematic literature search. Results: The panel discussed and agreed on 19 nursing procedures, which included mouthwashes, such as teas, supplements, oil applications, and different kinds of ice cubes to suck, as well as flaxseed solution, propolis, and mare milk. Twelve interventions were classified as effective, with effectiveness for OraLife, propolis, sea buckthorn pulp oil, marshmallow root tea also for xerostomia, Helago chamomile oil, mare milk, and Saliva Natura rated as highly effective in clinical experience. In the systematic literature search, a total of 12 out of 329 randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses on chamomile (n = 3), Calendula (n = 1) and sage (n = 1), propolis (n = 2), and sucking ice cubes (cryotherapy; n = 5) met all inclusion criteria. Trial evidence for effectiveness in oral mucositis was revealed for propolis and cryotherapy. Conclusions: The current evidence supports the use of some nursing procedures (f.e. propolis for 2 and 3 grade mucositis) for improving oral mucositis during cancer therapies. There is still a need to define general clinical practice guidelines for the supportive treatment of mucositis, as well as for more interdisciplinary research in this area.