{"title":"Side-effects of Phytotherapeutics in Cancer Care - A Review of Inconsistencies in National and International Databases.","authors":"Juliane Büttner, Judith Büntzel, Jens Büntzel, Jutta Hübner","doi":"10.21873/anticanres.17246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>The interest in phytotherapy in patients with cancer is immensely high. When using herbal medicine, knowledge of potential side-effects is essential as part of counselling the patient. The aim of this study was therefore to collect information on the side-effects of popular medicinal plants and to compare different official and the most popular sources of information reporting the side-effects of phytotherapeutics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Four different databases were reviewed from 09 February 2021 to 01 March 2022. These were the German monographs of the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, the European monographs of the European Medicines Agency, the website About Herbs (https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/diagnosis-treatment/symptom-management/integrative-medicine/herbs) and the German Red List. A total of 171 medicinal plants were chosen from the German monographs. These plants were relevant for supportive cancer treatment, targeting symptoms e.g. pain, nausea, vomiting, mucositis or fatigue.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 171 selected plants, only 20 were found in all four sources. The compilation of the data showed there to be a huge disparity in the number of plants listed by each database and the type and frequency of the side-effects described. The reasons for this are manifold: Lack of interest, different interest groups, different origins (Europe versus America) and no standardized terminology.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Physicians should not rely exclusively on one source to inform themselves about potential side-effects of phytotherapeutics but should use several sources to ensure the best possible safety of the patient. Since there seems to be too few data on certain medicinal plants for which no side-effects have been documented, more clinical studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":8072,"journal":{"name":"Anticancer research","volume":"44 10","pages":"4155-4164"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anticancer research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.17246","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/aim: The interest in phytotherapy in patients with cancer is immensely high. When using herbal medicine, knowledge of potential side-effects is essential as part of counselling the patient. The aim of this study was therefore to collect information on the side-effects of popular medicinal plants and to compare different official and the most popular sources of information reporting the side-effects of phytotherapeutics.
Materials and methods: Four different databases were reviewed from 09 February 2021 to 01 March 2022. These were the German monographs of the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, the European monographs of the European Medicines Agency, the website About Herbs (https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/diagnosis-treatment/symptom-management/integrative-medicine/herbs) and the German Red List. A total of 171 medicinal plants were chosen from the German monographs. These plants were relevant for supportive cancer treatment, targeting symptoms e.g. pain, nausea, vomiting, mucositis or fatigue.
Results: Out of the 171 selected plants, only 20 were found in all four sources. The compilation of the data showed there to be a huge disparity in the number of plants listed by each database and the type and frequency of the side-effects described. The reasons for this are manifold: Lack of interest, different interest groups, different origins (Europe versus America) and no standardized terminology.
Conclusion: Physicians should not rely exclusively on one source to inform themselves about potential side-effects of phytotherapeutics but should use several sources to ensure the best possible safety of the patient. Since there seems to be too few data on certain medicinal plants for which no side-effects have been documented, more clinical studies are needed.
期刊介绍：
ANTICANCER RESEARCH is an independent international peer-reviewed journal devoted to the rapid publication of high quality original articles and reviews on all aspects of experimental and clinical oncology. Prompt evaluation of all submitted articles in confidence and rapid publication within 1-2 months of acceptance are guaranteed.
ANTICANCER RESEARCH was established in 1981 and is published monthly (bimonthly until the end of 2008). Each annual volume contains twelve issues and index. Each issue may be divided into three parts (A: Reviews, B: Experimental studies, and C: Clinical and Epidemiological studies).
Special issues, presenting the proceedings of meetings or groups of papers on topics of significant progress, will also be included in each volume. There is no limitation to the number of pages per issue.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
