Cancer patients taking herbal medicines: a review of clinical purposes, associated factors, and perceptions of benefit or harm

Ethnopharmacological relevance: Cancer patients in all cultures are high consumers of herbal medicines (HMs) usually as part of a regime consisting of several complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities, but the type of patient, the reasons for choosing such HM-CAM regimes, and the benefits they perceive from taking them are poorly understood. There are also concerns that local information may be ignored due to language issues. This study investigates aspects of HM-CAM use in cancer patients using two different abstracting sources: Medline, which contains only peer-reviewed studies from SCI journals, and in order to explore whether further data may be available regionally, the Thai national databases of HM and CAM were searched as an example. Materials and methods: the international and Thai language databases were searched separately to identify relevant studies, using key words chosen to include HM use in all traditions. Analysis of these was undertaken to identify socio-demographic and clinical factors, as well as sources of information, which may inform the decision to use HMs. Results: Medline yielded 5,638 records, with 49 papers fitting the criteria for review. The Thai databases yielded 155, with none relevant for review. Factors associated with HM-CAM usage were: a younger age, higher education or economic status, multiple chemotherapy treatment, late stage of disease. The most common purposes for using HM-CAM cited by patients were to improve physical symptoms, support emotional health, stimulate the immune system, improve quality of life, and relieve side-effects of conventional treatment. Conclusions: Several indicators were identified for cancer patients who are most likely to take HM-CAM. However, interpreting the clinical reasons why patients decide to use HM-CAM is hampered by a lack of standard terminology and thematic coding, because patients' own descriptions are too variable and overlapping for meaningful comparison. Nevertheless, fears that the results of local studies published regionally are being missed, at least in the case of Thailand, appeared to be unfounded.

Local adaptation in migrated interior Douglas-fir seedlings is mediated by ectomycorrhizas and other soil factors

Separating edaphic impacts on tree distributions from those of climate and geography is notoriously difficult. Aboveground and belowground factors play important roles, and determining their relative contribution to tree success will greatly assist in refining predictive models and forestry strategies in a changing climate. In a common glasshouse, seedlings of interior Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca) from multiple populations were grown in multiple forest soils. Fungicide was applied to half of the seedlings to separate soil fungal and nonfungal impacts on seedling performance. Soils of varying geographic and climatic distance from seed origin were compared, using a transfer function approach. Seedling height and biomass were optimized following seed transfer into drier soils, whereas survival was optimized when elevation transfer was minimised. Fungicide application reduced ectomycorrhizal root colonization by c. 50%, with treated seedlings exhibiting greater survival but reduced biomass. Local adaptation of Douglas-fir populations to soils was mediated by soil fungi to some extent in 56% of soil origin by response variable combinations. Mediation by edaphic factors in general occurred in 81% of combinations. Soil biota, hitherto unaccounted for in climate models, interacts with biogeography to influence plant ranges in a changing climate.

A common framework for approaches to extreme event attribution

The extent to which a given extreme weather or climate event is attributable to anthropogenic climate change is a question of considerable public interest. From a scientific perspective, the question can be framed in various ways, and the answer depends very much on the framing. One such framing is a risk-based approach, which answers the question probabilistically, in terms of a change in likelihood of a class of event similar to the one in question, and natural variability is treated as noise. A rather different framing is a storyline approach, which examines the role of the various factors contributing to the event as it unfolded, including the anomalous aspects of natural variability, and answers the question deterministically. It is argued that these two apparently irreconcilable approaches can be viewed within a common framework, where the most useful level of conditioning will depend on the question being asked and the uncertainties involved.