“Cancer patients who choose alternative medicine over conventional treatment have significantly lower survival rates than those who undergo conventional cancer treatment.”

Although rare, AM utilization for curable cancer without any CCT is associated with greater risk of death. ... Following 2:1 matching (CCT = 560 patients and AM = 280 patients) on Cox proportional hazards regression, AM use was independently associated with greater risk of death compared with CCT overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.88 to 3.27) and in subgroups with breast (HR = 5.68, 95% CI = 3.22 to 10.04), lung (HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.42 to 3.32), and colorectal cancer (HR = 4.57, 95% CI = 1.66 to 12.61).

In this cohort study of 1 901 815 patients, use of complementary medicine varied by several factors and was associated with refusal of conventional cancer treatment, and with a 2-fold greater risk of death compared with patients who had no complementary medicine use. Patients who received complementary medicine were more likely to refuse other conventional cancer treatment, and had a higher risk of death than no complementary medicine; however, this survival difference could be mediated by adherence to all recommended conventional cancer therapies.

In a large study, patients with nonmetastatic breast, lung, or colorectal cancer who chose alternative therapies had substantially worse survival than patients who received conventional cancer treatments. After a median of 5 years, patients with breast or colorectal cancer were nearly five times as likely to die if they had used an alternative therapy as their initial treatment than if they had received conventional treatment.

Use of CM [complementary medicine] was associated with poorer 5-year overall survival compared with no CM (82.2% [95% CI, 76.0%-87.0%] vs 86.6% [95% CI, 84.0%-88.9%]; P = .001) and was independently associated with greater risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.50-2.90) in a multivariate model that did not include treatment delay or refusal. Patients who chose CM did not have a longer delay to initiation of CCT but had higher refusal rates of surgery (7.0% vs 0.1%), chemotherapy (34.1% vs 3.2%), radiotherapy (53.0% vs 2.3%), and hormone therapy (33.7% vs 2.8%).

"We now have evidence to suggest that using alternative medicine in place of proven cancer therapies results in worse survival," said lead author Skyler Johnson, M.D., M.S., of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah. The researchers studied 840 patients with breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer in the National Cancer Database and found that patients who chose alternative medicine instead of chemotherapy, surgery, and/or radiation had a greater risk of death. This finding persisted for patients with breast, lung, and colorectal cancer.

Significant progress has been made in traditional cancer treatments, including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy, enhancing their effectiveness and precision. Modern techniques such as fluorescence-guided surgery, laparoscopic procedures, and robot-assisted surgery have improved tumor removal precision but may still contribute to minimal residual disease (MRD) and potential recurrence.

The results suggest that several complementary therapies can improve health outcomes reported by patients with cancer, such as acupuncture to relieve pain, music interventions to reduce anxiety and yoga to improve cancer-related fatigue. The side effects related to complementary therapy use are generally mild. The results remain inconclusive for some intervention–outcome combinations.

TCAM [Traditional, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine] encompasses complementary methods that have the potential to enhance patients' quality of life, augment their capabilities, and prevent or mitigate side effects, provided it is effectively integrated with conventional cancer treatment. Despite the common belief that herbs, being natural products, are inherently devoid of side effects and safe, TCAM is not universally free from risks, and its purported advantages such as cost-effectiveness, increased life expectancy, and enhanced quality of life have yet to be conclusively substantiated.

A new study finds that women with breast cancer who forgo traditional treatment like chemotherapy for alternative medical therapies have a markedly higher risk of dying from their disease. Compared with conventional-only treatment, patients who received only alternative therapy had a 3.7-fold higher adjusted rate of death — just as bad as doing nothing at all.

When the researchers looked at the patients who were treated only with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), they found that those patients experienced a 3.7-fold higher mortality rate compared to patients who received exclusively traditional treatments. This means these women were nearly four times more likely to die within five years of treatment.

The central finding of the study was straightforward: patients treated with traditional therapy had the best outcomes, while those receiving Complementary and Alternative Medicine alone or no treatment had the worst. Compared with patients treated with traditional therapy alone, those receiving CAM alone had the highest mortality risk, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.67.

“The bottom line is that alternative and complementary medicines marketed and used as treatment for cancer are associated with an increased risk of death, if they lead patients to not use accepted medical cancer therapies. The alternative therapies themselves are not causing death—it's the fact that they are replacing effective therapies,” says Dr. Johnson. In one population—women with breast cancer—Yale School of Medicine research published in JAMA Network Open in March 2026 shows that using a combination of complementary therapies and alternative medicine instead of traditional therapies, though uncommon, is associated with decreased survival.

No, alternative therapies cannot cure cancer. Patients who use alternative therapies without conventional therapies such as surgery or chemotherapy are more likely to die from cancer than patients who use conventional cancer therapies. Patients who chose only alternative methods were 2.5 times more likely to die during the study than those who used proven cancer therapies.

While uncommon, use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) instead of traditional therapies is associated with lower survival time in females with breast cancer. Additionally, patients who received a combination of traditional therapies and CAM were less likely to receive endocrine therapy and radiation versus patients treated exclusively with traditional therapies, and this combination was also associated with a higher mortality compared with being treated exclusively with traditional therapy (aHR, 1.45).

They published a study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in January 2018, comparing patients who chose to use alternative medicine alone to treat their cancer vs those who received traditional, recommended treatments. What they found was those who declined traditional cancer treatments in favor of alternative medicine had a higher risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.88 to 3.27).

A recent study highlights that women with breast cancer who choose alternative medical therapies over traditional treatments like chemotherapy face a significantly higher risk of mortality. The adjusted results paint a much bleaker picture for alternative therapy compared to conventional only treatment patients receiving no treatment at all had a 3.5-fold higher adjusted rate of death patients receiving alternative therapy only had a 3.7-fold higher adjusted rate of death.

Many cancer patients use complementary alternative medicines (CAMs) but may not be aware of the potential risks. Unconventional cancer therapies such as Laetrile, Essiac and coenzyme Q10 may not be effective. Furthermore, CAMs have potentially dangerous side effects and interactions with conventional treatments.

There is no scientific proof that alternative therapies can cure cancer, and it can be dangerous to use them instead of conventional treatments. All treatments for cancer recommended by doctors are based on years of research and evidence. Surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted treatments are the best ways to treat cancer.

Integrative oncology is not a replacement for standard treatments like chemotherapy, surgery or radiation. Instead, it enhances those therapies by helping reduce side effects and supporting recovery. It can also empower patients to actively participate in their care, which has been shown to improve treatment adherence and outcomes.

A bootstrapped analysis showed no significant differences in 5-year survival compared with SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results) registry data for patients with advanced cancers who saw a naturopathic doctor (ND). After controlling for survivorship bias, the number of ND visits positively correlated with improved survival; however, the number of select naturopathic treatments did not. This study involved patients who nearly all also received standard cancer medicine.

Subsequent studies and reviews, such as a 2019 systematic review in JNCI Monographs, have confirmed similar patterns, noting that refusal of conventional treatment in favor of alternative therapies correlates with poorer outcomes across multiple cancer types, though causality is debated due to potential confounding factors like patient selection bias. No major peer-reviewed studies directly refute the core finding for breast, lung, or colorectal cancers.