Cancer survivorship carries a burden that extends well beyond the tumor itself — and for the millions living through and beyond treatment, psychological and physical distress often persist long after remission. This comprehensive review challenges the lingering clinical assumption that integrative therapies are peripheral to oncology care, placing them squarely within a growing evidence base that demands serious evaluation.
The narrative review, published in Seminars in Radiation Oncology, synthesizes evidence across more than a dozen mind-body modalities for adult cancer patients. Guideline-supported interventions — including mindfulness-based programs, yoga, tai chi, qigong, hypnosis, music therapy, acupuncture, and massage — are evaluated against specific symptom targets such as anxiety, depression, cancer-related fatigue, pain, sleep disturbance, fear of recurrence, and cognitive impairment. The review also assesses emerging approaches including psychedelic-assisted therapy, biofield therapies, nature-based interventions, and mindfulness strategies targeting sexual dysfunction, noting where evidence is preliminary versus where it supports integration into standard care pathways.
The breadth of this review reflects a meaningful shift in integrative oncology: the field is moving from anecdote toward systematic evidence grading. Mindfulness-based interventions and yoga carry the strongest supporting literature, with multiple randomized trials and meta-analyses showing clinically meaningful reductions in anxiety, fatigue, and sleep disruption. Acupuncture for chemotherapy-induced nausea and cancer-related pain has also accumulated sufficient trial data to earn guideline endorsement from major oncology bodies. By contrast, biofield therapies and psychedelic-assisted approaches remain at early investigational stages, with pilot data but no large controlled trials yet completed in oncology populations. A critical limitation across this entire field is methodological heterogeneity — varying outcome measures, small sample sizes, and difficulty blinding participants make cross-study comparisons unreliable. This review is incremental rather than paradigm-shifting, but its value lies in consolidating a fragmented literature into a clinically actionable framework, particularly useful for oncology teams seeking guidance on which interventions have earned their place in standard supportive care.