OBJECTIVES: Little is known about CAM use among prostate cancer patients. This study describes CAM use, patient factors that predicted CAM use, and satisfaction with CAM among men with local stage prostate cancer. METHODS: Newly diagnosed local stage prostate cancer patients in California and Washington State completed self-administered surveys. Patients were asked about sources of information they used to learn about prostate cancer, and at six months, about types of CAM they were using and satisfaction with those therapies. RESULTS: A total of 512 men completed baseline surveys before treatment and six-month follow-up surveys. 261 (51%) reported using CAM at follow-up. The average age was 65; 69% were white, 11% black, 10% Asian; 128 (49%) had “low risk” local stage prostate cancer by PSA and Gleason score. The most common forms of CAM utilized included personal prayer (n=148, 57%), herbs or dietary supplements (n=86, 33%), and special diets (n=84, 32%). Fifty-one percent used one type of CAM, 26% used two, and 22% used three or more. In multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to use CAM if they had consulted medical literature (OR 1.96, CI 1.23-3.11) or talked with friends or family members (OR 1.76, CI 1.17-2.64). Prostate cancer risk group, comorbidities, age, race, education level, marital status, employment, and income were not significantly associated with CAM use. Most described CAM as “very” or “somewhat” helpful” (92%). Many CAM users [43% (n=113)] did not discuss CAM with a health professional. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-site study, more than half of all men with local stage prostate cancer reported using CAM. Race and education were not predictors of use. A substantial minority of CAM users did not discuss these treatments with their physician. Since no CAM approach has demonstrated benefit for local stage prostate cancer, future research should examine men’s perceptions of the benefits.