Effects of Yoga on Psychological Health, Quality of Life, and Physical Health of Patients with Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Yoga is one of the most widely used complementary and alternative medicine therapies to manage illness. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of yoga on psychological health, quality of life, and physical health of patients with cancer. Studies were identified through a systematic search of seven electronic databases and were selected if they used a randomized controlled trial design to examine the effects of yoga in patients with cancer. The quality of each article was rated by two of the authors using the PEDro Scale. Ten articles were selected; their PEDro scores ranged from 4 to 7. The yoga groups compared to waitlist control groups or supportive therapy groups showed significantly greater improvements in psychological health: anxiety (P = .009), depression (P = .002), distress (P = .003), and stress (P = .006). However, due to the mixed and low to fair quality and small number of studies conducted, the findings are preliminary and limited and should be confirmed through higher-quality, randomized controlled trials

乳癌存活者漸進性阻力訓練的安全性與療效系統性回顧與統合分析

目的 由相關文獻回顧與分析,探討對於乳癌存活者施以漸進性阻力訓練的安全性與 效果。方法 以電子資料庫及人工檢索收集所有有關乳癌存活者接受包含漸進性阻力 訓練(progressive resistance training)之相關文獻,進行系統性回顧與統合分析( meta analysis)。結果 共找到六個隨機對照試驗(randomized controlled trial) 發表在八篇文獻中,研究品質在中等以上 以及一篇非隨機對照試驗(non- randomized controlled trial)、四篇單一實驗組研究。共五篇評量手臂周長或體積 的研究顯示運動訓練不會增加淋巴水腫風險。統合分析結果在肌力(muscle strength )、肌耐力(muscle endurance )、身體組成中瘦肉重(lean mass)、體脂肪比(body fat %)、腰圍及癌症生活品質量表中身體功能分項分數之進步有達統計上顯著效益 在代謝相關生化值、體重、體脂肪重及心肺適能等之改善則未達統計上顯著效益。結 論 包含漸進性阻力訓練的運動計畫是安全而且有效增進肌肉適能、改善身體組成與 身體功能。研究的受試者普遍過少及結果評量項目分歧多樣因而資料不足,可能是造 成效果不彰的原因。需要進一步嚴謹臨床試驗,長期的效果亦有待進一步探討。 Background and purpose: Increasing evidence of physical training improving physical, psychological function and quality of life on breast cancer patients. Safety and efficacy of progressive resistance training (PRT) for breast cancer survivors need to be evaluated. Method: Literature published till October 2008 was searched from electronic database and hand search. Systematic review and meta- analysis were performed for evaluating safety and efficacy of exercise program including progressive resistance training. Results: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in eight articles with moderate study quality, 1 non-RCT, and 4 single group pre-post design were identified. Only one RCT underwent pure weight training program, the others were combined aerobic and PRT. The exercise frequency was 2 to 3 sessions per-week, and 50-90 minutes with moderate intensity for each session. The durations of exercise training were between 8 weeks and 6 months. Outcome measures were various across the 6 RCTs. Evidence showed arm volume or arm circumferences did not change after PRT. Meta-analysis showed exercise program including PRT significantly improved muscle fitness including muscle strength and endurance. Exercise training significantly decreased lean mass, body fat % , waist circumference and improved physical functioning domain of quality of life. No significant effects on metabolic profile, body weight, body fat mass and cardiopulmonary fitness were found. Conclusion: PRT was safe and effective for breast cancer survivors in muscle fitness, improving body composition and physical functioning. Limited evidence on some of outcomes may be due to insufficient data and small sample size. Further robustly designed RCTs on PRT training with larger sample size and standardized outcome measures are needed. Evaluation of long term effect was also needed

Utilization of rehabilitation services for inpatient with cancer in Taiwan: a descriptive analysis from national health insurance database

Background: Cancer is a major cause of global morbidity and mortality. Since a high prevalence of functional impairments has been observed among cancer patients, rehabilitation has been proposed as a strategy to restore patients' functional independence. The increasing number of cancer patients combined with a growing need for rehabilitation may result in increased utilization of rehabilitation services. This study aimed to investigate the utilization of rehabilitation services among hospitalized cancer patients in Taiwan between 2004 and 2008. ;Methods: Annual admissions and total inpatient expenditures for admissions with a cancer diagnosis were calculated from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Rehabilitation services used by cancer and non-cancer patients, as well as the distributions of rehabilitation service type among the different hospital departments were also analyzed. ;Results: The percentages of inpatient admissions with a cancer diagnosis increased from 14.01% to 17.1% between 2004 and 2008. During 2004, 5.25% of all inpatient admissions received rehabilitation services; this percentage increased to 5.62% by 2008. Among cancer admissions, 2.26% to 2.62% received rehabilitation services from 2004 to 2008. By comparison, 5.68% to 6.24% of non-cancer admissions received rehabilitation services during this period. Of the admissions who received rehabilitation services, only 6.44% and 7.96% had a cancer diagnosis in 2004 and 2008, respectively. Sixty-one percent of rehabilitation services were delivered in the departments of orthopedics (25.6%), neurology (14.4%), rehabilitation (11.9%), and neurosurgery (9.2%). ;Conclusions: In Taiwan, the utilization of rehabilitation services during hospitalization increased from 2004 to 2008. Although this trend was noted for cancer and non-cancer admissions, the utilization of rehabilitation services was generally greater by non-cancer admissions. Despite the benefits of rehabilitation, the actual rehabilitation needs of cancer patients remain unmet

Utilization of rehabilitation services for inpatient with cancer in Taiwan: a descriptive analysis from national health insurance database

Abstract Background Cancer is a major cause of global morbidity and mortality. Since a high prevalence of functional impairments has been observed among cancer patients, rehabilitation has been proposed as a strategy to restore patients’ functional independence. The increasing number of cancer patients combined with a growing need for rehabilitation may result in increased utilization of rehabilitation services. This study aimed to investigate the utilization of rehabilitation services among hospitalized cancer patients in Taiwan between 2004 and 2008. Methods Annual admissions and total inpatient expenditures for admissions with a cancer diagnosis were calculated from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Rehabilitation services used by cancer and non-cancer patients, as well as the distributions of rehabilitation service type among the different hospital departments were also analyzed. Results The percentages of inpatient admissions with a cancer diagnosis increased from 14.01% to 17.1% between 2004 and 2008. During 2004, 5.25% of all inpatient admissions received rehabilitation services; this percentage increased to 5.62% by 2008. Among cancer admissions, 2.26% to 2.62% received rehabilitation services from 2004 to 2008. By comparison, 5.68% to 6.24% of non-cancer admissions received rehabilitation services during this period. Of the admissions who received rehabilitation services, only 6.44% and 7.96% had a cancer diagnosis in 2004 and 2008, respectively. Sixty-one percent of rehabilitation services were delivered in the departments of orthopedics (25.6%), neurology (14.4%), rehabilitation (11.9%), and neurosurgery (9.2%). Conclusions In Taiwan, the utilization of rehabilitation services during hospitalization increased from 2004 to 2008. Although this trend was noted for cancer and non-cancer admissions, the utilization of rehabilitation services was generally greater by non-cancer admissions. Despite the benefits of rehabilitation, the actual rehabilitation needs of cancer patients remain unmet.</p

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field