Congruence and trajectories of device-measured and self-reported physical activity during therapy for early breast cancer

Purpose: This study examines congruence between self-reported and device-measured physical activity data in women with early breast cancer and compares trajectories under different treatments. Methods: Women with non-metastatic breast cancer were recruited before primary therapy. In four weeks distributed over six months after treatment start, patients reported time spent on work, transport, chores and sports via diary and wore Garmin super R vivofit 3 accelerometers to assess steps taken. Associations between these measures and agreement regarding guideline adherence were tested with Spearman's Correlation Coefficient and Weighted Kappa statistic. Effects of time and treatment were evaluated using mixed analyses of variance. Results: Ninety-nine participants (median age = 50) were treated with adjuvant (N= 23), neoadjuvant (N= 21) or without chemotherapy (N= 55). Coherence between self-report and device data was strong (r = 0.566). Agreement about reaching recommendations was only 'fair' (kappa coefficient = 0.321 and 0.249, resp.). Neither treatment or week nor their interaction had effects on step counts (all p > 0.05). Self-reported activity time was lower for patients with chemotherapy than for those without (adjuvant: increment = 69min, p= 0.006, neoadjuvant: increment = 45min, p= 0.038) and lower in week 18 than in week 3 ( increment = 43min, p= 0.010). Conclusion: Results show that consumer-grade activity monitors and self-reports correlate but show different perspectives on physical activity in breast cancer patients. In general, patients perceive some decline regardless of primary treatment regimen. Those affected should be offered assistance to gain the benefits of activity. Accelerometers may help professionals to identify these individuals and patients to verify appraisal of their activity levels

A Methodological Checklist for fMRI Drug Cue Reactivity Studies: Development and Expert Consensus

Cue reactivity is one of the most frequently used paradigms in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of substance use disorders (SUDs). Although there have been promising results elucidating the neurocognitive mechanisms of SUDs and SUD treatments, the interpretability and reproducibility of these studies is limited by incomplete reporting of participants’ characteristics, task design, craving assessment, scanning preparation and analysis decisions in fMRI drug cue reactivity (FDCR) experiments. This hampers clinical translation, not least because systematic review and meta-analysis of published work are difficult. This consensus paper and Delphi study aims to outline the important methodological aspects of FDCR research, present structured recommendations for more comprehensive methods reporting and review the FDCR literature to assess the reporting of items that are deemed important. Forty-five FDCR scientists from around the world participated in this study. First, an initial checklist of items deemed important in FDCR studies was developed by several members of the Enhanced NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analyses (ENIGMA) Addiction working group on the basis of a systematic review. Using a modified Delphi consensus method, all experts were asked to comment on, revise or add items to the initial checklist, and then to rate the importance of each item in subsequent rounds. The reporting status of the items in the final checklist was investigated in 108 recently published FDCR studies identified through a systematic review. By the final round, 38 items reached the consensus threshold and were classified under seven major categories: ‘Participants’ Characteristics’, ‘General fMRI Information’, ‘General Task Information’, ‘Cue Information’, ‘Craving Assessment Inside Scanner’, ‘Craving Assessment Outside Scanner’ and ‘Pre- and Post-Scanning Considerations’. The review of the 108 FDCR papers revealed significant gaps in the reporting of the items considered important by the experts. For instance, whereas items in the ‘General fMRI Information’ category were reported in 90.5% of the reviewed papers, items in the ‘Pre- and Post-Scanning Considerations’ category were reported by only 44.7% of reviewed FDCR studies. Considering the notable and sometimes unexpected gaps in the reporting of items deemed to be important by experts in any FDCR study, the protocols could benefit from the adoption of reporting standards. This checklist, a living document to be updated as the field and its methods advance, can help improve experimental design, reporting and the widespread understanding of the FDCR protocols. This checklist can also provide a sample for developing consensus statements for protocols in other areas of task-based fMRI