Health-related quality of life and distress in cancer patients: results from a large randomised study

To compare the effectiveness of individual support, group rehabilitation and a combination of the two in improving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and psychological well-being in cancer patients during 24 months after diagnosis, as compared with standard care (SC). Furthermore, to compare the study sample and a random sample of the Swedish population with regard to HRQOL. A total of 481 consecutive patients, newly diagnosed with cancer, were randomly assigned to one of the four alternatives. Data on HRQOL and psychological well-being were collected at baseline and after 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. The interventions did not improve HRQOL or psychological well-being, as compared with SC. At 3 months, the study sample reported an HRQOL comparable with the normal population. Many cancer patients are able to manage their cancer-related concerns with the support available from SC. However, it is reasonable to assume that the findings suffer from a lack of data from especially vulnerable patients and a possible Hawthorne effect. It cannot be concluded that cancer patients have no need for additional psychosocial interventions. Future projects should include screening and target interventions for those at risk for significant and prolonged psychological distress

Predicting delayed anxiety and depression in patients with gastrointestinal cancer

The aim of this study was to examine the possibility of predicting anxiety and depression 6 months after a cancer diagnosis on the basis of measures of anxiety, depression, coping and subjective distress associated with the diagnosis and to explore the possibility of identifying individual patients with high levels of delayed anxiety and depression associated with the diagnosis. A consecutive series of 159 patients with gastrointestinal cancer were interviewed in connection with the diagnosis, 3 months (non-cured patients only) and 6 months later. The interviews utilized structured questionnaires assessing anxiety and depression [Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale], coping [Mental Adjustment to Cancer (MAC) scale] and subjective distress [Impact of Event (IES) scale]. Patient anxiety and depression close to the diagnosis were found to explain approximately 35% of the variance in anxiety and depression that was found 6 months later. The addition of coping and subjective distress measures did little to improve that prediction. A model using (standardized) cut-off scores of moderate to high anxiety, depression (HAD) and intrusive thoughts (IES subscale) close to the diagnosis to identify patients at risk for delayed anxiety and depression achieved a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 98%. Levels of anxiety and depression at diagnosis predicted a similar status 6 months later. The results also indicated that the HAD scale in combination with the IES intrusion subscale may be used as a tool for detecting patients at risk of delayed anxiety and depression. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Design of a randomized controlled trial of physical training and cancer (Phys-Can) – the impact of exercise intensity on cancer related fatigue, quality of life and disease outcome

Background: Cancer-related fatigue is a common problem in persons with cancer, influencing health-related quality of life and causing a considerable challenge to society. Current evidence supports the beneficial effects of physical exercise in reducing fatigue, but the results across studies are not consistent, especially in terms of exercise intensity. It is also unclear whether use of behaviour change techniques can further increase exercise adherence and maintain physical activity behaviour. This study will investigate whether exercise intensity affects fatigue and health related quality of life in persons undergoing adjuvant cancer treatment. In addition, to examine effects of exercise intensity on mood disturbance, adherence to oncological treatment, adverse effects from treatment, activities of daily living after treatment completion and return to work, and behaviour change techniques effect on exercise adherence. We will also investigate whether exercise intensity influences inflammatory markers and cytokines, and whether gene expressions following training serve as mediators for the effects of exercise on fatigue and health related quality of life. Methods/design: Six hundred newly diagnosed persons with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer undergoing adjuvant therapy will be randomized in a 2 × 2 factorial design to following conditions; A) individually tailored low-to-moderate intensity exercise with or without behaviour change techniques or B) individually tailored high intensity exercise with or without behaviour change techniques. The training consists of both resistance and endurance exercise sessions under the guidance of trained coaches. The primary outcomes, fatigue and health related quality of life, are measured by self-reports. Secondary outcomes include fitness, mood disturbance, adherence to the cancer treatment, adverse effects, return to activities of daily living after completed treatment, return to work as well as inflammatory markers, cytokines and gene expression. Discussion: The study will contribute to our understanding of the value of exercise and exercise intensity in reducing fatigue and improving health related quality of life and, potentially, clinical outcomes. The value of behaviour change techniques in terms of adherence to and maintenance of physical exercise behaviour in persons with cancer will be evaluated

Does exercise intensity matter for fatigue during (neo‐)adjuvant cancer treatment? The Phys‐Can randomized clinical trial

Exercise during cancer treatment improves cancer‐related fatigue (CRF), but the importance of exercise intensity for CRF is unclear. We compared the effects of high‐ vs low‐to‐moderate‐intensity exercise with or without additional behavior change support (BCS) on CRF in patients undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant cancer treatment. This was a multicenter, 2x2 factorial design randomized controlled trial (Clinical Trials NCT02473003) in Sweden. Participants recently diagnosed with breast (n = 457), prostate (n = 97) or colorectal (n = 23) cancer undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant treatment were randomized to high intensity (n = 144), low‐to‐moderate intensity (n = 144), high intensity with BCS (n = 144) or low‐to‐moderate intensity with BCS (n = 145). The 6‐month exercise intervention included supervised resistance training and home‐based endurance training. CRF was assessed by Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI, five subscales score range 4‐20), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy‐Fatigue scale (FACIT‐F, score range 0‐52). Multiple linear regression for main factorial effects was performed according to intention‐to‐treat, with post‐intervention CRF as primary endpoint. Overall, 577 participants (mean age 58.7 years) were randomized. Participants randomized to high‐ vs low‐to‐moderate‐intensity exercise had lower physical fatigue (MFI Physical Fatigue subscale; mean difference −1.05 [95% CI: −1.85, −0.25]), but the difference was not clinically important (ie <2). We found no differences in other CRF dimensions and no effect of additional BCS. There were few minor adverse events. For CRF, patients undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant treatment for breast, prostate or colorectal cancer can safely exercise at high‐ or low‐to‐moderate intensity, according to their own preferences. Additional BCS does not provide extra benefit for CRF in supervised, well‐controlled exercise interventions

Exercise for breast cancer survivors: bridging the gap between evidence and practice

Evidence supporting the benefits of exercise following the diagnosis of breast cancer is overwhelming and compelling. Exercise reduces the severity and number of treatment-related side effects, optimizes quality of life during and following treatment, and may optimize survival. Yet, exercise does not uniformly form part of the standards of care provided to women following a breast cancer diagnosis. This commentary summarizes the evidence in support of exercise as a form of adjuvant treatment and identifies and discusses potential issues preventing the formal integration of exercise into breast cancer care. Proposed within the commentary is a model of breast cancer care that incorporates exercise prescription as a key component but also integrates the need for surveillance and management for common breast cancer treatment-related morbidities, as well as education. While future research evaluating the potential cost savings through implementation of such amodel is required, a committed, collaborative approach by clinicians, allied health professionals, and researchers will be instrumental in bridging the gap between research and practice