Uptake of Recommendations for Posttreatment Cancer-Related Fatigue Among Breast Cancer Survivors.
Journal
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN
ISSN: 1540-1413
Titre abrégé: J Natl Compr Canc Netw
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101162515
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 02 2022
07 02 2022
Historique:
received:
20
08
2020
received:
05
11
2020
accepted:
26
04
2021
medline:
3
4
2023
pubmed:
8
2
2022
entrez:
7
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physical activity (PA) and psychosocial interventions are recommended management strategies for cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Randomized trials support the use of mind-body techniques, whereas no data show benefit for homeopathy or naturopathy. We used data from CANTO (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01993498), a multicenter, prospective study of stage I-III breast cancer (BC). CRF, evaluated after primary treatment completion using the EORTC QLQ-C30 (global CRF) and QLQ-FA12 (physical, emotional, and cognitive dimensions), served as the independent variable (severe [score of ≥40/100] vs nonsevere). Outcomes of interest were adherence to PA recommendations (≥10 metabolic equivalent of task [MET] h/week [GPAQ-16]) and participation in consultations with a psychologist, psychiatrist, acupuncturist, or other complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioner (homeopath and/or naturopath) after CRF assessment. Multivariable logistic regression examined associations between CRF and outcomes, adjusting for sociodemographic, psychologic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Among 7,902 women diagnosed from 2012 through 2017, 36.4% reported severe global CRF, and 35.8%, 22.6%, and 14.1% reported severe physical, emotional, and cognitive CRF, respectively. Patients reporting severe global CRF were less likely to adhere to PA recommendations (60.4% vs 66.7%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; P=.004), and slightly more likely to see a psychologist (13.8% vs 7.5%; aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.58; P=.014), psychiatrist (10.4% vs 5.0%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.76; P=.0064), acupuncturist (9.8% vs 6.5%; aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.17-1.82; P=.0008), or CAM practitioner (12.5% vs 8.2%; aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.23-1.82; P<.0001). There were differences in recommendation uptake by CRF dimension, including that severe physical CRF was associated with lower adherence to PA (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86; P=.0001) and severe emotional CRF was associated with higher likelihood of psychologic consultations (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.79; P=.017). Uptake of recommendations to improve CRF, including adequate PA and use of psychosocial services, seemed suboptimal among patients with early-stage BC, whereas there was a nonnegligible interest in homeopathy and naturopathy. Findings of this large study indicate the need to implement recommendations for managing CRF in clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Physical activity (PA) and psychosocial interventions are recommended management strategies for cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Randomized trials support the use of mind-body techniques, whereas no data show benefit for homeopathy or naturopathy.
METHODS
We used data from CANTO (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01993498), a multicenter, prospective study of stage I-III breast cancer (BC). CRF, evaluated after primary treatment completion using the EORTC QLQ-C30 (global CRF) and QLQ-FA12 (physical, emotional, and cognitive dimensions), served as the independent variable (severe [score of ≥40/100] vs nonsevere). Outcomes of interest were adherence to PA recommendations (≥10 metabolic equivalent of task [MET] h/week [GPAQ-16]) and participation in consultations with a psychologist, psychiatrist, acupuncturist, or other complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioner (homeopath and/or naturopath) after CRF assessment. Multivariable logistic regression examined associations between CRF and outcomes, adjusting for sociodemographic, psychologic, tumor, and treatment characteristics.
RESULTS
Among 7,902 women diagnosed from 2012 through 2017, 36.4% reported severe global CRF, and 35.8%, 22.6%, and 14.1% reported severe physical, emotional, and cognitive CRF, respectively. Patients reporting severe global CRF were less likely to adhere to PA recommendations (60.4% vs 66.7%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; P=.004), and slightly more likely to see a psychologist (13.8% vs 7.5%; aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.58; P=.014), psychiatrist (10.4% vs 5.0%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.76; P=.0064), acupuncturist (9.8% vs 6.5%; aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.17-1.82; P=.0008), or CAM practitioner (12.5% vs 8.2%; aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.23-1.82; P<.0001). There were differences in recommendation uptake by CRF dimension, including that severe physical CRF was associated with lower adherence to PA (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86; P=.0001) and severe emotional CRF was associated with higher likelihood of psychologic consultations (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.79; P=.017).
CONCLUSIONS
Uptake of recommendations to improve CRF, including adequate PA and use of psychosocial services, seemed suboptimal among patients with early-stage BC, whereas there was a nonnegligible interest in homeopathy and naturopathy. Findings of this large study indicate the need to implement recommendations for managing CRF in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35130491
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.7051
pii: jnccn20441
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01993498']
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM