No effect on survival of home psychosocial intervention in a randomized study of Danish colorectal cancer patients

SupporTive Care At Home Research (STAHR) for patients with advanced cancer: Protocol for a cluster non-randomized controlled trial

Advancements in the treatment and management of patients with cancer have extended their survival period. To honor such patients' desire to live in their own homes, home-based supportive care programs have become an important medical practice. This study aims to investigate the effects of a multidimensional and integrated home-based supportive care program on patients with advanced cancer. SupporTive Care At Home Research is a cluster non-randomized controlled trial for patients with advanced cancer. This study tests the effects of the home-based supportive care program we developed versus standard oncology care. The home-based supportive care program is based on a specialized home-based medical team approach that includes (1) initial assessment and education for patients and their family caregivers, (2) home visits by nurses, (3) biweekly regular check-ups/evaluation and management, (4) telephone communication via a daytime access line, and (5) monthly multidisciplinary team meetings. The primary outcome measure is unplanned hospitalization within 6 months following enrollment. Healthcare service use; quality of life; pain and symptom control; emotional status; satisfaction with services; end-of-life care; advance planning; family caregivers' quality of life, care burden, and preparedness for caregiving; and medical expenses will be surveyed. We plan to recruit a total of 396 patients with advanced cancer from six institutions. Patients recruited from three institutions will constitute the intervention group, whereas those recruited from the other three institutions will comprise the control group.

Stress and cancer: mechanisms, significance and future directions

The notion that stress and cancer are interlinked has dominated lay discourse for decades. More recent animal studies indicate that stress can substantially facilitate cancer progression through modulating most hallmarks of cancer, and molecular and systemic mechanisms mediating these effects have been elucidated. However, available clinical evidence for such deleterious effects is inconsistent, as epidemiological and stress-reducing clinical interventions have yielded mixed effects on cancer mortality. In this Review, we describe and discuss specific mediating mechanisms identified by preclinical research, and parallel clinical findings. We explain the discrepancy between preclinical and clinical outcomes, through pointing to experimental strengths leveraged by animal studies and through discussing methodological and conceptual obstacles that prevent clinical studies from reflecting the impacts of stress. We suggest approaches to circumvent such obstacles, based on targeting critical phases of cancer progression that are more likely to be stress-sensitive; pharmacologically limiting adrenergic-inflammatory responses triggered by medical procedures; and focusing on more vulnerable populations, employing personalized pharmacological and psychosocial approaches. Recent clinical trials support our hypothesis that psychological and/or pharmacological inhibition of excess adrenergic and/or inflammatory stress signalling, especially alongside cancer treatments, could save lives.

Effects of psychosocial support interventions on survival in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings: A meta-analysis of 106 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Hospitals, clinics, and health organizations have provided psychosocial support interventions for medical patients to supplement curative care. Prior reviews of interventions augmenting psychosocial support in medical settings have reported mixed outcomes. This meta-analysis addresses the questions of how effective are psychosocial support interventions in improving patient survival and which potential moderating features are associated with greater effectiveness.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychosocial support interventions in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings reporting survival data, including studies reporting disease-related or all-cause mortality. Literature searches included studies reported January 1980 through October 2020 accessed from Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Alt HealthWatch, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, and Google Scholar databases. At least 2 reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality, with at least 2 independent reviewers also extracting data and assessing study quality. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) data were analyzed separately using random effects weighted models. Of 42,054 studies searched, 106 RCTs including 40,280 patients met inclusion criteria. Patient average age was 57.2 years, with 52% females and 48% males; 42% had cardiovascular disease (CVD), 36% had cancer, and 22% had other conditions. Across 87 RCTs reporting data for discrete time periods, the average was OR = 1.20 (95% CI = 1.09 to 1.31, p < 0.001), indicating a 20% increased likelihood of survival among patients receiving psychosocial support compared to control groups receiving standard medical care. Among those studies, psychosocial interventions explicitly promoting health behaviors yielded improved likelihood of survival, whereas interventions without that primary focus did not. Across 22 RCTs reporting survival time, the average was HR = 1.29 (95% CI = 1.12 to 1.49, p < 0.001), indicating a 29% increased probability of survival over time among intervention recipients compared to controls. Among those studies, meta-regressions identified 3 moderating variables: control group type, patient disease severity, and risk of research bias. Studies in which control groups received health information/classes in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) averaged weaker effects than those in which control groups received only TAU. Studies with patients having relatively greater disease severity tended to yield smaller gains in survival time relative to control groups. In one of 3 analyses, studies with higher risk of research bias tended to report better outcomes. The main limitation of the data is that interventions very rarely blinded personnel and participants to study arm, such that expectations for improvement were not controlled.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, OR data indicated that psychosocial behavioral support interventions promoting patient motivation/coping to engage in health behaviors improved patient survival, but interventions focusing primarily on patients' social or emotional outcomes did not prolong life. HR data indicated that psychosocial interventions, predominantly focused on social or emotional outcomes, improved survival but yielded similar effects to health information/classes and were less effective among patients with apparently greater disease severity. Risk of research bias remains a plausible threat to data interpretation.

The effects of physical activity, fast-mimicking diet and psychological interventions on cancer survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Health professionals are often asked if non-pharmacological interventions prolong life. This review aims to evaluate the effects of physical activity, fast-mimicking diet (FMD) and psychological interventions on survival in all cancers.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only RCTs of physical activity, FMD and psychological interventions (including counselling, cognitive and other psychotherapies) in cancer patients that reported survival outcomes were included.

DATA SOURCES

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020 were searched without language restrictions. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42019160944).

RESULTS

Thirty-one RCTs (9 on physical activity and 22 on psychological interventions) were included in the final analysis after evaluation of 60,207 records from our initial search. No eligible RCT on FMD was reported. RCTs on group psychological interventions (41.9 %) and in patients with breast cancer (38.7 %) were the most common. Most evaluated short-term interventions and in primary or adjuvant settings. Only one of 9 (11 %) RCTs on physical activity and 8 of 22 (36 %) RCTs on psychological interventions were associated with improved overall survival. Only group psychological interventions in breast cancer had adequate number of RCTs to allow a meta-analysis to be performed. It demonstrated a trend towards improved overall survival (HR -0.20, 95 %CI -0.49 to 0.10), particularly in RCTs that evaluated long-term (>6 months) therapies (HR -0.29, 95 %CI -0.59 to 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Longer term interventions starting early in the patients' care journey in primary and adjuvant settings have shown the most promise for improving survival. Better designed RCTs including survival outcomes are particularly needed in non-breast cancers.

Psychological intervention and its immune effect in cancer patients: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether psychological intervention (PI) changes the levels of immune indicators in cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search published up to July 2018, followed by a manual search. Randomized controlled trials were included. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data, which were analyzed using Review manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included including four kinds of PI. Only stress management didn't result in immune changes; only cognitive behavior therapy affect NK cell activity. PI did not change immune indicators on cancer patients who completed therapy. Compared to patients not receiving PI, those received PI had significantly higher NK cell count and activity in whole blood; and serum levels of IL-2, IL-4, IFN-γ, lgA, and lgG. However, the differences in the serum levels of IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α, and IgM were not significant (P > .05), and the changes recorded for the CD3, CD4, and CD8 cell count, and CD4/CD8 ratios were inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there are considerable evidences of PI's immune effect, but its magnitude was moderate. Therefore, it may be premature to conclude whether PI affects immunity of cancer patients. Further research is warranted, with special focus on the PI types and treatment methods.

"Not just another meta-analysis": Sources of heterogeneity in psychosocial treatment effect on cancer survival

Background

Currently, there are eight meta‐analyses that address the question whether psychosocial intervention can prolong survival with widely disparate conclusions. One reason for inconsistent findings may be the methods by which previous meta‐analyses were conducted.

Methods

Databases were searched to identify valid randomized controlled trials that compared psychosocial intervention with usual care. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their confidence intervals were pooled to estimate the strength of the treatment effect on survival time, and z‐tests were performed to assess possible heterogeneity of effect sizes associated with different patient and treatment characteristics.

Results

Twelve trials involving 2439 cancer patients that met screening criteria were included. The overall effect favored the treatment group with a HR of 0.71 (95% Cl 0.58‐0.88; P = 0.002). An effect size favoring treatment group was observed in studies sampling lower vs higher percentage of married patients’ (NNT = 4.3 vs NNT = 15.4), when Cognitive‐Behavioral Therapy was applied at early vs late cancer stage (NNT = 2.3 vs NNT = −28.6), and among patients’ older vs younger than 50 (NNT = 4.2 vs NNT = −20.5).

Conclusions

Psychosocial interventions may have an important effect on survival. Reviewed interventions appear to be more effective in unmarried patients, patients who are older, and those with an early cancer stage who attend CBT. Limitations of previous meta‐analysis are discussed.

Palliative Care in Surgery: Defining the Research Priorities

OBJECTIVE

To describe the existing science of palliative care in surgery within three priority areas and expose specific gaps within the field.

BACKGROUND

Given the acute and often life-limiting nature of surgical illness, as well as the potential for treatment to induce further suffering, surgical patients have considerable palliative care needs. Yet these patients are less likely to receive palliative care than their medical counterparts and palliative care consultations often occur when death is imminent, reflecting poor quality end-of-life care.

METHODS

The National Institutes of Health and the National Palliative Care Research Center convened researchers from several medical subspecialties to develop a national agenda for palliative care research. The surgeon work group reviewed the existing surgical literature to identify critical knowledge gaps.

RESULTS

To date, evidence to support the role of palliative care in surgical practice is sparse and palliative care research in surgery is encumbered by methodological challenges and entrenched cultural norms that impede appropriate provision of palliative care. Priorities for future research on palliative care in surgery include: 1) measuring outcomes that matter to patients, 2) communication and decision making, and 3) delivery of palliative care to surgical patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical patients would likely benefit from early palliative care delivered alongside surgical treatment to promote goal-concordant decision making and to improve patients' physical, emotional, social and spiritual well-being and quality of life. We propose a research agenda to address major gaps in the literature and provide a road map for future investigation.

Palliative Care in Surgery: Defining the Research Priorities

Given the acute and often life-limiting nature of surgical illness, as well as the potential for treatment to induce further suffering, surgical patients have considerable palliative care needs. Yet, these patients are less likely to receive palliative care than their medical counterparts and palliative care consultations often occur when death is imminent, reflecting poor quality end-of-life care. Surgical patients would likely benefit from early palliative care delivered alongside surgical treatment to promote goal-concordant decision making and to improve patients' physical, emotional, social, and spiritual well-being and quality of life. To date, evidence to support the role of palliative care in surgical practice is sparse and palliative care research in surgery is encumbered by methodological challenges and entrenched cultural norms that impede appropriate provision of palliative care. The objective of this article was to describe the existing science of palliative care in surgery within three priority areas and expose specific gaps within the field. We propose a research agenda to address these gaps and provide a road map for future investigation.

Marriage is a dependent risk factor for mortality of colon adenocarcinoma without a time-varying effect

BACKGROUND

It has been well recognized that the effects of many prognostic factors could change during long-term follow-up. Although marriage has been proven to be a significant prognostic factor for the survival of colon cancer, whether the effect of marriage is constant with time remain unknown. This study analyzed the impact of marital status on the mortality of colon cancer patients with an extended Cox model that allowed for time-varying effects.

METHODS

We identified 71,955 patients who underwent colectomy between 2004 and 2009 to treat colon adenocarcinoma from the Surveilance, Epidemiology and End Results Database. The multivariate extended Cox model was used to evaluate the effect of marital status on all-cause mortality, while the Fine-Gray competing risks model was used for colon cancer-specific mortality, with death from other causes as the competing risk.

RESULTS

The unmarried patients carried a 1.37-fold increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with the married patients (95%CI: 1.33-1.40; p<0.001), and the hazard ratio remained constant over time. Being unmarried was at a higher risk of death from colon adenocarcinoma as well as death from other causes. Four variables including tumor site, tumor grade, sex and TNM stage were proved to have time-varying effects on survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Marriage is a dependent prognosis factor for survival of surgically treated colon adenocarcinoma patients. Psychological interventions are suggested to improve receipt of treatment among unmarried patients, as their poor survival may be due to the inefficient treatment.

Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions on survival time in patients with cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study was to evaluate the effects of psychosocial interventions on survival in adult patients with cancer.

METHOD

MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Korean electronic databases (September 2014) were searched. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias for randomized studies. The RevMan 5.3 program of the Cochrane library was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2940 participants. Overall, psychosocial interventions was not associated with better survival (HR = .83, 95% CI [.68, 1.10], p = .06, I(2) = 64%). In subgroup analysis, based on six trials with 1448 subjects, psychoeducational interventions for cancer patients with non-metastatic at intervention implementation resulted in a 41% reduction in the risk of dying of cancer (HR = .59, 95% CI [.49, .71], p < .001, I(2) = 0%). For psychoeducational intervention, significant survival benefit were found when health staff delivered the intervention and at a follow-up time of more than 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of psychoeducational interventions for cancer patients at early stage appeared to have beneficial effects on survival, preferably for delivering of health staff. However, conduct of further psychosocial studies with adequate power will lead to better understanding of the effects of treatments on survival outcome.

Exploiting the critical perioperative period to improve long-term cancer outcomes

Evidence suggests that the perioperative period and the excision of the primary tumour can promote the development of metastases—the main cause of cancer-related mortality. This Review first presents the assertion that the perioperative timeframe is pivotal in determining long-term cancer outcomes, disproportionally to its short duration (days to weeks). We then analyse the various aspects of surgery, and their consequent paracrine and neuroendocrine responses, which could facilitate the metastatic process by directly affecting malignant tissues, and/or through indirect pathways, such as immunological perturbations. We address the influences of surgery-related anxiety and stress, nutritional status, anaesthetics and analgesics, hypothermia, blood transfusion, tissue damage, and levels of sex hormones, and point at some as probable deleterious factors. Through understanding these processes and reviewing empirical evidence, we provide suggestions for potential new perioperative approaches and interventions aimed at attenuating deleterious processes and ultimately improving treatment outcomes. Specifically, we highlight excess perioperative release of catecholamines and prostaglandins as key deleterious mediators of surgery, and we recommend blockade of these responses during the perioperative period, as well as other low-risk, low-cost interventions. The measures described in this Review could transform the perioperative timeframe from a prominent facilitator of metastatic progression, to a window of opportunity for arresting and/or eliminating residual disease, potentially improving long-term survival rates in patients with cancer.

Psychosocial and Behavioral Interventions and Cancer Patient Survival Again

Hypotheses. Although there is evidence that psychosocial and behavioral interventions (PBIs) increase well-being, improve coping and adjustment, and reduce distress among cancer patients, findings regarding PBIs as a means for prolonging survival were not convincing. Conflicting findings resulted in tremendous controversies over the efficacy of PBIs. This study aims at estimating the pooled effects of PBIs on survival of cancer patients. Study Design and Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effects of any kind of PBIs on the survival of cancer patients included in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancer Lit, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant articles were retrieved and reviewed by 2 independent researchers. Data items derived from the articles included time and duration of study, intervention types and doses, and numbers of patients dying and surviving 1, 2, 4, and 6 years after intervention. Estimation of the collective effects of the interventions used meta-analysis via Review Manager (version 5). Results. A total of 15 RCTs met inclusion criteria, involving 2041 subjects (1118 in intervention and 923 in control groups). Inclusive total mean Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs) ranged from 0.83 to 0.99, and 3 of these effect sizes were statistically nonsignificant. Yet when the RCTs with less than 30 hours of PBIs were excluded, all the RRs decreased to some extent, with the RR for the first 2 years being decreased to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.87) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.95), respectively. Conclusion. PBIs with adequate intervention doses prolong survival at least for some cancer patients in the first 2 years after intervention, although longer term effects need to be determined via more studies.

Feasibility of a psychosocial rehabilitation intervention to enhance the involvement of relatives in cancer rehabilitation: pilot study for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cancer often affects the quality of life and well-being of patients as well as their relatives. Previous studies have suggested that relatives should be involved in psychosocial rehabilitation to address the needs for an interpersonal relationship with others in the disease trajectory. We developed an innovative rehabilitation program to be offered to the patient and a relative as a pair.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present pilot study was to examine the feasibility of the intervention in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and to evaluate the impact on quality of life.

METHODS

The study was designed as an RCT comparing the new multimodal psychosocial rehabilitation with the usual services. The intervention comprised three 'supportive talks' and a residential rehabilitation course. From March 2010 to March 2011, participation was offered at the time of diagnosis to patients with lung or gynecological cancer from two departments at Odense University Hospital in Denmark. Questionnaires were used to estimate changes in quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30 on global health status) and well-being (WHO-Five Well-Being Index) at baseline and after 2 and 12 months. Information on the participants' views about the rehabilitation intervention was obtained from assessment charts and qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

A total of 209 patients were assessed for eligibility, but only 42 pairs were randomized to the study. The 2-month follow-up was completed by 34 patients and 32 relatives, and 19 patients and 21 relatives completed the 12-month follow-up. A higher dropout rate at the 12-month follow-up was reported in the intervention group compared with controls. Quality of life and well-being increased for patients and relatives in both the intervention and the control group, and no clinically significant difference was observed between the intervention and the control group. Pairs reported that the time of inclusion was inconvenient and that rehabilitation ought to meet their changing needs.

CONCLUSIONS

The pilot study showed that it may be difficult to conduct an RCT of a psychosocial rehabilitation intervention for pairs, and difficulties with inclusion and drop out have to be addressed. Interventions need to be carefully developed and tested before evaluating an effect in a large-scale study.

Effects of Psycho-Oncologic Interventions on Emotional Distress and Quality of Life in Adult Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of psycho-oncologic interventions on emotional distress and quality of life in adult patients with cancer.

Methods

Literature databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials that compared a psycho-oncologic intervention delivered face-to face with a control condition. The main outcome measures were emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and quality of life. Outcomes were evaluated for three time periods: post-treatment, ≤ 6 months, and more than 6 months. We applied standard meta-analytic techniques to analyze both published and unpublished data from the retrieved studies. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were used to explore reasons for heterogeneity.

Results

We retrieved 198 studies (covering 22,238 patients) that report 218 treatment-control comparisons. Significant small-to-medium effects were observed for individual and group psychotherapy and psychoeducation. These effects were sustained, in part, in the medium term (≤ 6 months) and long term (> 6 months). Short-term effects were evident for relaxation training. Studies that preselected participants according to increased distress produced large effects at post-treatment. A moderator effect was found for the moderator variable “duration of the intervention,” with longer interventions producing more sustained effects. Indicators of study quality were often not reported. Small-sample bias indicative of possible publication bias was found for some effects, particularly with individual psychotherapy and relaxation training.

Conclusion

Various types of psycho-oncologic interventions are associated with significant, small-to-medium effects on emotional distress and quality of life. These results should be interpreted with caution, however, because of the low quality of reporting in many of the trials.

Biobehavioral influences on cancer progression

This review focuses on the contributions of stress-related behavioral factors to cancer growth and metastasis and the biobehavioral mechanisms underlying these relationships. Behavioral factors that are important in modulation of the stress response and the pivotal role of neuroendocrine regulation in the downstream alteration of physiologic pathways relevant to cancer control, including the cellular immune response, inflammation, and tumor angiogenesis, invasion, and cell signaling pathways are described. Consequences for cancer progression and metastasis, as well as quality of life, are delineated. Behavioral and pharmacologic interventions with the potential to alter these biobehavioral pathways for patients with cancer are discussed.

Associations of social networks with cancer mortality: a meta-analysis

This meta-analysis integrates results of 87 studies on the associations of perceived social support, network size, and marital status with cancer survival. In controlled studies, having high levels of perceived social support, larger social network, and being married were associated with decreases in relative risk for mortality of 25%, 20%, and 12%, respectively. Moderator analyses revealed that never married patients had higher mortality rates than widowed and divorced/separated patients. Associations of social network with mortality were stronger in younger patients, and associations of marital status with mortality were stronger in studies with shorter time intervals, and in early-stage cancer. Relationships varied by cancer site, with stronger associations of social support observed in studies of patients with leukemia and lymphomas and stronger associations of network size observed in studies of breast cancer. Further randomized intervention studies are needed to test causal hypotheses about the role of social support and social network for cancer mortality.