ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Yoga can be considered supportive therapy for patients with cancer to alleviate cancer-related symptoms. However, there has been no meta-analysis examining yoga's effects among patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the evidence regarding the effects of yoga on improving cancer-related fatigue, psychological distress, and quality of life among patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. METHODS: Ten English databases and 2 Chinese databases were searched from inception to December 2022. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted the data. Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of yoga on cancer-related fatigue, psychological distress, and quality of life were included. Meta-analysis was conducted, and narrative synthesis was performed when meta-analysis was not applicable. RESULTS: Fourteen studies from 16 articles were included. The results showed that yoga reduced cancer-related fatigue (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.12 to -0.38; P < .001), anxiety (SMD, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.68 to -0.14; P = .02), but not depression (SMD, -0.82; 95% CI, -1.67 to 0.04; P = .06). The effects of yoga on distress and quality of life were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Yoga significantly helped reduce cancer-related fatigue and anxiety but did not reduce depression among patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Further rigorous studies are needed to identify the optimal characteristics of yoga for these patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: It is possible to recommend yoga to patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for managing cancer-related fatigue and anxiety after duly considering patients' physical conditions and ensuring appropriate instructions are given.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted treatments have improved the health outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma. However, due to the high cost of novel therapies, it is crucial to evaluate their value by considering both effectiveness and cost. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents (atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, vemurafenib-plus-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and encorafenib-plus-binimetinib) for first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma with the BRAFV600 mutation. METHODS: A patient-level model was developed to project the health outcomes of 4 strategies for patients with advanced melanoma. We estimated transition probabilities from the IMspire150 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672), COMBI-AD (NCT01682083), and COLUMBUS (NCT01909453) trials using a parametric survival model. All health outcomes, including direct cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), were estimated from the US payer perspective. Lifetime cost, QALYs, life-years (LYs), and ICERs were calculated. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness, along with multiple scenario analyses. RESULTS: Of the 4 competing strategies, atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib produced the best health outcomes, and the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy was the least expensive option. Atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and vemurafenib-cobimetinib formed the cost-effective frontier, indicating that the ordered ICERs were $325,113/QALYs for dabrafenib-plus-trametinib vs. vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategies and $2,247,500/QALYs for atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib vs. dabrafenib-plus-trametinib strategies. Encorafenib-plus-binimetinib was dominated by the other 3 competing strategies. The drug price and first-line utility significantly influenced the model utcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma, the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy could be considered the most cost-effective treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000.
