A Phenomenological Qualitative Exploration of Mind-Body Therapy Use and Effectiveness Among Young, Middle, and Older Adult Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Having been diagnosed with and treated for cancer can have negative psychosocial repercussions that may differ across the lifespan. Mind-body therapies (MBTs), such as tai-chi/qigong (TCQ) or mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR), have shown promise in decreasing negative psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivors, but few studies have explored potential differences in MBT use and effectiveness across age groups. METHODS: A descriptive phenomenological qualitative design was used. Participants included young (18-39), middle (40-64), and older (65+) adult cancer survivors who were diagnosed with any type of cancer and had participated in Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) or Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ) MBTs. Semi-structured qualitative interviews explored participants' experiences in MBTs and these were analyzed using descriptive phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: Among the interviews (n = 18), young (n = 6), middle-aged (n = 8), and older (n = 4) adults participated. 5 themes emerged: influences in joining the program, unique lifestyles, positive class experiences, use of media, and program impacts. Though all age groups benefitted from MBT participation, variations between age groups with respect to the benefits received and motivations for joining the program were observed. DISCUSSION: MBTs had beneficial physical and mental health effects on survivors of all age groups. These benefits were particularly connected to the ongoing life stresses common to each age cohort, such as relief from work and family roles for young adults or support during retirement transition for older adults. Hence, access to MBT programs may be beneficial as part of the survivorship plan for patients and the recruitment strategies or content can be adapted by MBT providers to better target and support age-specific groups. More research is required with a larger sample.

Associations Between Health Behaviors, Gastrointestinal Symptoms, and Gut Microbiota in a Cross-Sectional Sample of Cancer Survivors: Secondary Analysis from the Chemo-Gut Study.

BACKGROUND: Health behaviors, such as diet and exercise, are actions individuals take that can potentially impact gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and the gut microbiota. Little is known about how health behaviors impact GI symptoms and the gut microbiota after anti-cancer therapies. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study that investigated relationships between GI symptoms, gut microbiota, and patient-reported outcomes in adult cancer survivors. Gut microbiota was assessed from stool samples using 16 S rRNA gene sequencing. GI symptoms and health behaviors were measured via self-report. Descriptive statistics, multiple regression, and correlation analyses are reported. RESULTS: A total of 334 cancer survivors participated, and a subsample of 17 provided stool samples. Most survivors rated their diet as moderately healthy (55.7%) and reported engaging in low intensity exercise (53.9%) for ≤5 h/week (69.1%). Antibiotic use was associated with more belly pain, constipation, and diarrhea (P < .05). Survivors consuming a healthier diet had fewer symptoms of belly pain (P = .03), gas/bloating (P = .01), while higher protein consumption was associated with less belly pain (P = .03). Better diet health was positively correlated with Lachnospiraceae abundance, and negatively with Bacteroides abundance (P < .05). Greater exercise frequency positively correlated with abundance of Lachnospiraceae, Faecalibacterium, Bacteroides, Anaerostipes, Alistipes, and Subdoligranulum (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Results provide evidence for associations between antibiotic use, probiotic use, dietary health behaviors, and GI symptoms. Diet and exercise behaviors are related to certain types of bacteria, but the direction of causality is unknown. Dietary-based interventions may be optimally suited to address survivors' GI symptoms by influencing the gut microbiota. Larger trials are needed.

Exploring patient experiences and acceptability of group vs. individual acupuncture for Cancer-related pain: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Individual acupuncture (AP) is a safe and effective treatment for cancer-related pain and other symptoms in cancer survivors. However, access to individual AP is limited, and costs can be prohibitive. Group AP could be a more cost-effective alternative as it is less expensive and non-inferior to individual AP for pain relief. Despite growing evidence in favour of group AP, patient acceptability and experience of group AP in cancer patients is relatively unknown. This exploratory study sought to compare patient experiences and acceptability of group versus individual AP in cancer patients. METHODS: Semi-structured, open-ended, in-depth interviews were conducted in a subset of 11 cancer patients enrolled in a randomized non-inferiority trial of group vs. individual AP for cancer pain. Participants for this study were recruited via purposive sampling, aiming for diversity in age, sex, education, employment, cancer types, and treatment arms. Data was analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two major themes were identified: a) overall experience of AP treatment b) value of AP. Participants across both treatment arms acknowledged improvement in pain, quality of sleep, mood and fatigue. Participants in the group AP arm reported a significant increase in perceived social support, while participants in the individual arm valued privacy and one-on-one interaction with the acupuncturist. Although some participants in the group arm had privacy-related concerns before the commencement of the program, these concerns waned after a few AP sessions. Participants across both the treatment arms reported cordial clinician-patient relationship with the acupuncturist. Willingness to pursue AP treatment in the future was comparable across both the treatment arms and was limited by out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSION: Patient acceptability and experience of treatment in group AP was on par with individual AP. Group AP may further augment perceived social support among patients and privacy concerns, if any, subside after a few sessions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03641222 ). Registered 10 July 2018 - Retrospectively registered.

The Chemo-Gut Pilot Study: Associations between Gut Microbiota, Gastrointestinal Symptoms, and Psychosocial Health Outcomes in a Cross-Sectional Sample of Young Adult Cancer Survivors.

Chemotherapy adversely affects the gut microbiota, inducing dysbiosis, and negatively impacts gastrointestinal (GI) and psychosocial health during treatment, but little is known about the long-term effects or how these factors are related. Methods: This cross-sectional pilot study investigated the effects of chemotherapy on the gut microbiota, GI symptoms, and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivors aged 18−39 years old, compared to healthy controls. Gut microbial diversity and composition were assessed from stool samples using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Results: Survivors (n = 17) and healthy controls (n = 18) participated. Mean age at diagnosis was 31 years (±5.3). Mean time off treatment was 16.9 months (±16.4). Survivors had more severe GI symptoms, poorer psychosocial health, and increased relative abundance of Selenomondales, Veilloneliaceae, and Intestinibacter. In survivors, Lachnospiraceae, Ruminococcaceae and Intestinibacter correlated with psychosocial symptoms, while diarrhea correlated positively with Lachnospiraceae. Results are statistically significant. Survivors ≤6 months post-treatment had lower alpha diversity than survivors >6 months post-treatment (p = 0.04) and controls (p = 0.19). Conclusion: This small exploratory study demonstrates potential long-term gut microbial dysbiosis in cancer survivors, which may be associated with psychosocial symptoms. Larger trials concurrently and longitudinally examining gut microbiota, GI symptoms, and psychosocial outcomes are needed.

The Use of Prebiotic and Probiotic Interventions for Treating Gastrointestinal and Psychosocial Health Symptoms in Cancer Patients and Survivors: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatments can cause significant gastrointestinal (GI) health issues, and negatively affect patient's psychosocial health and quality of life (QOL). Novel, integrative strategies using prebiotics and probiotics have been explored for treating adverse cancer treatment-related side effects. We evaluated the current literature for interventions using prebiotics or probiotics specifically to treat GI and psychosocial health issues in cancer patients and survivors. METHODS: Five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), CINHAL, PsychINFO, Web of Science) were searched for studies with prebiotic or probiotic interventions where GI and/or psychosocial health outcomes were measured in adult cancer patients and survivors, and published before September 12th 2021. RESULTS: Twelve studies (N = 974 participants) meeting the inclusion criteria were identified (randomized controlled trials [n = 10], single-group pre-post studies [n = 2]). Ten studies were conducted with patients on active cancer treatment, and 2 studies treated patients after anti-cancer therapies. Three studies used prebiotics, 7 studies used probiotics, and 2 studies used a combination therapy. The most commonly used probiotic strains were from the Lactobacillus genus. There was minimal evidence for prebiotics to improve GI or psychosocial health. Probiotics were associated with significant improvements in abdominal pain (n = 2), gas/bloating (n = 2), and especially diarrhea (n = 5), and with improvements in anxiety (n = 1), depression (n = 1), fatigue (n = 1), and QOL (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: Studies specifically examining effects of prebiotics and probiotics on GI and psychosocial health outcomes are scarce. Probiotic intervention may improve some GI symptoms in cancer patients, and QOL in survivors. Controlled trials that consistently include GI and psychosocial health outcomes are needed.

Both "Vitamin L for Life" and "One Milligram of Satan": A Multi-Perspective Qualitative Exploration of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Use after Breast Cancer.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) is recommended after hormone receptor-positive breast cancer to reduce risk of recurrence, but adherence is sub-optimal in many women. Behavioral interventions have been ineffective in improving adherence rates to AET. This qualitative descriptive study investigates factors that support women in AET use and suggestions for interventions to improve AET use and management. Interviews with women who persisted with AET (n = 23), women who discontinued AET (n = 15), and healthcare providers (HCPs; oncologists, oncology residents, and pharmacists; n = 9) were conducted, transcribed, and described using thematic analysis. Data collection stopped once saturation occurred (i.e., no new codes or themes emerged during interviews). Two researchers created codes and developed themes in an iterative process; a third researcher verified the representativeness of final themes. This study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta (ID: HREBA.CC-17-0513). Women who persisted described being prepared for side effects and having self-management strategies, strong rationale for AET use, supportive HCPs, and available resources as relevant factors. Women who discontinued described feeling overwhelmed by side effects, information needs, drawbacks of AET, helpful/unhelpful experiences with HCPs, and contextual factors as relevant to their discontinuation. HCPs described health system-related and patient-related barriers, side effect management, and patient-provider interactions as relevant to supporting AET use. The considerable overlap in themes among the three groups suggests broad recognition of salient factors relevant to AET use and that associated strategies to improve use may be acceptable to patients and providers alike. Factors supporting AET use could include the following: education (which may be necessary but insufficient), developing a strong personal rationale for use, being prepared for side effects, having side effect management strategies, reciprocal communication between patients and HCPs, and accessible resources.

Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review of Participants' Adherence to Home Practice.

BACKGROUND: Although mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have demonstrated efficacy for alleviating psychological distress in cancer survivors, little is known about the extent to which participants adhere to assigned home practice. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and appraise the literature on rates and correlates of adherence to mindfulness home practice among cancer survivors. METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) were searched for studies published before October 15, 2020. Articles were included if they evaluated the benefits of an MBI program for adults with cancer. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (N=1811 participants) meeting the inclusion criteria were identified (randomized controlled trials (n=13), non-randomized controlled designs (n=2), single-group studies (n=6)). The pooled adherence rate for participants' home practice was 60% of the assigned amount, which equated to 27 min per day during the intervention period. There was some evidence for a relationship between home practice of mindfulness techniques and improvements in mood, stress, anxiety, depression, and fear of cancer recurrence (correlation coefficients ranged from 0.33 to 0.67). Factors including marital status, mood disturbance at baseline, intervention modality, and personality traits were evaluated in relation to adherence to home practice, but the current literature was inadequate to evaluate whether a relationship exists. CONCLUSION: Adherence to mindfulness home practice among cancer survivors is suboptimal, and most of the correlates of adherence studied to date are non-modifiable. More research is warranted to scrutinize the role of home practice in mindfulness-based interventions, including assessment of modifiable factors influencing adherence to improve benefits for this population.

Factors Influencing Preference for Intervention in a Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery and Tai Chi/Qigong in Cancer Survivors.

Introduction: An important gap between randomized efficacy research and real-world implementation of complementary therapies is the role of patient preferences in influencing engagement and outcome. Several studies have highlighted the benefits of patient preference on health outcomes, but few have investigated the factors associated with preference for interventions, which may be critical to assure the success of program implementation. The current study sought to explore the factors associated with patient preference in an ongoing randomized preference-based trial of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) versus Tai Chi/qigong (TCQ) (the Mindfulness and Tai Chi/qigong in Cancer Health [MATCH] study). Materials and Methods: A multi-method study design was used. A subsample of participants were purposely selected from the ongoing MATCH study to have representation from both intervention arms and from both men and women across different age groups. Open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to explore the factors influencing initial patient preference. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by using inductive thematic analysis. The treatment acceptability and preference measure was administered to determine patients' ratings of acceptability and credibility of both preferred and nonpreferred interventions. Results: A total of 13 participants were interviewed prior to program attendance, with 8 (62%) preferring TCQ and 5 (38%) choosing MBCR. Major themes related to patients' preference for intervention included: (1) expectations about the preferred intervention; (2) knowledge of the intervention; (3) past experiences with the intervention; and (4) self-efficacy. Participants' mean treatment acceptability scores were higher for their preferred program than their nonpreferred program. Conclusion: Understanding the factors that influence cancer survivors' preference for mind-body interventions can augment health care providers' knowledge of the barriers and facilitators for successful implementation of interventions in clinical settings, as well as help patients make informed treatment decisions and improve satisfaction and outcomes. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03641222.

Cost-Utility of Group Versus Individual Acupuncture for Cancer-Related Pain Using Quality-Adjusted Life Years in a Noninferiority Trial.

Introduction: Individual acupuncture (AP) is the gold standard method of AP delivery for cancer-related pain; however, costs can be prohibitive. Group AP allows four to six patients to be treated in a single session. This study sought to examine the cost-utility of group AP compared with individual AP from a patient perspective. Materials and Methods: Effectiveness and cost data from a noninferiority randomized trial of group versus individual AP for cancer-related pain were used. In the trial, 74 patients were randomly assigned to individual or group AP treatments twice per week for 6 weeks. The EuroQol five-dimension five level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) was used to assess health-related quality of life, and the EQ-5D Utility Index was used as a composite measure constituted of five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety-depression, and pain-discomfort). Linear mixed models were used to compare the change in EQ-5D-5L states pre-post intervention between the two arms. A cost-utility analysis was performed in terms of the incremental costs per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results: Group AP participants experienced more significant relief in the pain-discomfort subscale of the EQ-5D-5L measure compared with individual AP participants (group × time, F = 6.18; p = 0.02). The effect size on pain-discomfort for group AP (d = 0.80) was higher than that of individual AP (d = 0.34). There were no significant differences between the two study arms for other subscales of the EQ-5D-5L over time. QALYs at 6 weeks were slightly higher for group AP (0.020) compared with individual AP (0.007) leading to an incremental QALY gained by the group arm of 0.013, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.07). The cost of delivering AP treatment for the group arm over 6 weeks ($201.25) was nearly half of the individual arm ($400). Conclusions: Group AP was superior to individual AP in cancer patients. These findings have implications for the use of group AP in low-resource settings and in health care systems where AP for cancer patients is not covered by public health insurance. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03641222). Registered July 10, 2018-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03641222.

The Quality of Life and Psychosocial Implications of Cancer-Related Lower-Extremity Lymphedema: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Lower-extremity lymphedema (LEL) is a progressive, lifelong complication of cancer that places a substantial burden upon cancer survivors' quality of life (QOL) and psychosocial well-being. Despite its prevalence, cancer-related LEL is inconsistently diagnosed, treated, and poorly recognized by health care professionals. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and appraise the quantitative literature evaluating the impact of cancer-related LEL on patients' psychosocial well-being and QOL. Three databases (PubMed, PROQuest, and Scopus) were searched for observational research articles published before May 1st, 2020. Twenty-one articles were eligible (cross-sectional (n = 16), prospective cohort designs (n = 3), and retrospective cohort designs (n = 2)). The majority of studies reported a negative relationship between cancer-related LEL and global QOL and/or one or more psychosocial domains including (1) physical and functional; (2) psycho-emotional; (3) social, relational and financial. A greater number of LEL symptoms and higher LEL severity were associated with poorer QOL. Although the evidence to date suggests a negative relationship between cancer-related LEL and patients' QOL and psychosocial well-being, there is a substantial need for longitudinal analyses to examine the directionality and temporality of this effect in order to inform cancer survivorship care modelling and improve patient outcomes after cancer.

Effects of a light therapy intervention on diurnal salivary cortisol in fatigued cancer survivors: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Altered diurnal cortisol rhythms are a potential mechanism through which symptoms of fatigue are maintained in post-treatment cancer survivors. Exposure to early morning bright light may target this underlying dysregulation, resulting in improved diurnal cortisol patterns, subsequently improving symptoms of fatigue. This research investigates the effects of a 4-week light therapy intervention on the diurnal cortisol slopes and output in fatigued cancer survivors. METHODS: Post-treatment adult cancer survivors who met diagnostic criteria for cancer-related fatigue were randomly assigned to receive either a bright white light (BWL) or dim red light (DRL) device, used daily for 30 min over four consecutive weeks. Assessments of fatigue and salivary cortisol were collected at baseline and post-intervention. Cortisol was sampled four times per day (waking, noon, 5 pm, bedtime) for three days at each timepoint. Diurnal cortisol slopes and total cortisol output were calculated at baseline and post-intervention. Linear mixed models were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Seventy-seven participants were included in this analysis (BWL n = 40; DRL n = 37). Participants in both groups displayed increased steepness in cortisol slope (B = -0.02, p = .01, Cohen's d = 0.57) and increased total cortisol output (B = 9.58, p = .03, Cohen's d = 0.49) from baseline to post-intervention, indicating only a moderate effect of time. Neither diurnal cortisol slopes nor total cortisol output mediated the relationship between the light therapy intervention and fatigue levels. CONCLUSION: Though the results of this trial are promising for light therapy as an effective intervention to reduce fatigue in cancer survivors, this does not appear to be achieved through alterations in neuroendocrine function. ClinicalTrials.gov registration #: NCT01780623.

Effects of Yoga-Based Interventions on Cancer-Associated Cognitive Decline: a Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize and evaluate evidence available on the effects of yoga on cancer-associated cognitive decline (CACD). RECENT FINDINGS: A systematic review was conducted using four databases of articles published before January 1, 2020. Ten articles met the inclusion criteria (six randomized controlled trials, two single-arm studies, one non-randomized controlled trial, and one case series study). Studies were predominantly conducted with breast cancer patients using low-intensity hatha yoga programs. Of the 10 articles, five reported some positive effects on CACD, but significant biases were possible due to design shortcomings. Cohen's d effect sizes ranged from |0.03| to |0.74|. The evidence to date is insufficient to suggest that yoga is beneficial for attenuating CACD. More rigorous trials controlling for non-specific factors are warranted. The field would also benefit from examining self-delivered modes of yoga for treating CACD in various cancer populations to enhance practice sustainability and generalizability.

Factors related to dropout in integrative oncology clinical trials: interim analysis of an ongoing comparative effectiveness trial of mindfulness-based cancer recovery and Tai chi/Qigong for cancer health (The MATCH study).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors associated with loss to follow-up (LTFU) in an ongoing preference-based randomized waitlist controlled trial of mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) and Taichi/Qigong (TCQ) for cancer survivors (the MATCH Study). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with LTFU. Predictors included adherence to treatment, preference vs. randomized, type of intervention (MBCR vs. TCQ) and program timing (immediate {IM} vs. waitlist control {WLC} group). RESULTS: Data indicated that randomization to the WLC group and, once in the intervention, low adherence were the main predictors of LTFU. Participants in the WLC group were 4 times more likely to be LTFU post-randomization [OR 3.96, 95% CI 2.08-7.56, p < 0.005] than those in the IM group. Participants showing low adherence to treatment were 6 times more likely for LTFU post-intervention [5.87 (2.57-13.400; p < 0.005] and 4 times more likely for LTFU 6 months post-intervention [OR 3.93, 95% CI 1.53-10.02, p = 0.01].

A Smartphone App-Based Mindfulness Intervention for Cancer Survivors: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients transitioning to survivorship after completing cancer treatments need psychosocial interventions to manage stressors such as anxiety, depression, and fear of cancer recurrence. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are effective for treating these symptoms; however, cancer survivors are often unable to participate in face-to-face interventions because of difficulties such as work and family commitments, treatment-related side-effects, scheduling conflicts, and geography. Smartphone app-based MBIs are an innovative way to deliver psychosocial cancer care and can overcome several such difficulties, since patients can participate at their own convenience. OBJECTIVE: The SEAMLESS (Smartphone App-Based Mindfulness Intervention for Cancer Survivors) study aims to evaluate the efficacy of a tailored app-based mindfulness intervention for cancer survivors (the Am Mindfulness-Based Cancer Survivorship-MBCS-Journey) for treating (1) symptoms of stress (primary outcome), as well as (2) fear of cancer recurrence, anxiety, depression, fatigue, and overall physical functioning (secondary outcomes). This is the first Canadian efficacy trial of a tailored mindfulness app intervention in cancer survivors. METHODS: This is a randomized waitlist-controlled trial, which will evaluate the effectiveness of Am MBCS for impacting the primary and secondary outcomes in cancer survivors who have completed all their cancer treatments. Outcomes will be assessed using web-based surveys with validated psychometric instruments at (1) baseline, (2) mid-intervention (2 weeks later), (3) immediately postintervention (4 weeks), (4) 3 months postbaseline, (5) 6 months postbaseline, and (6) 12 months postbaseline. The waitlist group will complete all assessments and will cross over to the intervention condition after the 3-month assessment. In addition, data will be obtained by the smartphone app itself, which includes users' engagement with the app-based intervention, their emotional state (eg, angry and elated) from a user-inputted digital emotion-mapping board, and psychobiometric data using photoplethysmography technology. RESULTS: The study received ethics approval in September 2018 and recruitment commenced in January 2019. Participants are being recruited through a provincial cancer registry, and the majority of participants currently enrolled are breast (44/83, 53%) or colorectal (17/83, 20%) cancer survivors, although some survivors of other cancer are also present. Data collection for analysis of the primary outcome time-point will be complete by September 2019, and the follow-up data will be collected and analyzed by September 2020. Data will be analyzed to determine group differences using linear mixed modelling statistical techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer care providers are uncertain about the efficacy of app-based mindfulness interventions for patients, which are available in great supply in today's digital world. This study will provide rigorously evaluated efficacy data for an app-based mindfulness intervention for cancer survivors, which if helpful, could be made available for psychosocial care at cancer centers worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03484000; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03484000. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15178.

Group versus Individual Acupuncture (AP) for Cancer Pain: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: A service delivery model using group acupuncture (AP) may be more cost-effective than individual AP in general, but there is little evidence to assess whether group AP is a comparable treatment in terms of efficacy to standard individual AP. The study aimed to compare the group to individual delivery of 6-week AP among cancer patients with pain. METHODS: The study design was a randomized noninferiority trial of the individual (gold standard treatment) vs. group AP for cancer pain. The primary outcome was pain interference and severity, measured through the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes included measures of mood, sleep, fatigue, and social support. Changes in outcomes from pre- to postintervention were examined using linear mixed effects modeling and noninferiority was inferred using a noninferiority margin, a difference of change between the two arms and 95% CIs. Pain interference was tested with a noninferiority margin of 1 on the BPI, while pain severity and secondary outcomes were compared using conventional statistical methods. RESULTS: The trial included 74 participants randomly allocated to group (35) or individual (39) AP. The noninferiority hypothesis was supported for pain interference [Ó¨ - 1, Δ 1.03, 95% CI: 0.15-2.20] and severity [Ó¨ - 0.81, Δ 0.52, 95% CI:.33-1.38] as well as for mood [Ó¨ - 7.52, Δ 9.86, 95% CI: 0.85-18.86], sleep [Ó¨ - 1.65, Δ 2.60, 95% CI: 0.33-4.88], fatigue [Ó¨ 8.54, Δ - 15.57, 95% CI: 25.60-5.54], and social support [Ó¨.26, Δ - 0.15, 95% CI: - 0.42-0.13], meaning that group AP was not inferior to individual AP treatment. Both arms evidenced statistically significant improvements across all symptoms before and after the intervention. Effect sizes for the group vs. individual AP on outcomes of pain, sleep, mood, and social support ranged from small to very large and were consistently larger in the group condition. The total average cost-per-person for group AP ($221.25) was almost half that of individual AP ($420). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the noninferiority of group AP with the gold standard individual AP. Group AP was noninferior to individual AP for treating cancer pain and was superior in many health outcomes. Group AP is more cost-effective for alleviating cancer pain and should be considered for implementation trials.

The chemo-gut study: investigating the long-term effects of chemotherapy on gut microbiota, metabolic, immune, psychological and cognitive parameters in young adult Cancer survivors; study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The gut microbiota is an important modulator of immune, metabolic, psychological and cognitive mechanisms. Chemotherapy adversely affects the gut microbiota, inducing acute dysbiosis, and alters physiological and psychological function. Cancer among young adults has risen 38% in recent decades. Understanding chemotherapy's long-term effects on gut microbiota and psycho-physiological function is critical to improve survivors' physical and mental health, but remains unexamined. Restoration of the gut microbiota via targeted therapies (e.g. probiotics) could potentially prevent or reverse the psycho-physiological deficits often found in young survivors following chemotherapy, ultimately leading to reduced symptom burden and improved health. METHODS: This longitudinal study investigates chemotherapy induced long-term gut dysbiosis, and associations between gut microbiota, and immune, metabolic, cognitive and psychological parameters using data collected at < 2 month (T1), 3-4 months (T2), and 5-6 months (T3) post-chemotherapy. Participants will be 18-39 year old blood or solid tumor cancer survivors (n = 50), and a healthy sibling, partner or friend as a control (n = 50). Gut microbiota composition will be measured from fecal samples using 16 s RNA sequencing. Psychological and cognitive patient reported outcome measures will include depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, pain, fatigue, and social and cognitive function. Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) will be used to measure fat and lean mass, and bone mineral concentration. Pro-inflammatory cytokines, C-reactive protein (CRP), lipopolysaccharide (LPS), serotonin, and brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) will be measured in serum, and long-term cortisol will be assayed from hair. Regression and linear mixed model (LMM) analyses will examine associations across time points (T1 - T3), between groups, and covariates with gut microbiota, cognitive, psychological, and physiological parameters. CONCLUSION: Knowing what bacterial species are depleted after chemotherapy, how long these effects last, and the physiological mechanisms that may drive psychological and cognitive issues among survivors will allow for targeted, integrative interventions to be developed, helping to prevent or reverse some of the late-effects of treatment that many young cancer survivors face. This protocol has been approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta Cancer Committee (ID: HREBA.CC-19-0018).

Mind-Body Therapies in Cancer: What Is the Latest Evidence?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many people living with cancer use complementary therapies, and some of the most popular are mind-body therapies (MBTs), including relaxation and imagery, hypnosis, yoga, meditation, tai chi and qigong, and art therapies. The efficacy of these modalities was reviewed by assessing recent findings in the context of cancer care. RECENT FINDINGS: These therapies show efficacy in treating common cancer-related side effects, including nausea and vomiting, pain, fatigue, anxiety, depressive symptoms and improving overall quality of life. Some also have effects on biomarkers such as immune function and stress hormones. Overall studies lack large sample sizes and active comparison groups. Common issues around clearly defining treatments including standardizing treatment components, dose, intensity, duration and training of providers make generalization across studies difficult. MBTs in cancer care show great promise and evidence of efficacy for treating many common symptoms. Future studies should investigate more diverse cancer populations using standardized treatment protocols and directly compare various MBTs to one another.