Positive effects of acupressure bands combined with relaxation music/instructions on patients most at risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea.

PURPOSE: Research by our group has shown that acupressure bands are efficacious in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) for breast cancer patients who expect nausea, and that their effectiveness in controlling CIN can largely be accounted for by patients' expectations of efficacy, i.e., a placebo effect. The present research examined if the effectiveness of acupressure bands could be enhanced by boosting patients' expectation of the bands' efficacy. METHODS: Two hundred forty-two chemotherapy-naïve patients with breast cancer who expected nausea were randomized. Arms 1 and 2 received acupressure bands, plus a relaxation MP3 and written handout that were either expectancy-enhancing (arm 1) or expectancy-neutral (arm 2). Arm 3 was the control without bands or MP3 and received standard care. All participants received guideline-specified antiemetics. RESULTS: Peak CIN for arms 1, 2, and 3 on a 1-7 scale was 3.52, 3.55, and 3.87, respectively (p = 0.46). Because no differences were observed between arms 1 and 2 (primary analysis), we combined these two arms (intervention) and compared them to controls for the following analyses. A significant interaction was found between intervention/control and receiving doxorubicin-based chemotherapy (yes/no) and pre-treatment anxiety (high/low). Intervention patients receiving doxorubicin had lower peak CIN than controls (3.62 vs. 4.38; p = 0.02). Similarly, intervention patients with high pre-treatment anxiety had a lower peak CIN than controls (3.62 vs. 4.62; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and having high CIN expectation, acupressure bands combined with a relaxation recording were effective in reducing CIN for patients who received doxorubicin or had high anxiety.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia Reduces Depression in Cancer Survivors.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The current archival analyses examine the direct and indirect effects of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) on depression in cancer survivors. METHODS: We report on 67 cancer survivors from a 2 × 2 randomized controlled trial of CBT-I and armodafinil for insomnia, after collapsing across the noneffective study medication conditions (armodafinil/placebo) to create CBT-I (yes/no). Depression and insomnia were assessed before, during the 7-week CBT-I intervention, at postintervention, and 3 months later by the Patient Health Questionnaire and the Insomnia Severity Index, respectively. RESULTS: Mean depression at baseline for all participants was 6.44 (standard error = 0.41, range 0-15). Paired t tests showed that depression improved from baseline to postintervention by 48% (P < .001) in the CBT-I group versus 15% (P = .016) in the non-CBT-I group. Analysis of covariance controlling for baseline found that participants receiving CBT-I had significantly less depression at postintervention (effect size = -0.62; P = .001), compared to those who did not receive CBT-I. These benefits were maintained at the 3-month follow-up. Spearman rank correlations showed that changes in insomnia severity from baseline to postintervention were significantly correlated with concurrent changes in depression (r = .73; P < .001). Path analysis revealed that improvement in depression was mediated by improvement in insomnia severity (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide preliminary support that in cancer survivors, CBT-I reduces depression via improvement in insomnia. Further, this reduction in depression remained stable 3 months after completing CBT-I. This suggests that a CBT-I intervention has a meaningful effect on depression. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Title: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy +/- Armodafinil for Insomnia and Fatigue Following Chemotherapy; Identifier: NCT01091974; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01091974.

Social Support, Insomnia, and Adherence to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia After Cancer Treatment.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: While cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has been shown to be efficacious in treating cancer survivors' insomnia, 30-60% of individuals have difficulty adhering to intervention components. Psychosocial predictors of adherence and response to CBT-I, such as social support, have not been examined in intervention studies for cancer survivors. PARTICIPANTS: Data from a randomized placebo-controlled 2 x 2 trial of CBT-I and armodafinil (a wakefulness promoting agent) were used to assess adherence. Ninety-six cancer survivors participated in the trial (mean age 56, 86% female, 68% breast cancer). METHODS: CBT-I and armodafinil were administered over the course of seven weeks, and participants were assessed at baseline, during intervention, postintervention, and at a three-month follow-up. Social support was assessed using a Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy subscale, insomnia severity was assessed using the Insomnia Severity Index, and adherence was measured based on CBT-I sleep prescriptions. RESULTS: At baseline, social support was negatively correlated with insomnia severity (r = -0.30, p = 0.002) and associations between social support, CBT-I, and insomnia were maintained through the three-month follow-up. Social support was positively associated with adherence to CBT-I during intervention weeks 3, 4, and 5, and with overall intervention adherence. At postintervention, both social support and treatment with CBT-I independently predicted decreased insomnia severity (p < 0.01) when controlling for baseline insomnia severity. CONCLUSIONS: Higher social support is associated with better intervention adherence and improved sleep independent of CBT-I. Additional research is needed to determine whether social support can be leveraged to improve adherence and response to CBT-I.

Racial Differences in Information Needs During and After Cancer Treatment: a Nationwide, Longitudinal Survey by the University of Rochester Cancer Center National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

Before treatment, cancer patients need information about side effects and prognosis, while after treatment they need information to transition to survivorship. Research documenting these needs is limited, especially among racial and ethnic minorities. This study evaluated cancer patients' needs according to race both before and after treatment. We compared white (n = 904) to black (n = 52) patients receiving treatment at 17 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites on their cancer-related concerns and need for information before and after cancer treatment. Two-sample t test and chi-squared analyses were used to assess group differences. Compared to white patients, black patients reported significantly higher concerns about diet (44.3 vs. 25.4 %,) and exercise (40.4 vs. 19.7 %,) during the course of treatment. Compared to whites, blacks also had significantly higher concern about treatment-related issues (white vs. black mean, 25.52 vs. 31.78), self-image issues (7.03 vs. 8.60), family-related issues (10.44 vs. 12.84), and financial concerns (6.42 vs. 8.90, all p < 0.05). Blacks, compared to whites, also had significantly greater post-treatment information needs regarding follow-up tests (8.17 vs. 9.44), stress management (4.12 vs. 4.89), and handling stigma after cancer treatment (4.21 vs. 4.89) [all p < 0.05]. Pre-treatment concerns and post-treatment information needs differed by race, with black patients reporting greater information needs and concerns. In clinical practice, tailored approaches may work particularly well in addressing the needs and concerns of black patients.

Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia and armodafinil on quality of life in cancer survivors: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related insomnia is associated with diminished quality of life (QOL), suggesting that improvement in insomnia may improve QOL in cancer survivors. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has been shown to improve insomnia, but less is known regarding its effect on QOL and whether improvement in insomnia corresponds to improved QOL. The present analysis examines the effects of CBT-I, with and without armodafinil, on QOL both directly and indirectly through improvements of insomnia. METHODS: This is an analysis of 95 cancer survivors for a specified secondary aim of a four-arm randomized controlled trial assessing the combined and individual effects of CBT-I and armodafinil to improve insomnia. QOL and insomnia severity were assessed before, during the intervention, at post-intervention, and 3 months later by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and Insomnia Severity Index, respectively. RESULTS: Mean change in QOL from pre- to post-intervention for CBT-I + placebo, CBT-I + armodafinil, armodafinil, and placebo was 9.6 (SE = 1.8; p < 0.0001), 11.6 (SE = 1.8; p < 0.0001), -0.2 (SE = 3.2; p = 0.964), and 3.3 (SE = 2.0; p = 0.124), respectively. ANCOVA controlling for pre-intervention scores showed that participants receiving CBT-I had significantly improved QOL at post-intervention compared to those not receiving CBT-I (p < 0.0001, effect size = 0.57), with benefits being maintained at the 3-month follow-up. Path analysis revealed that this improvement in QOL was due to improvement in insomnia severity (p = 0.002), and Pearson correlations showed that changes in QOL from pre- to post-intervention were significantly associated with concurrent changes in insomnia severity (r = -0.56; p < 0.0001). Armodafinil had no effect on QOL for those who did or did not receive it (p = 0.976; effect size = -0.004). CONCLUSION: In cancer survivors with insomnia, CBT-I resulted in clinically significant improvement in QOL via improvement in insomnia. This improvement in QOL remained stable even 3 months after completing CBT-I. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Considering the high prevalence of insomnia and its detrimental impact on QOL in cancer survivors and the effectiveness of CBT-I in alleviating insomnia, it is important that evidence-based non-pharmacological sleep interventions such as CBT-I be provided as an integral part of cancer care.

Nausea and disturbed sleep as predictors of cancer-related fatigue in breast cancer patients: a multicenter NCORP study.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a prevalent and distressing side effect of cancer and its treatment that remains inadequately understood and poorly managed. A better understanding of the factors contributing to CRF could result in more effective strategies for the prevention and treatment of CRF. The objectives of this study were to examine the prevalence, severity, and potential predictors for the early onset of CRF after chemotherapy cycle 1 in breast cancer patients. METHODS: We report on a secondary data analysis of 548 female breast cancer patients from a phase III multi-center randomized controlled trial examining antiemetic efficacy. CRF was assessed by the Brief Fatigue Inventory at pre- and post-chemotherapy cycle 1 as well as by the four-day diary. RESULTS: The prevalence of clinically relevant post-CRF was 75%. Linear regression showed that pre-treatment CRF, greater nausea, disturbed sleep, and younger age were significant risk factors for post-CRF (adjusted R2 = 0.39; P < 0.0001). Path modeling showed that nausea severity influenced post-CRF both directly and indirectly by influencing disturbed sleep. Similarly, pre-treatment CRF influenced post-CRF directly as well as indirectly through both nausea severity and disturbed sleep. Pearson correlations showed that changes in CRF over time were significantly correlated with concurrent changes in nausea severity (r = 0.41; P < 0.0001) and in disturbed sleep (r = 0.20; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study showed a high prevalence (75%) of clinically relevant CRF in breast cancer patients following their initial chemotherapy, and that nausea severity, disturbed sleep, pre-treatment CRF, and age were significant predictors of symptom.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Anticipatory nausea and vomiting in children and adults receiving chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: We aimed to update the 2011 recommendations for the prevention and treatment of anticipatory nausea and vomiting in children and adults receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: The original systematic literature search was updated. Randomized studies were included in the evidence to support this guideline if they as follows: were primary studies published in a journal in full text (i.e., abstracts, letters, book chapters, and dissertations were excluded); published in English; evaluated an intervention for the prevention or treatment of anticipatory nausea and vomiting; reported the proportion of patients experiencing complete control of anticipatory nausea and vomiting consistently and; included at least ten participants per study arm for comparative studies and at least ten participants overall for noncomparative studies. RESULTS: Eighty-eight new citations were identified. Of these, nine were brought to full-text screening; none met inclusion criteria. The guideline panel continues to recommend that anticipatory nausea and vomiting are best prevented through optimization of acute and delayed phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control. Benzodiazepines and behavioral therapies, in particular progressive muscle relaxation training, systematic desensitization and hypnosis, continue to be recommended for the treatment of anticipatory nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: No new information regarding interventions aimed at treating or preventing ANV that met criteria for inclusion in this systematic review was identified. The 2015 MASCC recommendations affirm the content of the 2009 MASCC recommendations for the prevention and treatment of anticipatory nausea and vomiting.

Effects of armodafinil and cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia on sleep continuity and daytime sleepiness in cancer survivors.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: This study involves the analysis of a secondary outcome of a trial examining whether cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), a wake-promoting medication (armodafinil), or both results in greater improvement in prospectively assessed sleep continuity and daytime sleepiness than a placebo-alone group among a heterogeneous group of cancer survivors. Whether or not armodafinil alone, and/or when combined with CBT-I, affected adherence with CBT-I was evaluated. DESIGN: This study is a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. SETTING: This study was conducted at two northeastern academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-eight cancer survivors with chronic insomnia were recruited between October 2008 and November 2012. Participants were assigned to one of four conditions: 1) CBT-I and placebo (CBT-I+P); 2) CBT-I and armodafinil (CBT-I + A); 2) armodafinil alone (ARM); or 4) placebo alone (PLA). INTERVENTIONS: CBT-I was delivered in seven weekly individual therapy sessions (three in person, four via telephone). The armodafinil dosage was 50 mg BID. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Sleep continuity was measured with daily sleep diaries assessing sleep latency (SL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and total sleep time (TST). The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) measured daytime sleepiness. Compared to the PLA group, the CBT-I+P and CBT-I+A groups reported a significant reduction in SL with effect sizes of 0.67 and 0.58, respectively. A significant reduction was observed in WASO in the CBT-I+A group with an effect size of 0.64. An increasing trend of TST was observed in the CBT-I+P, CBT-I+A, and PLA groups, but not in the ARM group. No statistically significant reductions in daytime sleepiness (ESS) were observed for any of the groups. CONCLUSION: CBT-I alone and in combination with armodafinil caused significant improvement in sleep continuity. The addition of armodafinil did not appear to improve daytime sleepiness or enhance adherence to CBT-I.

Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, but not armodafinil, improves fatigue in cancer survivors with insomnia: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Fatigue is a prevalent, distressing side effect of cancer and cancer treatment which commonly coexists with insomnia. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has been shown to improve insomnia in cancer patients, but less is known about its ability to impact fatigue. This work is the analysis for a secondary aim of a four-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) study assessing the combined and comparative effect of CBT-I and a wakefulness-promoting agent, armodafinil (A), to improve sleep and daytime functioning in cancer survivors. Herein, we examine the effect of CBT-I, with and without A, on fatigue in cancer survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a four-arm factorial study with CBTI-I (yes/no) versus A (yes/no). It consisted of 96 cancer survivors (average age 56 years; 88 % female; 68 % breast cancer). Fatigue was assessed by the brief fatigue inventory (BFI) and the FACIT-Fatigue scale. The analysis assessed the additive effects of CBT-I and A and possible non-additive effects where the effect of CBT-I changes depending on the presence or absence of A. RESULTS: Analyses adjusting for baseline differences showed that CBT-I improved fatigue as measured by two separate scales (BFI: P = 0.002, Std. error = 0.32, effect size (ES) = 0.46; FACIT-Fatigue: P < 0.001, Std. error = 1.74, ES = 0.64). Armodafinil alone did not show a statistically significant effect on fatigue levels (all Ps > 0.40) nor did the drug influence the efficacy of CBT-I. Structural equation analysis revealed that reductions in insomnia severity were directly responsible for improving cancer-related fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: CBT-I with and without armodafinil resulted in a clinically and statistically significant reduction of subjective daytime fatigue in cancer survivors with chronic insomnia. Armodafinil did not improve cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and did not change the efficacy of CBT-I. Patients reporting CRF should be screened and, if indicated, treated for insomnia as part of a comprehensive fatigue management program.

Buspirone for management of dyspnea in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a randomized placebo-controlled URCC CCOP study.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related dyspnea is a common, distressing, and difficult-to-manage symptom in cancer patients, resulting in diminished quality of life and poor prognosis. Buspirone, a non-benzodiazepine anxiolytic which does not suppress respiration and has proven efficacy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, has been suggested to relieve the sensation of dyspnea in patients with COPD. The main objective of our study was to evaluate whether buspirone alleviates dyspnea in cancer patients. METHODS: We report on a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 432 patients (mean age 64, female 51%, lung cancer 62%) from 16 participating Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) sites with grade 2 or higher dyspnea, as assessed by the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. Dyspnea was assessed by the Oxygen Cost Diagram (OCD; higher scores are better) and anxiety by the state subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S; lower scores are better) at baseline and after the 4-week intervention (post-intervention). RESULTS: Mean scores from baseline to post-intervention for buspirone were OCD 8.7 to 9.0 and STAI-S 40.5 to 40.1 and for placebo were OCD 8.4 to 9.3 and STAI-S 40.9 to 38.6 with raw improvements over time on both measures being greater in the placebo group. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for baseline scores showed no statistically significant difference between groups for OCD (P = 0.052) or STAI-S (P = 0.062). CONCLUSION: Buspirone did not result in significant improvement in dyspnea or anxiety in cancer patients. Thus, buspirone should not be recommended as a pharmacological option for dyspnea in cancer patients.

Randomized placebo-controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy and armodafinil for insomnia after cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Insomnia is a distressing and often persisting consequence of cancer. Although cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the treatment of choice in the general population, the use of CBT-I in patients with cancer is complicated, because it can result in transient but substantial increases in daytime sleepiness. In this study, we evaluated whether CBT-I, in combination with the wakefulness-promoting agent armodafinil (A), results in better insomnia treatment outcomes in cancer survivors than CBT-I alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report on a randomized trial of 96 cancer survivors (mean age, 56 years; female, 87.5%; breast cancer, 68%). The primary analyses examined whether ≥ one of the 7-week intervention conditions (ie, CBT-I, A, or both), when compared with a placebo capsule (P) group, produced significantly greater clinical gains. Insomnia was assessed by the Insomnia Severity Index and sleep quality by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Inventory. All patients received sleep hygiene instructions. RESULTS: Analyses controlling for baseline differences showed that both the CBT-I plus A (P = .001) and CBT-I plus P (P = .010) groups had significantly greater reductions in insomnia severity postintervention than the P group, with effect sizes of 1.31 and 1.02, respectively. Similar improvements were seen for sleep quality. Gains on both measures persisted 3 months later. CBT-I plus A was not significantly different from CBT-I plus P (P = .421), and A alone was not significantly different from P alone (P = .584). CONCLUSION: CBT-I results in significant and durable improvements in insomnia and sleep quality. A did not significantly improve the efficacy of CBT-I or independently affect insomnia or sleep quality.

Anticipatory nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy.

As a specific variation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV) appears particularly linked to psychological processes. The three predominant factors related to ANV are classical conditioning; demographic and treatment-related factors; and anxiety or negative expectancies. Laboratory models have provided some support for these underlying mechanisms for ANV. ANV may be treated with medical or pharmacological interventions, including benzodiazepines and other psychotropic medications. However, behavioral treatments, including systematic desensitization, remain first line options for addressing ANV. Some complementary treatment approaches have shown promise in reducing ANV symptoms. Additional research into these approaches is needed. This review will address the underlying models of ANV and provide a discussion of these various treatment options.

Prevention of delayed nausea: a University of Rochester Cancer Center Community Clinical Oncology Program study of patients receiving chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: We conducted a double-blind randomized clinical trial of the following four regimens for controlling delayed nausea (DN): group 1: palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine on days 2 and 3; group 2: granisetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine on days 2 and 3; group 3: aprepitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with aprepitant + dexamethasone on days 2 and 3; and group 4: palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine + dexamethasone on days 2 and 3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients received doxorubicin, epirubicin, cisplatin, carboplatin, or oxaliplatin. The primary end point was average nausea assessed four times daily on days 2 and 3. Primary analyses were whether nausea control would be improved by using palonosetron versus granisetron on day 1 (group 1 v group 2); by adding dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (group 1 v group 4); and by using aprepitant versus prochlorperazine (group 3 v group 4). Statistical significance was set at P = .017. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-four, 234, 241, and 235 evaluable patients were accrued to groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Adjusted mean differences for the three planned analyses were as follows: palonosetron versus granisetron: -0.01 (95% CI, -0.23 to 0.20; P = .72); adding dexamethasone on days 2 and 3: 0.20 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.41; P = .01); and using aprepitant versus prochlorperazine: -0.03 (95% CI, -0.24 to 0.19; P = .56). CONCLUSION: The addition of dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 reduced DN. Palonosetron and granisetron have similar effects on DN. The beneficial effect of adding aprepitant for control of DN was the same as adding prochlorperazine.

Differential expression of cytokines in breast cancer patients receiving different chemotherapies: implications for cognitive impairment research.

PURPOSE: Altered levels of cytokines and chemokines may play a role in cancer- and cancer treatment-related cognitive difficulties. In many neurodegenerative diseases, abnormal concentrations of cytokines and chemokines affect neuronal integrity leading to cognitive impairments, but the role of cytokines in chemotherapy-related cognitive difficulties in cancer patients is not well understood. Patients receiving doxorubicin-based (with cyclophosphamide, or cyclophosphamide plus fluorouracil; AC/CAF) chemotherapy or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy report experiencing cognitive difficulties; because these regimens work by different modes of action, it is possible that they differentially affect cytokine levels. METHODS: This study examined the relationships between cytokine levels (i.e., IL-6, IL-8, and MCP-1) and type of chemotherapy among 54 early-stage breast cancer patients receiving AC/CAF or CMF. Cytokine levels were assessed at two time-points: prior to on-study chemotherapy cycle 2 (cycle 2) and after two consecutive chemotherapy cycles (prior to on-study cycle 4; cycle 4). MAIN RESULTS: Analyses of variance using cycle 2 levels as a covariate (ANCOVA) were used to determine differences between chemotherapy groups. Levels of IL-6, IL-8, and MCP-1 increased in the AC/CAF group and decreased in the CMF group; the only significant between-group change was in IL-6 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results, although preliminary based on the small sample size, suggest that AC/CAF chemotherapy is more cytokine inducing than CMF. Future studies should confirm these results and explore the distinct inflammatory responses elicited by different chemotherapy regimens when assessing cognitive function in cancer patients.

Ginger (Zingiber officinale) reduces acute chemotherapy-induced nausea: a URCC CCOP study of 576 patients.

PURPOSE: Despite the widespread use of antiemetics, nausea continues to be reported by over 70% of patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: In this double blind, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 744 cancer patients to four arms: 1) placebo, 2) 0.5 g ginger, 3) 1.0 g ginger, or 4) 1.5 g ginger. Nausea occurrence and severity were assessed at a baseline cycle and the two following cycles during which patients were taking their assigned study medication. All patients received a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist antiemetic on Day 1 of all cycles. Patients took three capsules of ginger (250 mg) or placebo twice daily for 6 days starting 3 days before the first day of chemotherapy. Patients reported the severity of nausea on a 7-point rating scale ("1" = "Not at all Nauseated" and "7" = "Extremely Nauseated") for Days 1-4 of each cycle. The primary outcomes were to determine the dose and efficacy of ginger at reducing the severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea on Day 1 of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 576 patients were included in final analysis (91% female, mean age = 53). Mixed model analyses demonstrated that all doses of ginger significantly reduced acute nausea severity compared to placebo on Day 1 of chemotherapy (p = 0.003). The largest reduction in nausea intensity occurred with 0.5 g and 1.0 g of ginger (p = 0.017 and p = 0.036, respectively). Anticipatory nausea was a key factor in acute chemotherapy-induced nausea (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Ginger supplementation at a daily dose of 0.5 g-1.0 g significantly aids in reduction of the severity of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea in adult cancer patients.

Few changes observed in polysomnographic-assessed sleep before and after completion of chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Sleep disturbance is prevalent among patients undergoing chemotherapy and is strongly associated with cancer-related fatigue (CRF). However, little objective evidence has been gathered on the patterns of sleep before and following chemotherapy. METHODS: Twenty-six patients scheduled to receive chemotherapy were recruited. Sleep parameters were assessed by in-lab polysomnography (PSG) for two consecutive nights prior to first chemotherapy, approximately 3weeks following the patients' last chemotherapy, and 3months following the last treatment. Fatigue was measured on the first night of each of the two-night PSG assessments. We focus on Slow-Wave Sleep (SWS) as we hypothesized that a decrease of this restorative phase of sleep might be implicated in CRF. RESULTS: Repeated-measures analyses examining changes from baseline to the later time points in the proportion of time asleep spent in each of the four sleep architecture stages (Stage 1, Stage 2, SWS, and REM sleep) were non-significant, all Ps>0.41. Canonical correlation analysis showed that the proportion of time spent in SWS was not significantly correlated with any of the three CRF measures at any of the three assessment points, P=0.28. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep architecture is not affected by cancer treatment. No evidence of an association between CRF and SWS, or alterations in SWS, was found.

Polarity Therapy for cancer-related fatigue in patients with breast cancer receiving radiation therapy: a randomized controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most frequently reported side effect of cancer and its treatment. In previous research, Polarity Therapy (PT), an energy therapy, was shown to reduce CRF in patients receiving radiation. This study reports on a small randomized clinical trial designed to collect preliminary data on the efficacy of PT compared with an active control (massage) and passive control (standard care) for CRF among cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. METHODS: Forty-five women undergoing radiation therapy for breast cancer were randomized to 1 of 3 weekly treatment conditions. Patients received standard clinical care, 3 modified massages, or 3 PT treatments. CRF and health-related quality of life (HRQL) were assessed during baseline and the 3 intervention weeks. RESULTS: TResults show CRF ratings were reduced after PT. The effect sizes for PT versus modified massage and versus standard care were small when using the primary measure of CRF (Brief Fatigue Inventory) and large when using the secondary measure of CRF (Daily CRF Diaries).The effect size was medium when assessing the benefit of PT on maintaining HRQL compared with standard care with very little difference between the PT and modified massage conditions. Patients' feedback showed that both the modified massage and PT treatments were deemed useful by radiation patients. CONCLUSION: The present pilot randomized clinical trial supports previous experimental research showing that PT, a noninvasive and gentle energy therapy, may be effective in controlling CRF. Further confirmatory studies as well as investigations of the possible mechanisms of PT are warranted.

Assessing self-efficacy for coping with cancer: development and psychometric analysis of the brief version of the Cancer Behavior Inventory (CBI-B).

OBJECTIVE: The Cancer Behavior Inventory-Brief Version (CBI-B), a 12-item measure of self-efficacy for coping with cancer derived from the longer 33-item version, was subjected to psychometric analysis. METHOD: Participants consisted of three samples: 735 cancer patients from a multicenter CCOP study, 199 from central Indiana, and 370 from a national sample. Samples were mixed with respect to initial cancer diagnosis. Participants completed the CBI-B and measures of quality of life, optimism, life satisfaction, depression, and sickness impact. RESULTS: Exploratory Factor Analysis with oblique rotation yielded four factors in the first sample: (1) Maintaining Independence and Positive Attitude; (2) Participating in Medical Care; (3) Coping and Stress Management; and (4) Managing Affect, which were confirmed in subsequent samples. Cronbach α coefficient for the 12-item CBI-B ranged from 0.84 to 0.88. Validity of the CBI-B was demonstrated by positive correlations with measures of quality of life and optimism, and negative correlations with measures of depression and sickness impact. CONCLUSION: The CBI-B is a valid brief measure of self-efficacy for coping that could be easily integrated into clinical oncology research and practice, and also used in screening patients.