Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Support Care Cancer ; 27(12): 4597-4605, 2019 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30929028

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Acupressure/methods , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Music Therapy/methods , Nausea/prevention & control , Vomiting/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Antiemetics/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Nausea/chemically induced , Relaxation , Vomiting/chemically induced , Young Adult
2.
Breast Cancer Res Treat ; 150(3): 597-604, 2015 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25814054

ABSTRACT

Up to 50% of breast cancer survivors on aromatase inhibitor therapy report musculoskeletal symptoms such as joint and muscle pain, significantly impacting treatment adherence and discontinuation rates. We conducted a secondary data analysis of a nationwide, multi-site, phase II/III randomized, controlled, clinical trial examining the efficacy of yoga for improving musculoskeletal symptoms among breast cancer survivors currently receiving hormone therapy (aromatase inhibitors [AI] or tamoxifen [TAM]). Breast cancer survivors currently receiving AI (N = 95) or TAM (N = 72) with no participation in yoga during the previous 3 months were randomized into 2 arms: (1) standard care monitoring and (2) standard care plus the 4-week yoga intervention (2x/week; 75 min/session) and included in this analysis. The yoga intervention utilized the UR Yoga for Cancer Survivors (YOCAS©(®)) program consisting of breathing exercises, 18 gentle Hatha and restorative yoga postures, and meditation. Musculoskeletal symptoms were assessed pre- and post-intervention. At baseline, AI users reported higher levels of general pain, muscle aches, and total physical discomfort than TAM users (all P ≤ 0.05). Among all breast cancer survivors on hormonal therapy, participants in the yoga group demonstrated greater reductions in musculoskeletal symptoms such as general pain, muscle aches and total physical discomfort from pre- to post-intervention than the control group (all P ≤ 0.05). The severity of musculoskeletal symptoms was higher for AI users compared to TAM users. Among breast cancer survivors on hormone therapy, the brief community-based YOCAS©® intervention significantly reduced general pain, muscle aches, and physical discomfort.


Subject(s)
Aromatase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Musculoskeletal Diseases/therapy , Tamoxifen/adverse effects , Yoga , Aromatase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Breast Neoplasms/complications , Clinical Trials as Topic , Female , Humans , Karnofsky Performance Status , Middle Aged , Musculoskeletal Diseases/chemically induced , Survivors , Tamoxifen/therapeutic use
3.
Clin Cancer Res ; 19(10): 2745-54, 2013 May 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23444220

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We assessed adding the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib to gemcitabine or capecitabine in patients with advanced breast cancer whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase IIb study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00493636) enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer and prior bevacizumab treatment. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy with sorafenib (400 mg, twice daily) or matching placebo. Initially, chemotherapy was gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) i.v., days 1, 8/21), but later, capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, days 1-14/21) was allowed as an alternative. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized. More patients received gemcitabine (82.5%) than capecitabine (17.5%). Sorafenib plus gemcitabine/capecitabine was associated with a statistically significant prolongation in PFS versus placebo plus gemcitabine/capecitabine [3.4 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.95; P = 0.02], time to progression was increased (median, 3.6 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.93; P = 0.02), and overall response rate was 19.8% versus 12.7% (P = 0.23). Median survival was 13.4 versus 11.4 months for sorafenib versus placebo (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.71-1.44; P = 0.95). Addition of sorafenib versus placebo increased grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reaction (39% vs. 5%), stomatitis (10% vs. 0%), fatigue (18% vs. 9%), and dose reductions that were more frequent (51.9% vs. 7.8%). CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine/capecitabine provided a clinically small but statistically significant PFS benefit in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. Combination treatment was associated with manageable toxicities but frequently required dose reductions.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Bevacizumab , Breast Neoplasms/metabolism , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Capecitabine , Deoxycytidine/administration & dosage , Deoxycytidine/adverse effects , Deoxycytidine/analogs & derivatives , Disease Progression , Disease-Free Survival , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Drug Administration Schedule , Fatigue/chemically induced , Female , Fluorouracil/administration & dosage , Fluorouracil/adverse effects , Fluorouracil/analogs & derivatives , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Middle Aged , Niacinamide/administration & dosage , Niacinamide/adverse effects , Niacinamide/analogs & derivatives , Phenylurea Compounds/administration & dosage , Phenylurea Compounds/adverse effects , Receptor, ErbB-2/metabolism , Skin Diseases/chemically induced , Sorafenib , Stomatitis/chemically induced , Treatment Outcome , Gemcitabine
4.
Support Care Cancer ; 13(10): 806-11, 2005 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15711946

ABSTRACT

GOALS OF WORK: To assess complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies being utilized by cancer patients during treatment and communication about CAM usage between the patient and physician. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy were recruited to complete a CAM survey within 2 weeks after the termination of treatment. Patients were queried on which CAM modalities they utilized and whether or not they were discussed with either their oncologist or primary care physician. MAIN RESULTS: Of the patients surveyed, 91% reported using at least one form of CAM. The most widely used forms of CAM were prayer, relaxation and exercise. CAM users tended to be women chemotherapy patients with at least a high school education. Of the patients using CAM, 57% discussed the use of at least one of these therapies with their oncologist or primary care physician. The most frequent CAM modalities discussed with at least one physician were diets, massage, and herbal medicine. CONCLUSIONS: An overwhelming proportion of cancer patients are using CAM, particularly prayer, relaxation, and exercise. However, patients may not discuss the use of CAMs at all or fully with their physician; if they do, it is most likely to be their oncologist, but not about the most frequently used CAMs. Future research needs to assess effective ways for oncologists to gather information about CAM usage by patients during allopathic treatment and discern ways these therapies may enhance or interfere with traditional cancer treatments.


Subject(s)
Complementary Therapies/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Physician-Patient Relations , Quality of Life , Retrospective Studies , United States
5.
J Pain Symptom Manage ; 26(2): 731-42, 2003 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12906958

ABSTRACT

As an adjunct to standard antiemetics for the relief of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (NV), 739 patients were randomly assigned to either: 1) acupressure bands, 2) an acustimulation band, or 3) a no band control condition. Patients in the acupressure condition experienced less nausea on the day of treatment compared to controls (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in delayed nausea or vomiting among the three treatment conditions. Additional analyses revealed pronounced gender differences. Men in the acustimulation condition, but not the acupressure condition, had less NV compared to controls (P<0.05). No significant differences among the three treatment conditions were observed in women, although the reduction in nausea on the day of treatment in the acupressure, compared to the no band condition, closely approached statistical significance (P=0.052). Expected efficacy of the bands was related to outcomes for the acupressure but not the acustimulation conditions.


Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers , Acupressure , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Community Health Centers , Nausea/chemically induced , Nausea/therapy , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Physical Stimulation , Vomiting/chemically induced , Vomiting/therapy , Female , Humans , Male
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL