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.

Integrative Oncology Care of Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression in Adults With Cancer: Society for Integrative Oncology-ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to health care providers on integrative approaches to managing anxiety and depression symptoms in adults living with cancer. METHODS: The Society for Integrative Oncology and ASCO convened an expert panel of integrative oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative oncology, social sciences, mind-body medicine, nursing, methodology, and patient advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2023. Outcomes of interest included anxiety or depression symptoms as measured by validated psychometric tools, and adverse events. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus with the Guidelines into Decision Support methodology to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 110 relevant studies (30 systematic reviews and 80 randomized controlled trials) to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations were made for mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), yoga, relaxation, music therapy, reflexology, and aromatherapy (using inhalation) for treating symptoms of anxiety during active treatment; and MBIs, yoga, acupuncture, tai chi and/or qigong, and reflexology for treating anxiety symptoms after cancer treatment. For depression symptoms, MBIs, yoga, music therapy, relaxation, and reflexology were recommended during treatment, and MBIs, yoga, and tai chi and/or qigong were recommended post-treatment. DISCUSSION: Issues of patient-health care provider communication, health disparities, comorbid medical conditions, cost implications, guideline implementation, provider training and credentialing, and quality assurance of natural health products are discussed. While several approaches such as MBIs and yoga appear effective, limitations of the evidence base including assessment of risk of bias, nonstandardization of therapies, lack of diversity in study samples, and lack of active control conditions as well as future research directions are discussed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

How to Make Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine a Part of Everyday Oncology Practice.

Integrativety oncology (IO) is a "patient-centered, evidence-informed field of comprehensive cancer care that utilizes mind-body practices, natural products, and lifestyle modifications from different traditions alongside conventional cancer treatments." There is an urgent need to educate oncology health care providers on the fundamentals of evidence-based IO to meet the needs of people with cancer. In this chapter, we aim to provide oncology professionals with actionable guidance on the basis of the Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO)-American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on integrative medicine use during oncology visits to help alleviate symptoms and side effects in people with cancer during and after treatment.

Recent Progress in Mind-Body Therapies in Cancer Care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mind-body therapies (MBTs) are integrative medicine modalities that continue to grow in popularity among people with cancer. MBTs are used to enhance well-being and most commonly include relaxation and imagery, hypnosis, yoga, meditation, Tai Chi and Qigong, and creative therapies. Biofield and psychedelic-assisted therapies are also gaining momentum as MBTs. Herein, recent literature was narratively reviewed to summarize the effectiveness of these MBTs within the context of cancer care. RECENT FINDINGS: There is growing evidence for the effectiveness of MBTs for addressing a myriad of physical (e.g., pain) and psychosocial (e.g., depression, fatigue) symptoms and biomarkers of stress and immune function in people with cancer. Psychedelic-assisted therapies have robust, sustained effects on symptoms of depression, anxiety, and distress in small clinical trials to date. However, across modalities, MBT studies continue to struggle with methodological issues such as intervention standardization, facilitator training, small sample sizes, and short follow-up. Accumulating evidence supports the use of MBTs for people with cancer. Future research should work to address methodological issues and focus on creating knowledge translation tools; these can be leveraged to better educate health care providers and patients regarding evidence-based MBT options to support patients in making informed decisions about their health.

Psychosocial and Integrative Oncology: Interventions Across the Disease Trajectory.

This article provides an overview of the fields of psychosocial and integrative oncology, highlighting common psychological reactions to being diagnosed with and treated for cancer, including distress, anxiety, depression, fear of cancer recurrence and caregiver burden, as well as symptoms of fatigue, pain, and sleep disturbance. Patterns of symptomatology across the disease continuum are also discussed. Interventions targeted at treating these symptoms are reviewed, including acceptance-based and mindfulness therapies, mind-body therapies, and meaning-based approaches designed for people with advanced stages of disease, including psychedelic therapy. Common methodological issues and shortcomings of the evidence base are summarized with design recommendations, and a discussion of trends in future research including pragmatic research design, digital health interventions, and implementation science completes the article.

The Chemo-Gut Study: A Cross-Sectional Survey Exploring Physical, Mental, and Gastrointestinal Health Outcomes in Cancer Survivors.

Background: Cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, may adversely affect gastrointestinal (GI), physical and mental health in survivors of cancer. Objective: This study investigated associations between GI, mental and physical health outcomes, and cancer treatment-related variables, such as chemotherapy, in adult cancer survivors. Methods: A one-time cross-sectional survey with patient-reported outcomes was used. Cancer survivors (N = 317) aged ≥18 years, living in Canada, who completed cancer treatments were included. Descriptive statistics, correlation, and linear regression analyses are reported. Results: Mean age at diagnosis was 40.90 ± 15.40 years. Most survivors received chemotherapy (86.1%). Persistent GI symptoms include constipation (53.6%), diarrhea (50.5%), and bloating/pain (54.9%). Mean GI symptom duration was 30.53 ± 33.42 months. Severity of GI symptom interference was moderate to extreme for 51.9% of survivors. Compared to normative values of 50 in healthy people, survivors scored poorer for mental health (M = 42.72 ± 8.16) and physical health (M = 45.55 ± 7.93), and reported more belly pain (M = 56.10 ± 8.58), constipation (M = 54.38 ± 6.81), diarrhea (M = 55.69 ± 6.77), and gas/bloating (M = 56.08 ± 8.12). Greater GI symptom severity was associated with poorer mental and physical health (P < .01). Chemotherapy was associated with increased belly pain (B = 4.83, SE = 1.65, P < .01) and gas/bloating (B = 3.06, SE = 1.45, P = .04). Conclusion: We provide novel evidence that many cancer survivors experience chronic, moderate to severe GI symptoms lasting for years after cancer treatment, which are associated with worse mental and physical health. Chemotherapy is associated with specific GI symptoms. Integrative therapies are needed to address GI symptoms in cancer survivors.

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 ACTION Centre as a Model for Patient Engagement and Knowledge Translation in Integrative Oncology Practice, Training, and Research.

Integrative Oncology (IO) programs are increasingly emerging at cancer centers and universities worldwide; often these include some combination of clinical service, research, and/or training. However, one gap that often occurs is in moving research results into practice, due to complexities and differences between research and service delivery models and priorities. We recently created the ACTION (Alberta Complementary Therapy and Integrative Oncology) Centre with the goal of partnering with the provincial public health service to promote and facilitate evidence-based integrative oncology care throughout Alberta. The Centre bridges the silos of academia and clinical care by embodying 3 core principles, to be (1) Patient-oriented, (2) Collaborative, and (3) Evidence-based. The ACTION Centre oversees the implementation of clinical research and academic training, and supports the development of clinical services, as well as patient and provider education. The ACTION Centre has five components which include: (1) Patient and healthcare provider education; (2) Individualized IO consultation and treatment planning; (3) Supporting access to complementary therapies; (4) Clinical trials of IO interventions, and; (5) Student training through the TRACTION (Training in Clinical Trials and Integrative Oncology) program. We offer this model of shareholder collaboration in the hopes that other IO programs may be able to use it as a template to further their own progress, working collaboratively toward the ultimate goal of advancing evidence-based, comprehensive, integrative healthcare to improve the lives of people affected by cancer.

Cancer-Related Fatigue Outcome Measures in Integrative Oncology: Evidence for Practice and Research Recommendations.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most common symptoms across the cancer continuum and is often underreported and undertreated. Defined as a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer or its treatment, CRF includes physical, emotional, cognitive, and spiritual dimensions. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the most widely used tool to screen for and assess fatigue and the associated negative impacts on quality of life. However, selecting subjective CRF measures can be complex. This has resulted in the availability of and inconsistent use of numerous PROs, limiting the ability to cross-compare outcomes clinically and within research. To address this, the PROs that are most widely reported in the literature are recommended to support the standardization of a core set of validated measures. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network single-item tool for clinical significance is recommended for quick use in clinical environments; the Brief Fatigue Inventory allows for fast, easy, helpful cutoffs on severity threshold for triage, and measures both severity and interference with daily functioning; while the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory allows for multisymptomatic assessment. In addition, a fundamental consideration for any PRO use is the administrative burden on the patient and clinician. In this review, we aim to summarize current, validated PROs specific to CRF to aid clinicians and researchers in patient care and in study design and implementation. We conclude with suggestions for future directions in CRF research that can increase the possibility for long-term impact on future guidelines of fatigue management.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Online Learning Intervention for Oncology Healthcare Providers: A Mixed-Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: With the increased usage of complementary approaches in oncology comes the need for its integration into healthcare professional (HCP) education. The purpose of this single-arm, mixed-methods study was to examine the feasibility and benefits of a brief complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) learning intervention for improving HCP knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding CAM use in cancer care, and explore the experiences of participating HCPs. METHODS: HCPs from the Tom Baker Cancer Centre in Alberta, Canada, were invited to participate in 3 online interactive learning modules that reviewed: (1) basic CAM information, (2) HCP-patient CAM communication, and (3) evidence-based CAM decision support. The study survey consisted of attitude (n = 14), knowledge (n = 31), and practice (n = 31) items, administered at baseline and two-months post-intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of participants. RESULTS: Approximately 300 HCPs were invited to participate, of which 105 expressed interest in the study (35%), and 83 of them consented to participate (79%). The intervention completion rate was 73% (61/83 HCPs). There was a significant pre-post change in HCPs' attitudes and, to a lesser extent, knowledge and practices related to CAM (8/14 attitude items changed pre-post compared to 13/31 knowledge items and 5/31 practice items), in which more HCPs reported patients should be assisted in making complementary therapy (CT) decisions, exhibited greater knowledge about CAM, and more often engaged in a CAM-related clinical practice. Qualitative findings supported the beneficial effects of the modules, with HCPs describing themselves as being more likely to ask patients about their CAM use and referring them to credible CAM resources. Nonetheless, the majority did not feel adequately prepared to make recommendations about specific CTs, even after the intervention. CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that online CAM learning offers a feasible and potentially promising intervention for improving oncology HCP knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding CAM, warranting further investigation. This study highlights a need for institutional resources to help HCPs fully integrate CT decision support into cancer patient care. A coordinated evidence-based CAM program at cancer centers may help ensure that all patients' CAM-related needs are properly attended to.

The modulatory role of internet-supported mindfulness-based cognitive therapy on extracellular vesicles and psychological distress in people who have had cancer: a protocol for a two-armed randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been used in oncology contexts as a promising tool with numerous benefits for various health-related and psychosocial outcomes. Despite the increasing popularity of MBIs, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined their effects upon biological parameters. Specifically, no previous study has examined the effects of MBIs on extracellular vesicles (EVs), which are potentially important markers of health, disease, and stress. Moreover, the lack of RCTs is even more limited within the context of technology-mediated MBIs and long-term effects. METHODS: The current study protocol presents a two-arm, parallel, randomized controlled study investigating the effects of internet-supported mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Primary outcomes are psychological distress and EV cargo of distressed participants with previous breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer diagnoses. Secondary outcomes are self-reported psychosocial and health-related measures, and additional biological markers. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 4 weeks after baseline (mid-point of the intervention), 8 weeks after baseline (immediately post-intervention), 24 weeks after baseline (after booster sessions), and 52 weeks after baseline. Our goal is to recruit at least 111 participants who have been diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer (cancer stage I to III), are between 18 and 65 years old, and have had primary cancer treatments completed between 3 months and 5 years ago. Half of the participants will be randomized to the TAU group, and the other half will participate in an 8-week online MBCT intervention with weekly group sessions via videoconference. The intervention also includes asynchronous homework, an online retreat after the fifth week, and 4 monthly booster sessions after completion of the 8-week programme. DISCUSSION: This study will allow characterizing the effects of internet-based MBCT on psychosocial and biological indicators in the context of cancer. The effects on circulating EVs will also be investigated, as a possible neurobiological pathway underlying mind-body intervention effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04727593 (date of registration: 27 January 2021; date of record verification: 6 October 2021).

Education Competencies for Integrative Oncology-Results of a Systematic Review and an International and Interprofessional Consensus Procedure.

Integrative oncology is a burgeoning field and typically provided by a multiprofessional team. To ensure cancer patients receive effective, appropriate, and safe care, health professionals providing integrative cancer care should have a certain set of competencies. The aim of this project was to define core competencies for different health professions involved in integrative oncology. The project consisted of two phases. A systematic literature review on published competencies was performed, and the results informed an international and interprofessional consensus procedure. The second phase consisted of three rounds of consensus procedure and included 28 experts representing 7 different professions (medical doctors, psychologists, nurses, naturopathic doctors, traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, yoga practitioners, patient navigators) as well as patient advocates, public health experts, and members of the Society for Integrative Oncology. A total of 40 integrative medicine competencies were identified in the literature review. These were further complemented by 18 core oncology competencies. The final round of the consensus procedure yielded 37 core competencies in the following categories: knowledge (n = 11), skills (n = 17), and abilities (n = 9). There was an agreement that these competencies are relevant for all participating professions. The integrative oncology core competencies combine both fundamental oncology knowledge and integrative medicine competencies that are necessary to provide effective and safe integrative oncology care for cancer patients. They can be used as a starting point for developing profession-specific learning objectives and to establish integrative oncology education and training programs to meet the needs of cancer patients and health professionals.

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.

Tai Chi for cancer survivors: A systematic review toward consensus-based guidelines.

To manage acute, long-term, and late effects of cancer, current guidelines recommend moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic and resistance exercise. Unfortunately, not all cancer survivors are able or willing to perform higher intensity exercise during difficult cancer treatments or because of other existing health conditions. Tai Chi is an equipment-free, multicomponent mind-body exercise performed at light-to-moderate intensity that may provide a more feasible alternative to traditional exercise programs for some cancer survivors. This systematic review evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of Tai Chi across the cancer care continuum. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, and CINAHL databases for interventional studies from inception to 18 September 2020. Controlled trials of the effects of Tai Chi training on patient-reported and objectively measured outcomes in cancer survivors were included. Study quality was determined by the RoB 2 tool, and effect estimates were evaluated using the Best Evidence Synthesis approach. Twenty-six reports from 14 trials (one non-randomized controlled trial) conducted during (n = 5) and after treatment (after surgery: n = 2; after other treatments: n = 7) were included. Low-level evidence emerged to support the benefits of 40-60 min of thrice-weekly supervised Tai Chi for 8-12 weeks to improve fatigue and sleep quality in cancer survivors. These findings need to be confirmed in larger trials and tested for scaling-up potential. Insufficient evidence was available to evaluate the effects of Tai Chi on other cancer-related outcomes. Future research should examine whether Tai Chi training can improve a broader range of cancer outcomes including during the pre-treatment and end of life phases.

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.

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.

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.