Dietary Supplement Use among Older Cancer Survivors: Socio-Demographic Associations, Supplement Types, Reasons for Use, and Cost.

Most Americans take dietary supplements (DSs) and use is even higher among cancer survivors. This secondary analysis seeks to identify types, reasons, and costs of supplements used by 367 older cancer survivors enrolled in the Harvest for Health vegetable gardening trial and evaluate associations between supplement intake and medical/socio-demographic factors. Descriptive statistics were used to identify supplement type and reasons for use. Average market price was used to estimate cost. Fifty-nine percent of the sample reported supplement use. Female (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35-3.30), non-Hispanic White (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.05-3.0), and breast and gynecological survivors (OR 1.57, 1.03-2.38) were significantly more likely to report DS use compared to males, minorities, and survivors of other cancers. Use of vitamins (39%), multivitamins (23%), and minerals (12%) were the most prevalent. Commonly reported reasons for supplement use were to improve general health (47%) or treat medical conditions (39%) and cancer-related symptoms (12%). DSs daily costs ranged from USD 0.02 to 19.81, with a mean of USD 1.28 ± 1.74, a median of USD 0.78, and a mode of USD 0.34. DS use is prevalent among older cancer survivors, with overall health reported as the leading reason for use. Out-of-pocket recurrent costs can be substantial and underscore the need to promote a nutrient-rich diet whenever possible in this vulnerable population.

Prospective feasibility study of a mindfulness-based program for breast cancer patients in the southeastern US.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness interventions can improve psychological distress and quality of life (QoL) in cancer survivors. Few mindfulness programs for cancer recovery exist in Southeastern U.S. The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of a modified mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program for breast cancer patients in Birmingham, Alabama. The secondary objective was to explore potential program effects on mindfulness skills and QoL. METHODS: This study was a prospective, quasi-experimental feasibility study conducted over 10 months at a university hospital. Feasibility was achieved if 80% of eligible patients screened enrolled in the study and 70% of enrolled patients attended all 8 program sessions. Effectiveness was estimated by changes in mindfulness and QoL indicators measured with validated scales administered at 3 time points and assessed with a non-parametric Friedman test. Sessions included meditation, yoga, and an attention practice called body scan. There were 3 groups of 2-5 patients. RESULTS: The sample totaled 12 patients. Forty-four percent (12/27) of eligible patients enrolled in the study, and two out of 12 enrolled patients completed 8 program sessions, resulting in 16.7% (2/12) retention. However, more than half (66.7%) of participants completed at least 7 sessions. Between baseline and 8-week follow-up, patients demonstrated statistically significant improvements in distress, general wellbeing, and fatigue-related QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Feasibility objectives were not achieved. However, a majority of participants (66.7%) completed 7 of 8 program sessions. Program effects were promising for distress, fatigue, and wellbeing. Results warrant further research on MBSR-like programs for breast cancer patients in Alabama.

Rationale and Methods for a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Dyadic, Web-Based, Weight Loss Intervention among Cancer Survivors and Partners: The DUET Study.

Scalable, effective interventions are needed to address poor diet, insufficient physical activity, and obesity amongst rising numbers of cancer survivors. Interventions targeting survivors and their friends and family may promote both tertiary and primary prevention. The design, rationale, and enrollment of an ongoing randomized controlled trial (RCT) (NCT04132219) to test a web-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors and their supportive partners are described, along with the characteristics of the sample recruited. This two-arm, single-blinded RCT randomly assigns 56 dyads (cancer survivor and partner, both with obesity, poor diets, and physical inactivity) to the six-month DUET intervention vs. wait-list control. Intervention delivery and assessment are remotely performed with 0-6 month, between-arm tests comparing body weight status (primary outcome), and secondary outcomes (waist circumference, health indices, and biomarkers of glucose homeostasis, lipid regulation and inflammation). Despite COVID-19, targeted accrual was achieved within 9 months. Not having Internet access was a rare exclusion (<2%). Inability to identify a support partner precluded enrollment of 42% of interested/eligible survivors. The enrolled sample is diverse: ages 23-81 and 38% racial/ethnic minorities. Results support the accessibility and appeal of web-based lifestyle interventions for cancer survivors, though some cancer survivors struggled to enlist support partners and may require alternative strategies.