BACKGROUND: Excess weight is a strong predictor of incident breast cancer (BC) and survivorship. A limited number of studies comparing strategies for promoting successful weight loss in women with remitted BC exist. PURPOSE: CASTLE was a pilot study comparing the effectiveness/feasibility of in-person and telephonic behavioral-based lifestyle weight loss interventions in BC survivors. METHOD: Fifty-two overweight/obese women (BMI = 25-45 kg/m(2)) with remitted BC (stages I-IIIa) who recently completed cancer treatment were assigned to either an in-person group (n = 24) or an individual telephone-based condition (n = 11). Both interventions focused on increasing physical activity and reducing caloric intake. The phase I intervention lasted 6 months. The in-person condition received 16 group-based sessions, and the telephone condition received intervention calls approximately weekly. Phase II lasted 6 months (e.g., months 6-12), and all participants received monthly intervention calls via telephone. RESULTS:Participants were predominately Caucasian (80 %) with a mean age of 52.8 (8.0) years and BMI of 31.9 (5.4) kg/m(2). Mixed models ANOVAs showed significant within group weight loss after 6 months for both the in-person (-3.3 kg ± 4.4, p = 0.002) and the telephonic (-4.0 kg ± 6.0, p = 0.01) conditions with no between group differences. During phase II, the in-person group demonstrated significant weight regain (1.3 kg ± 1.7, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Our pilot study findings demonstrated that telephone-based behavioral weight loss programs are effective and feasible in BC survivors and that telephonic programs may have advantages in promoting weight loss maintenance.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Excess weight is a strong predictor of incident breast cancer (BC) and survivorship. A limited number of studies comparing strategies for promoting successful weight loss in women with remitted BC exist. PURPOSE: CASTLE was a pilot study comparing the effectiveness/feasibility of in-person and telephonic behavioral-based lifestyle weight loss interventions in BC survivors. METHOD: Fifty-two overweight/obesewomen (BMI = 25-45 kg/m(2)) with remitted BC (stages I-IIIa) who recently completed cancer treatment were assigned to either an in-person group (n = 24) or an individual telephone-based condition (n = 11). Both interventions focused on increasing physical activity and reducing caloric intake. The phase I intervention lasted 6 months. The in-person condition received 16 group-based sessions, and the telephone condition received intervention calls approximately weekly. Phase II lasted 6 months (e.g., months 6-12), and all participants received monthly intervention calls via telephone. RESULTS:Participants were predominately Caucasian (80 %) with a mean age of 52.8 (8.0) years and BMI of 31.9 (5.4) kg/m(2). Mixed models ANOVAs showed significant within group weight loss after 6 months for both the in-person (-3.3 kg ± 4.4, p = 0.002) and the telephonic (-4.0 kg ± 6.0, p = 0.01) conditions with no between group differences. During phase II, the in-person group demonstrated significant weight regain (1.3 kg ± 1.7, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Our pilot study findings demonstrated that telephone-based behavioral weight loss programs are effective and feasible in BC survivors and that telephonic programs may have advantages in promoting weight loss maintenance.
Authors: Karen E Foster-Schubert; Catherine M Alfano; Catherine R Duggan; Liren Xiao; Kristin L Campbell; Angela Kong; Carolyn E Bain; Ching-Yun Wang; George L Blackburn; Anne McTiernan Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Judith E Neter; Bianca E Stam; Frans J Kok; Diederick E Grobbee; Johanna M Geleijnse Journal: Hypertension Date: 2003-09-15 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Zora Djuric; Nora M DiLaura; Isabella Jenkins; Linda Darga; Catherine K-L Jen; Darlene Mood; Ellen Bradley; William M Hryniuk Journal: Obes Res Date: 2002-07
Authors: Barbara Sternfeld; Erin Weltzien; Charles P Quesenberry; Adrienne L Castillo; Marilyn Kwan; Martha L Slattery; Bette J Caan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Amy M Berkman; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Kim Dittus; Vicki Hart; Christine M Vatovec; John G King; Ted A James; Susan G Lakoski; Brian L Sprague Journal: Prev Med Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Marina M Reeves; Caroline O Terranova; Jane M Erickson; Jennifer R Job; Denise S K Brookes; Nicole McCarthy; Ingrid J Hickman; Sheleigh P Lawler; Brianna S Fjeldsoe; Genevieve N Healy; Elisabeth A H Winkler; Monika Janda; J Lennert Veerman; Robert S Ware; Johannes B Prins; Theo Vos; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Elizabeth G Eakin Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Kathryn H Schmitz; Catherine M Alfano; Jennifer R Bail; Pamela J Goodwin; Cynthia A Thomson; Don W Bradley; Kerry S Courneya; Christie A Befort; Crystal S Denlinger; Jennifer A Ligibel; William H Dietz; Melinda R Stolley; Melinda L Irwin; Marcas M Bamman; Caroline M Apovian; Bernardine M Pinto; Kathleen Y Wolin; Rachel M Ballard; Andrew J Dannenberg; Elizabeth G Eakin; Matt M Longjohn; Susan D Raffa; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Joanne S Buzaglo; Sharyl J Nass; Greta M Massetti; Erin P Balogh; Elizabeth S Kraft; Anand K Parekh; Darshak M Sanghavi; G Stephen Morris; Karen Basen-Engquist Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 508.702