PURPOSE: This study aimed at summarizing evidence about effects of psycho-behavioral interventions (PBIs) on immune responses among cancer patients and analyzing quality of published studies so as to inform future researches. METHODS: Literature retrieval utilized both highly inclusive algorithms searching randomized controlled studies published in English and Chinese and manual searching of eligible studies from references of relevant review papers. Two researchers examined the articles selected separately and extracted the information using a pre-designed form for soliciting data about the trials (e.g., sample size, disease status, intervention, immune responses) and quality ratings of the studies. Both narrative descriptions and meta-analysis (via Review manager 5) were used synthesizing the effects of PBIs on immune responses among cancer patients and state of art of the researches in this area. RESULTS: Seventy-six RCTs met inclusion criteria. PBIs implemented were divided into three major categories including psychological state adjustment, physical activity and dietary modification. Immune indicators measured included CD4+ cells, CD8+ cells, CD4/CDC8+ ratio, CD3+ cells, NK cell activity, etc. Effects of PBIs on immune responses documented in individual papers were mixed and pooled analysis of CD4+ cells, CD4+/CD8+ ratio, CD3+ cells, NKCA, IgG, IgM and IL-2 showed modest effects. However, there were huge discrepancies in intervention effects between studies published in English and Chinese and the results should be interpreted with caution. Besides, most studies suffer from some quality flaws concerning blinding, randomization procedures, compliance, attrition and intention-to-treat analyses, etc. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are considerable evidences of PBI effects on some immune indicators, the effect sizes are modest and it is still premature to conclude whether PBIs have effects on immune functions among cancer patients. There is a clear need for much more rigorous efforts in this area and future researches should pay particular attention to intervention dose and focus, sample size and comparable immune measures.
PURPOSE: This study aimed at summarizing evidence about effects of psycho-behavioral interventions (PBIs) on immune responses among cancerpatients and analyzing quality of published studies so as to inform future researches. METHODS: Literature retrieval utilized both highly inclusive algorithms searching randomized controlled studies published in English and Chinese and manual searching of eligible studies from references of relevant review papers. Two researchers examined the articles selected separately and extracted the information using a pre-designed form for soliciting data about the trials (e.g., sample size, disease status, intervention, immune responses) and quality ratings of the studies. Both narrative descriptions and meta-analysis (via Review manager 5) were used synthesizing the effects of PBIs on immune responses among cancerpatients and state of art of the researches in this area. RESULTS: Seventy-six RCTs met inclusion criteria. PBIs implemented were divided into three major categories including psychological state adjustment, physical activity and dietary modification. Immune indicators measured included CD4+ cells, CD8+ cells, CD4/CDC8+ ratio, CD3+ cells, NK cell activity, etc. Effects of PBIs on immune responses documented in individual papers were mixed and pooled analysis of CD4+ cells, CD4+/CD8+ ratio, CD3+ cells, NKCA, IgG, IgM and IL-2 showed modest effects. However, there were huge discrepancies in intervention effects between studies published in English and Chinese and the results should be interpreted with caution. Besides, most studies suffer from some quality flaws concerning blinding, randomization procedures, compliance, attrition and intention-to-treat analyses, etc. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are considerable evidences of PBI effects on some immune indicators, the effect sizes are modest and it is still premature to conclude whether PBIs have effects on immune functions among cancerpatients. There is a clear need for much more rigorous efforts in this area and future researches should pay particular attention to intervention dose and focus, sample size and comparable immune measures.
Authors: Dean Ornish; Gerdi Weidner; William R Fair; Ruth Marlin; Elaine B Pettengill; Caren J Raisin; Stacey Dunn-Emke; Lila Crutchfield; F Nicholas Jacobs; R James Barnard; William J Aronson; Patricia McCormac; Damien J McKnight; Jordan D Fein; Ann M Dnistrian; Jeanmaire Weinstein; Tung H Ngo; Nancy R Mendell; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michelle C Janelsins; Paul G Davis; Laurie Wideman; Jeffrey A Katula; Lisa K Sprod; Luke J Peppone; Oxana G Palesh; Charles E Heckler; Jacqueline P Williams; Gary R Morrow; Karen M Mustian Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Vicki S Conn; Adam R Hafdahl; Davina C Porock; Roxanne McDaniel; Paul J Nielsen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-01-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Hanne Würtzen; Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton; Peter Elsass; Antonia D Sumbundu; Marianne Steding-Jensen; Randi Valbjørn Karlsen; Klaus Kaae Andersen; Henrik L Flyger; Anne E Pedersen; Christoffer Johansen Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Rosario Costas-Muñiz; Olga Garduño-Ortega; Migda Hunter-Hernández; Jennifer Morales; Eida M Castro-Figueroa; Francesca Gany Journal: Am J Psychother Date: 2020-10-08