BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been associated with decrements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The objective of this study was to assess whether real acupuncture (RA), compared with sham acupuncture (SA), improves PROs in patients with breast cancer who are receiving an adjuvant AI. METHODS:Postmenopausal women with a stage 0 through III breast cancer who received an AI and had treatment-associated musculoskeletal symptoms were randomized to receive 8 weekly RA versus SA in a dual-center, randomized controlled trial. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) menopausal symptoms questionnaire, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CESD) scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the hot flash daily diary, the Hot Flash-Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDI), and the European quality-of-life survey (EuroQol) were used to assess PROs at baseline and at 4weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis included 23 patients in the RA arm and 24 patients in the SA arm. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Compared with baseline, scores in the RA arm improved significantly at week 8 on the CESD (P = .022), hot flash severity (P = .006), hot flash frequency (P = .011), the HFRDI (P = .014), and NSABP menopausal symptoms (P = .022); scores in the SA arm improved significantly on the EuroQol (P = .022),the HFRDI (P = .043), and NSABP menopausal symptoms (P = .005). Post-hoc analysis indicated that African American patients (n = 9) benefited more from RA than SA compared with non-African American patients (n = 38) in reducing hot flash severity (P < .001) and frequency (P < .001) scores. CONCLUSIONS: Both RA and SA were associated with improvement in PROs among patients with breast cancer who were receiving AIs, and no significant difference was detected between arms. Racial differences in response to acupuncture warrant further study.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been associated with decrements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The objective of this study was to assess whether real acupuncture (RA), compared with sham acupuncture (SA), improves PROs in patients with breast cancer who are receiving an adjuvant AI. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with a stage 0 through III breast cancer who received an AI and had treatment-associated musculoskeletal symptoms were randomized to receive 8 weekly RA versus SA in a dual-center, randomized controlled trial. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) menopausal symptoms questionnaire, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CESD) scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the hot flash daily diary, the Hot Flash-Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDI), and the European quality-of-life survey (EuroQol) were used to assess PROs at baseline and at 4weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis included 23 patients in the RA arm and 24 patients in the SA arm. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Compared with baseline, scores in the RA arm improved significantly at week 8 on the CESD (P = .022), hot flash severity (P = .006), hot flash frequency (P = .011), the HFRDI (P = .014), and NSABP menopausal symptoms (P = .022); scores in the SA arm improved significantly on the EuroQol (P = .022),the HFRDI (P = .043), and NSABP menopausal symptoms (P = .005). Post-hoc analysis indicated that African American patients (n = 9) benefited more from RA than SA compared with non-African American patients (n = 38) in reducing hot flash severity (P < .001) and frequency (P < .001) scores. CONCLUSIONS: Both RA and SA were associated with improvement in PROs among patients with breast cancer who were receiving AIs, and no significant difference was detected between arms. Racial differences in response to acupuncture warrant further study.
Authors: Harold J Burstein; Ann Alexis Prestrud; Jerome Seidenfeld; Holly Anderson; Thomas A Buchholz; Nancy E Davidson; Karen E Gelmon; Sharon H Giordano; Clifford A Hudis; Jennifer Malin; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Diana Rowden; Alexander J Solky; Maryfran R Sowers; Vered Stearns; Eric P Winer; Mark R Somerfield; Jennifer J Griggs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-07-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charles L Loprinzi; Jeff A Sloan; Edith A Perez; Susan K Quella; Phillip J Stella; James A Mailliard; Michele Y Halyard; Sandhya Pruthi; Paul J Novotny; Teresa A Rummans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R M Goldberg; C L Loprinzi; J R O'Fallon; M H Veeder; A W Miser; J A Mailliard; J C Michalak; A M Dose; K M Rowland; N L Burnham Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1994-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gary Deng; Andrew Vickers; Simon Yeung; Gabriella M D'Andrea; Han Xiao; Alexandra S Heerdt; Steven Sugarman; Tiffany Troso-Sandoval; Andrew D Seidman; Clifford A Hudis; Barrie Cassileth Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Zaborowska; J Brynhildsen; S Damberg; M Fredriksson; L Lindh-Astrand; E Nedstrand; Y Wyon; M Hammar Journal: Climacteric Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.005
Authors: Ting Bao; Ling Cai; Jon T Giles; Jeff Gould; Karineh Tarpinian; Kelly Betts; Michelle Medeiros; Stacie Jeter; Nancy Tait; Saranya Chumsri; Deborah K Armstrong; Ming Tan; Elizabeth Folkerd; Mitch Dowsett; Harvinder Singh; Kate Tkaczuk; Vered Stearns Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Brian Hutton; Mona Hersi; Wei Cheng; Misty Pratt; Pauline Barbeau; Sasha Mazzarello; Nadera Ahmadzai; Becky Skidmore; Scott C Morgan; Louise Bordeleau; Pamela K Ginex; Behnam Sadeghirad; Rebecca L Morgan; Katherine Marie Cole; Mark Clemons Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: M Kay Garcia; Jennifer McQuade; Richard Lee; Robin Haddad; Michael Spano; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Claire Johns; Susan M Seav; Sally A Dominick; Jessica R Gorman; Hongying Li; Loki Natarajan; Jun James Mao; H Irene Su Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-03-26 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha Cohen; Gary Deng; Dawn Hershman; Matthew Mumber; Jane Perlmutter; Dugald Seely; Ananda Sen; Suzanna M Zick; Debu Tripathy Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2014-11
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Melissa J DuPont-Reyes; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha R Cohen; Gary Deng; Jillian A Johnson; Matthew Mumber; Dugald Seely; Suzanna M Zick; Lindsay M Boyce; Debu Tripathy Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: M Kay Garcia; Leslie Graham-Getty; Robin Haddad; Yisheng Li; Jennifer McQuade; Richard T Lee; Michael Spano; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 6.860