Charles E Heckler1, Sheila N Garland2, Anita R Peoples3, Michael L Perlis4, Michelle Shayne3, Gary R Morrow3, Charles Kamen3, Jenine Hoefler3, Joseph A Roscoe3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Rochester James P. Wilmot Cancer Center, 265 Crittenden Blvd. CU 420658, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. Charles_Heckler@urmc.rochester.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Rochester James P. Wilmot Cancer Center, 265 Crittenden Blvd. CU 420658, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, Suite 670, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fatigue is a prevalent, distressing side effect of cancer and cancer treatment which commonly coexists with insomnia. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has been shown to improve insomnia in cancer patients, but less is known about its ability to impact fatigue. This work is the analysis for a secondary aim of a four-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) study assessing the combined and comparative effect of CBT-I and a wakefulness-promoting agent, armodafinil (A), to improve sleep and daytime functioning in cancer survivors. Herein, we examine the effect of CBT-I, with and without A, on fatigue in cancer survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a four-arm factorial study with CBTI-I (yes/no) versus A (yes/no). It consisted of 96 cancer survivors (average age 56 years; 88 % female; 68 % breast cancer). Fatigue was assessed by the brief fatigue inventory (BFI) and the FACIT-Fatigue scale. The analysis assessed the additive effects of CBT-I and A and possible non-additive effects where the effect of CBT-I changes depending on the presence or absence of A. RESULTS: Analyses adjusting for baseline differences showed that CBT-I improved fatigue as measured by two separate scales (BFI: P = 0.002, Std. error = 0.32, effect size (ES) = 0.46; FACIT-Fatigue: P < 0.001, Std. error = 1.74, ES = 0.64). Armodafinil alone did not show a statistically significant effect on fatigue levels (all Ps > 0.40) nor did the drug influence the efficacy of CBT-I. Structural equation analysis revealed that reductions in insomnia severity were directly responsible for improving cancer-related fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: CBT-I with and without armodafinil resulted in a clinically and statistically significant reduction of subjective daytime fatigue in cancer survivors with chronic insomnia. Armodafinil did not improve cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and did not change the efficacy of CBT-I. Patients reporting CRF should be screened and, if indicated, treated for insomnia as part of a comprehensive fatigue management program.
PURPOSE: Fatigue is a prevalent, distressing side effect of cancer and cancer treatment which commonly coexists with insomnia. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has been shown to improve insomnia in cancer patients, but less is known about its ability to impact fatigue. This work is the analysis for a secondary aim of a four-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) study assessing the combined and comparative effect of CBT-I and a wakefulness-promoting agent, armodafinil (A), to improve sleep and daytime functioning in cancer survivors. Herein, we examine the effect of CBT-I, with and without A, on fatigue in cancer survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a four-arm factorial study with CBTI-I (yes/no) versus A (yes/no). It consisted of 96 cancer survivors (average age 56 years; 88 % female; 68 % breast cancer). Fatigue was assessed by the brief fatigue inventory (BFI) and the FACIT-Fatigue scale. The analysis assessed the additive effects of CBT-I and A and possible non-additive effects where the effect of CBT-I changes depending on the presence or absence of A. RESULTS: Analyses adjusting for baseline differences showed that CBT-I improved fatigue as measured by two separate scales (BFI: P = 0.002, Std. error = 0.32, effect size (ES) = 0.46; FACIT-Fatigue: P < 0.001, Std. error = 1.74, ES = 0.64). Armodafinil alone did not show a statistically significant effect on fatigue levels (all Ps > 0.40) nor did the drug influence the efficacy of CBT-I. Structural equation analysis revealed that reductions in insomnia severity were directly responsible for improving cancer-related fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: CBT-I with and without armodafinil resulted in a clinically and statistically significant reduction of subjective daytime fatigue in cancer survivors with chronic insomnia. Armodafinil did not improve cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and did not change the efficacy of CBT-I. Patients reporting CRF should be screened and, if indicated, treated for insomnia as part of a comprehensive fatigue management program.
Authors: Andrea M Barsevick; Michael R Irwin; Pamela Hinds; Andrew Miller; Ann Berger; Paul Jacobsen; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Bryce B Reeve; Karen Mustian; Ann O'Mara; Jin-Shei Lai; Michael Fisch; David Cella Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lynn H Gerber; Nicole Stout; Charles McGarvey; Peter Soballe; Ching-yi Shieh; Guoqing Diao; Barbara A Springer; Lucinda A Pfalzer Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-09-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sanne Menning; Michiel B de Ruiter; Dick J Veltman; V Koppelmans; Clemens Kirschbaum; Willem Boogerd; Liesbeth Reneman; Sanne B Schagen Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Anita R Peoples; Sheila N Garland; Wilfred R Pigeon; Michael L Perlis; Julie Rya Wolf; Kathi L Heffner; Karen M Mustian; Charles E Heckler; Luke J Peppone; Charles S Kamen; Gary R Morrow; Joseph A Roscoe Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Kelly A Hyland; Ashley M Nelson; Javier Pinilla-Ibarz; Kendra Sweet; Marieke Gielissen; Hailey Bulls; Aasha I Hoogland; Paul B Jacobsen; Hans Knoop Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anita R Peoples; Sheila N Garland; Michael L Perlis; Josée Savard; Charles E Heckler; Charles S Kamen; Julie L Ryan; Karen M Mustian; Michelle C Janelsins; Luke J Peppone; Gary R Morrow; Joseph A Roscoe Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Anita R Peoples; Joseph A Roscoe; Robert C Block; Charles E Heckler; Julie L Ryan; Karen M Mustian; Michelle C Janelsins; Luke J Peppone; Dennis F Moore; Charlotte Coles; Karen L Hoelzer; Gary R Morrow; Ann M Dozier Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Pedro Nazareth Aguiar Junior; Carmelia Maria Noia Barreto; Daniel de Iracema Gomes Cubero; Auro Del Giglio Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-07-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Hyo Sook Han; Eva Culakova; Charles Heckler; Michelle Janelsins; Geoffrey C Williams; Julienne Bower; Stephen Cole; Zeruesenay Desta; Margarita Bobonis Babilonia; Gary Morrow; Luke Peppone Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: D Tomlinson; P D Robinson; S Oberoi; D Cataudella; N Culos-Reed; H Davis; N Duong; F Gibson; M Götte; P Hinds; S L Nijhof; P van der Torre; S Cabral; L L Dupuis; L Sung Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Ashley M Nelson; Kelly A Hyland; Brent Small; Brittany Kennedy; Asmita Mishra; Aasha I Hoogland; Hailey W Bulls; Heather S L Jim; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-08-23