Marina Reeves1, Elisabeth Winkler1, Nicole Mccarthy2,3, Sheleigh Lawler1, Caroline Terranova1, Sandi Hayes4, Monika Janda4, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried5, Elizabeth Eakin1. 1. The University of Queensland, School of Public Health, Cancer Prevention Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2. Icon Cancer Care, Wesley, Queensland, Australia. 3. School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 4. School of Public Health and Social Work, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 5. Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Abstract
AIM: Obesity is associated with poor prognosis and risk of treatment side-effects in breast cancer survivors. This pilot study assessed the feasibility, acceptability, safety and efficacy of a telephone-delivered weight loss intervention, among women (BMI 25-40 kg/m2 ) following treatment for stage I-III breast cancer, on weight loss (primary outcome), quality of life and treatment-related side-effects (vs usual care). METHODS:Ninety women (mean ± SD age: 55.3 ± 8.7years; BMI: 31.0 ± 4.3 kg/m2 ; 15.9 ± 2.9 months postdiagnosis), recruited from a state-based cancer registry, were randomized to a weight loss (diet and physical activity) intervention (n = 45) or usual care (n = 45). Data collected at baseline and 6 months included weight, body composition, quality of life, fatigue and body image. Acceptability and satisfaction were assessed in intervention participants. RESULTS: Oncologists provided consent to contact 82.6% of patients, with 84.1% of those women contacted and eligible consenting to participate. Compared with usual care, mean weight loss was significantly greater in the intervention arm (-3.1 kg [95% CI, -5.4 to -0.7]; -3.7% baseline weight [95% CI, -6.6 to -0.9]), as were reductions in fat mass (-2.1 kg [95% CI, -4.2 to -0.1]) and waist circumference (-4.0 cm [95% CI, -6.6 to -1.3]). No other statistically significant intervention effects were observed. Participants were highly satisfied with the intervention overall and it is timing in relation to diagnosis/treatment. One reported adverse event (musculoskeletal injury) was attributable to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This weight loss intervention was feasible, acceptable, safe and effective for women 1-2 years after a breast cancer diagnosis. The effect of weight loss on quality of life and treatment-related side-effects should be examined further in fully-powered studies.
RCT Entities:
AIM: Obesity is associated with poor prognosis and risk of treatment side-effects in breast cancer survivors. This pilot study assessed the feasibility, acceptability, safety and efficacy of a telephone-delivered weight loss intervention, among women (BMI 25-40 kg/m2 ) following treatment for stage I-III breast cancer, on weight loss (primary outcome), quality of life and treatment-related side-effects (vs usual care). METHODS: Ninety women (mean ± SD age: 55.3 ± 8.7years; BMI: 31.0 ± 4.3 kg/m2 ; 15.9 ± 2.9 months postdiagnosis), recruited from a state-based cancer registry, were randomized to a weight loss (diet and physical activity) intervention (n = 45) or usual care (n = 45). Data collected at baseline and 6 months included weight, body composition, quality of life, fatigue and body image. Acceptability and satisfaction were assessed in intervention participants. RESULTS: Oncologists provided consent to contact 82.6% of patients, with 84.1% of those women contacted and eligible consenting to participate. Compared with usual care, mean weight loss was significantly greater in the intervention arm (-3.1 kg [95% CI, -5.4 to -0.7]; -3.7% baseline weight [95% CI, -6.6 to -0.9]), as were reductions in fat mass (-2.1 kg [95% CI, -4.2 to -0.1]) and waist circumference (-4.0 cm [95% CI, -6.6 to -1.3]). No other statistically significant intervention effects were observed. Participants were highly satisfied with the intervention overall and it is timing in relation to diagnosis/treatment. One reported adverse event (musculoskeletal injury) was attributable to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This weight loss intervention was feasible, acceptable, safe and effective for women 1-2 years after a breast cancer diagnosis. The effect of weight loss on quality of life and treatment-related side-effects should be examined further in fully-powered studies.
Authors: Ashlea Braun; James Portner; Elizabeth M Grainger; Emily B Hill; Gregory S Young; Steven K Clinton; Colleen K Spees Journal: J Nutr Educ Behav Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 3.045
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: Jennifer R Job; Lauren C Spark; Brianna S Fjeldsoe; Elizabeth G Eakin; Marina M Reeves Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Karen M Basen-Engquist; Margaret Raber; Cindy L Carmack; Banu Arun; Abenaa M Brewster; Michelle Fingeret; Susan M Schembre; Carol Harrison; Heidi Y Perkins; Yisheng Li; Jaejoon Song; Minxing Chen; James L Murray Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-04-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kelly M Kenzik; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Patricia A Ganz; Graham Colditz; Cheryl L Rock; Laura Q Rogers Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2018-11-12
Authors: Sorrel Burden; Debra J Jones; Jana Sremanakova; Anne Marie Sowerbutts; Simon Lal; Mark Pilling; Chris Todd Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-11-22