BACKGROUND:Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a prevalent and debilitating symptom experienced by cancer survivors, yet treatment options for CRF are limited. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of weekly Swedish massage therapy (SMT) versus an active control condition (light touch [LT]) and waitlist control (WLC) on persistent CRF in breast cancer survivors. METHODS: This early phase, randomized, single-masked, 6-week investigation of SMT, LT, and WLC enrolled 66 female stage 0-III breast cancer survivors (age range, 32-72 years) who had received surgery plus radiation and/or chemotherapy/chemoprevention with CRF (Brief Fatigue Inventory > 25). The primary outcome was the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), with the National Institutes of Health PROMIS Fatigue scale secondary. RESULTS:Mean baseline MFI scores for 57 evaluable subjects were 62.95 for SMT, 55.00 for LT, and 60.41 for WLC. SMT resulted in a mean (standard deviation) 6-week reduction in MFI total scores of -16.50 (6.37) (n = 20) versus -8.06 (6.50) for LT (n = 20) and an increase of 5.88 (6.48) points for WLC (n = 17) (treatment-by-time P < .0001). The mean baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores were SMT, 22.25; LT, 22.05; and WLC, 23.24. The mean (standard deviation) reduction in PROMIS Fatigue scores was -5.49 (2.53) points for SMT versus -3.24 (2.57) points for LT and -0.06 (1.88) points for WLC (treatment-by-time P = .0008). Higher credibility, expectancy, and preference for SMT than for LT did not account for these results. CONCLUSION:SMT produced clinically significant relief of CRF. This finding suggests that 6 weeks of a safe, widely accepted manual intervention causes a significant reduction in fatigue, a debilitating sequela for cancer survivors. Cancer 2018;124:546-54.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a prevalent and debilitating symptom experienced by cancer survivors, yet treatment options for CRF are limited. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of weekly Swedish massage therapy (SMT) versus an active control condition (light touch [LT]) and waitlist control (WLC) on persistent CRF in breast cancer survivors. METHODS: This early phase, randomized, single-masked, 6-week investigation of SMT, LT, and WLC enrolled 66 female stage 0-III breast cancer survivors (age range, 32-72 years) who had received surgery plus radiation and/or chemotherapy/chemoprevention with CRF (Brief Fatigue Inventory > 25). The primary outcome was the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), with the National Institutes of Health PROMIS Fatigue scale secondary. RESULTS: Mean baseline MFI scores for 57 evaluable subjects were 62.95 for SMT, 55.00 for LT, and 60.41 for WLC. SMT resulted in a mean (standard deviation) 6-week reduction in MFI total scores of -16.50 (6.37) (n = 20) versus -8.06 (6.50) for LT (n = 20) and an increase of 5.88 (6.48) points for WLC (n = 17) (treatment-by-time P < .0001). The mean baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores were SMT, 22.25; LT, 22.05; and WLC, 23.24. The mean (standard deviation) reduction in PROMIS Fatigue scores was -5.49 (2.53) points for SMT versus -3.24 (2.57) points for LT and -0.06 (1.88) points for WLC (treatment-by-time P = .0008). Higher credibility, expectancy, and preference for SMT than for LT did not account for these results. CONCLUSION:SMT produced clinically significant relief of CRF. This finding suggests that 6 weeks of a safe, widely accepted manual intervention causes a significant reduction in fatigue, a debilitating sequela for cancer survivors. Cancer 2018;124:546-54.
Authors: Michaela Krohn; Miriam Listing; Gracia Tjahjono; Anett Reisshauer; Eva Peters; Burghard F Klapp; Martina Rauchfuss Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jun J Mao; Karen E Wagner; Christina M Seluzicki; Audra Hugo; Laura K Galindez; Heather Sheaffer; Kevin R Fox Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Mary Y Egan; Sara McEwen; Lindsey Sikora; Martin Chasen; Margaret Fitch; Susan Eldred Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Jennifer L McQuade; Sarah Prinsloo; David Z Chang; Amy Spelman; Qi Wei; Karen Basen-Engquist; Carol Harrison; Zonghao Zhang; Debra Kuban; Andrew Lee; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Roger Hilfiker; Andre Meichtry; Manuela Eicher; Lina Nilsson Balfe; Ruud H Knols; Martin L Verra; Jan Taeymans Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Javad Alizadeh; Mohammad Reza Yeganeh; Moluk Pouralizadeh; Zahra Atrkar Roushan; Cyrus Gharib; Sara Khoshamouz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Christina A Dilaveri; Ivana T Croghan; Molly J Mallory; Liza J Dion; Karen M Fischer; Darrell R Schroeder; Jorys Martinez-Jorge; Minh-Doan T Nguyen; Shawn C Fokken; Brent A Bauer; Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 2.579