Charlotte Kreutz1,2, Jana Müller1,3,4, Martina E Schmidt1, Karen Steindorf5,6. 1. Division of Physical Activity, Prevention and Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Faculty of Medicine Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Institute of Sports and Sport Science, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 700, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Working Group Exercise Oncology, Division of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Division of Physical Activity, Prevention and Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. k.steindorf@dkfz.de. 6. Division of Physical Activity, Prevention and Cancer (C110), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. k.steindorf@dkfz.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize sleep problems and to compare subjective and objective assessments in breast cancer patients starting neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Sleep characteristics of 54 breast cancer patients starting neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed. Subjective sleep characteristics were assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and objective sleep measurements with an accelerometer (ActiGraph wGT3X-BT) worn on the wrist for 7 consecutive days. RESULTS: According to the common PSQI cut-off of 8, 10 (18.87%) of the patients were poor sleepers. ActiGraph measures did not mirror this classification as values for poor, and good sleepers did not differ significantly. Overall, Bland-Altman plots illustrated higher ActiGraph values for sleep efficiency and effective sleep time and lower values for sleep latency, compared with PSQI. For total sleep time, less disagreement between both measures was observed. Actigraphy was limited in precise identification of sleep begin and sleep latency but provided supplementary information about number and minutes of awakenings during the night. CONCLUSION: Subjective and objective measurement methods differed substantially in various parameters, with limitations in both methods. A combination of both methods might be most promising. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02999074.
PURPOSE: To characterize sleep problems and to compare subjective and objective assessments in breast cancerpatients starting neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Sleep characteristics of 54 breast cancerpatients starting neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed. Subjective sleep characteristics were assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and objective sleep measurements with an accelerometer (ActiGraph wGT3X-BT) worn on the wrist for 7 consecutive days. RESULTS: According to the common PSQI cut-off of 8, 10 (18.87%) of the patients were poor sleepers. ActiGraph measures did not mirror this classification as values for poor, and good sleepers did not differ significantly. Overall, Bland-Altman plots illustrated higher ActiGraph values for sleep efficiency and effective sleep time and lower values for sleep latency, compared with PSQI. For total sleep time, less disagreement between both measures was observed. Actigraphy was limited in precise identification of sleep begin and sleep latency but provided supplementary information about number and minutes of awakenings during the night. CONCLUSION: Subjective and objective measurement methods differed substantially in various parameters, with limitations in both methods. A combination of both methods might be most promising. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02999074.
Entities:
Keywords:
Actigraphy; Breast cancer; Insomnia; PSQI; Sleep
Authors: Ipek Ensari; Billy A Caceres; Kasey B Jackman; Niurka Suero-Tejeda; Ari Shechter; Michelle L Odlum; Suzanne Bakken Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 4.842
Authors: Susan Grayson; Susan Sereika; Caroline Harpel; Emilia Diego; Jennifer G Steiman; Priscilla F McAuliffe; Susan Wesmiller Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Thomas Schulte; Dirk Hofmeister; Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf; Tim Hartung; Andreas Hinz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 3.603