| Literature DB >> 33874968 |
Pirus Ghadjar1, Wiebke Stritter2, Irina von Mackensen2, Felix Mehrhof3, Clara Foucré2, Vincent H Ehrhardt3, Marcus Beck3, Pimrapat Gebert4, Goda Kalinauskaite3, Jacqueline S Luchte2, Carmen Stromberger3, Volker Budach3, Angelika Eggert2, Georg Seifert2,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver compresses are frequently used in integrative medicine as supportive therapy during cancer treatment in order to reduce fatigue. We performed a pilot study to test whether the external application of yarrow liver compresses impacts fatigue in patients with metastatic cancer undergoing radiation therapy.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer; Compress; External application; Fatigue; Integrative medicine; Metastasis; Radiation therapy
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33874968 PMCID: PMC8054395 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01757-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Fig. 1Step-wise external application of a yarrow liver compress with careful placement of the inner muslin cloth, which had been doused with a 60 °C hot yarrow infusion and then firmly wrung out, and the cotton compress cloth (on top of the inner cloth) on the right upper abdomen and lower costal arch of the comfortably positioned patient (top left); the inner and compress cloth were then covered with an outer wrap underneath the patient’s back which was folded over from both sides (top right); a hot-water bottle was placed on top of the compress (bottom left); the patient was then covered with a blanket and allowed to rest for a total duration of 50–55 min (bottom right)
Fig. 2Consort diagram of the trial
Patient characteristics
| Radiotherapy alone | Radiotherapy and Yarrow compress | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 3 (25%) | 3 (25%) | 6 (25%) |
| Female | 9 (50%) | 9 (50%) | 18 (75%) |
| Age (years) | |||
| Median (min.–max.) | 60.5 (49–83) | 56.5 (35–68) | 58.5 (34–83) |
| Karnofsky-Index | |||
| 80–100 | 4 (33%) | 3 (25%) | 7 (30%) |
| 70 | 5 (42%) | 4 (33%) | 9 (37%) |
| 60 | 3 (25%) | 5 (42%) | 8 (33%) |
| Site of RT | |||
| Bone | 6 (50%) | 7 (58%) | 13 (54%) |
| Brain | 6 (50%) | 5 (42%) | 11 (46%) |
| Baseline Fatigue* | |||
| Median (min.-max.) | 14 (10–20) | 16 (10–20) | 14.5 (10–20) |
*Based on the general fatigue subscale of the multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-20)
Comparison of fatigue and other patient reported outcomes between the trial arms
| Intervention | Control | Mean difference* (I–C) | 95% CI | p-value | Effect size (Partial η2) | Effect size (ω2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Lower | Upper | |||||
| (n = 12) | (n = 12) | |||||||
| General Fatigue | 1.08 (2.57) | −0.50 (3.75) | 1.98 | −0.65 | 4.60 | 0.132 | 0.110 | 0.062 |
| Physical Fatigue | 0.83 (4.17) | 0.42 (4.74) | 1.44 | −1.60 | 4.48 | 0.336 | 0.046 | −0.001 |
| Reduced Activity | 1.75 (2.96) | 0.58 (4.68) | 1.69 | −1.08 | 4.45 | 0.218 | 0.075 | 0.027 |
| Reduced Motivation | 0.08 (3.06) | −2.58 (2.43) | 2.14 | 0.17 | 4.12 | 0.035 | 0.204 | 0.158 |
| Mental Fatigue | 1.25 (3.31) | 0.00 (4.09) | 1.03 | −0.87 | 2.92 | 0.273 | 0.060 | 0.012 |
| (n = 12) | (n = 12) | |||||||
| Distress | 0.82 (2.27) | −0.15 (2.24) | 1.08 | −0.70 | 2.87 | 0.218 | 0.088 | 0.032 |
MFI = multidimensional fatigue inventory; SD = standard deviation; I-C = Intervention group—Control group; CI = confidence interval; η2 = Partial eta squared; ω2 = Omega squared; VAS = visual analogue scale; EORTC = European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; QLQ = quality of life questionnaire; QoL = quality of life; * Mean difference and 95%CI were calculated using ANCOVA with adjustment for baseline and RT sites (brain vs. bone)
Fig. 3Plot showing the mean difference between groups of the change from baseline to end of treatment for each subscale of the MFI-20 after adjustments for baseline values and 95%CI. Red line shows the clinically relevant difference of two points