| Literature DB >> 35116119 |
Zheng-Gen Lin1, Ren-Dong Li2, Fu-Lu Ai3, Song Li4, Xin-An Zhang5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common concomitant symptom in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). Such patients often present with subjective fatigue state accompanied by cognitive dysfunction, which seriously affects the quality of life of patients. AIM: To explore the effects of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) combined with Baduanjin exercise on CRF, cognitive impairment, and quality of life in patients with CRC after chemotherapy, and to provide a theoretical basis and practical reference for rehabilitation of CRC after chemotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: Baduanjin exercise; Cancer-related fatigue; Cognitive behavior therapy; Cognitive function; Colorectal cancer; Quality of life
Year: 2022 PMID: 35116119 PMCID: PMC8790406 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i1.319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol
Comparison of general information between the two groups of patients, n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
| Mean age (range, yr) | 52 (44-60) | 51 (40-62) | 0.516 |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 19 (70.4) | 21 (75) | 0.70 |
| Female | 8 (29.6) | 7 (25) | |
| Years of education | |||
| < 9 | 8 (29.6) | 9 (32.2) | 0.747 |
| 9-12 | 15 (55.6) | 13 (46.4) | |
| > 12 | 4 (14.8) | 6 (21.4) | |
| Marital status | |||
| Married | 20 (74.1) | 24 (85.7) | 0.555 |
| Unmarried | 2 (7.4) | 1 (3.6) | |
| Divorced | 5 (18.5) | 3 (10.7) | |
| Clinical stage | |||
| I | 3 (11.1) | 2 (7.2) | 0.763 |
| II | 11 (40.8) | 10 (35.7) | |
| III | 13 (48.1) | 16 (57.1) | |
| Chemotherapy | |||
| XELOX | 12 (44.4) | 10 (35.7) | 0.509 |
| FOLOX | 15 (55.6) | 18 (64.3) | |
| Mean BMI (kg/m2) | 22.56 (20.38-24.05) | 22.71 (21.22-24.19) | 0.561 |
| Mean MMSE score | 24 (22-27) | 24 (22-27) | 0.765 |
XELOX: Capecitabine combined with oxaliplatin; FOLOX: Oxaliplatin combined with calcium folinate and deoxyfluoruridine; BMI: Body mass index; MMSE: Mini-mental State Examination.
Quality of life, cognitive function, and cancer-related fatigue scores at baseline (n = 55)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality of life | ||||
| FACT-C total score | 0-144 | 36-131 | 81.65 ± 23.27 | 56.72 |
| Physiological status | 0-28 | 6-25 | 15.38 ± 4.47 | 54.93 |
| Social/family status | 0-28 | 9-28 | 19.05 ± 4.57 | 68.04 |
| Emotional status | 0-24 | 6-24 | 14.93 ± 4.08 | 62.21 |
| Functional status | 0-28 | 5-26 | 12.69 ± 4.46 | 45.32 |
| Additional attention score | 0-36 | 10-30 | 19.84 ± 4.87 | 55.11 |
| Cognitive function | ||||
| FACT-Cog total score | 38-132 | 47-108 | 80.15 ± 10.97 | 60.72 |
| Corrected cognitive impairment | 18-72 | 26-57 | 46.62 ± 4.98 | 64.75 |
| Cognitive ability | 0-28 | 7-22 | 14.76 ± 3.21 | 52.14 |
| Other’s evaluation | 4-16 | 5-16 | 10.51 ± 2.28 | 65.69 |
| Impact on quality of life | 4-16 | 4-13 | 8.25 ± 2.08 | 51.75 |
| CRF | ||||
| CFS total score | 0-60 | 22-46 | 34.47 ± 6.59 | 57.45 |
| Physical fatigue | 0-28 | 11-28 | 18.09 ± 3.23 | 64.61 |
| Emotional fatigue | 0-16 | 6-15 | 8.85 ± 1.82 | 55.31 |
| Cognitive fatigue | 0-16 | 3-12 | 7.53 ± 2.05 | 47.06 |
FACT-C: Functional assessment of cancer therapy – colorectal; FACT-Cog: Functional assessment of cancer therapy-cognitive function; CRF: Cancer-related fatigue; CFS: Cancer fatigue scale.
Figure 1Total Cancer Fatigue Scale scores before and after intervention. Intra-group comparison before and after intervention: bP < 0.01 vs baseline; cP < 0.01 vs 3 mo. Comparison between experimental group and control group at different time points: dP < 0.05, eP < 0.01, experimental group vs control group at baseline/3 mo/6 mo.
Comparison of cancer-related fatigue tests in different dimensions (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
|
| Experimental group ( | |||
| Baseline | 17.56 ± 3.53 | 8.67 ± 1.78 | 7.37 ± 2.09 |
| 3 mo | 15.78 ± 2.85 | 7.59 ± 1.67 | 6.59 ± 1.65 |
| 6 mo | 15.19 ± 2.66 | 6.59 ± 1.47 | 6.33 ± 1.66 |
| Control group ( | |||
| Baseline | 18.61 ± 2.82 | 9.04 ± 1.80 | 7.57 ± 2.06 |
| 3 mo | 18.43 ± 3.71 | 8.61 ± 1.69 | 7.79 ± 2.08 |
| 6 mo | 18.46 ± 3.31 | 8.68 ± 1.91 | 7.68 ± 1.83 |
Intra-group comparison before and after intervention:
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01 vs baseline.
P < 0.01 vs 3 mo.
Comparison between experimental group and control group at different time:
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01, experimental group vs control group at baseline/3 mo/6 mo.
Figure 2P300 latency and amplitude changes. A: P300 latency change; B: P300 amplitude change. Intra-group comparison before and after intervention: bP < 0.01 vs baseline; cP < 0.01 vs 3 mo. Comparison between experimental group and control group at different time points: dP < 0.05, eP < 0.01, experimental group vs control group at baseline/3 mo/6 mo.
Figure 3Functional assessment of cancer therapy. A: Functional assessment of cancer therapy-cognitive function total score change before and after intervention. Intra-group comparison before and after intervention: P < 0.01 vs baseline; P < 0.01 vs 3 mo. Comparison between experimental group and control group at different time: P < 0.01, experimental group vs control group at baseline/ 3 mo/ 6 mo; B: Functional assessment of cancer therapy – colorectal total score changes before and after intervention. Intra-group comparison before and after intervention: P < 0.01 vs baseline; P < 0.01 vs 3 mo. Comparison between experimental group and control group at different time: P < 0.05, P < 0.01, experimental group vs control group at baseline/ 3 mo/ 6 mo.
Comparison of cognitive function tests in different dimensions (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Experimental group ( | ||||
| Baseline | 47.19 ± 4.14 | 14.96 ± 3.47 | 10.93 ± 2.24 | 8.81 ± 2.08 |
| 3 mo | 50.26 ± 3.96 | 17.11 ± 3.64 | 11.26 ± 2.33 | 9.37 ± 2.66 |
| 6 mo | 54.22 ± 6.80 | 18.30 ± 4.26 | 12.22 ± 2.28 | 10.81 ± 2.73 |
| Control group ( | ||||
| Baseline | 46.07 ± 5.73 | 14.57 ± 2.87 | 10.11 ± 2.25 | 7.71 ± 1.94 |
| 3 mo | 46.21 ± 5.37 | 14.68 ± 3.22 | 10.14 ± 2.17 | 7.32 ± 2.02 |
| 6 mo | 46.25 ± 6.92 | 14.86 ± 3.50 | 10.21 ± 2.35 | 7.43 ± 2.01 |
Intra-group comparison before and after intervention:
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01 vs baseline.
P < 0.01 vs 3 mo.
Comparison between experimental group and control group at different time:
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01, experimental group vs control group at baseline/3 mo/6 mo.
Comparison of quality of life tests in different dimensions (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Experimental group ( | |||||
| Baseline | 16.19 ± 3.48 | 19.85 ± 4.92 | 15.41 ± 4.41 | 13.78 ± 4.29 | 11.54 ± 4.36 |
| 3 mo | 17.67 ± 3.96 | 20.59 ± 4.73 | 17.11 ± 4.47 | 14.74 ± 4.78 | 22.41 ± 6.08 |
| 6 mo | 18.70 ± 4.15 | 21.48 ± 4.57 | 17.48 ± 4.64 | 16.00 ± 4.84 | 24.85 ± 6.56 |
| Control group ( | |||||
| Baseline | 14.61 ± 5.18 | 18.29 ± 4.14 | 14.46 ± 3.76 | 11.64 ± 4.44 | 19.14 ± 4.28 |
| 3 mo | 14.89 ± 5.72 | 17.75 ± 4.40 | 14.32 ± 3.49 | 11.32 ± 4.28 | 18.71 ± 5.61 |
| 6 mo | 14.25 ± 5.29 | 18.14 ± 4.61 | 14.46 ± 3.75 | 11.54 ± 4.36 | 19.11 ± 5.63 |
Intra-group comparison before and after intervention:
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01 vs baseline.
P < 0.01 vs 3 mo.
Comparison between experimental group and control group at different time:
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01, experimental group vs control group at baseline/3 mo/6 mo.
Correlation analysis between quality of life and cancer-related fatigue and cognitive dysfunction in experimental group
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| CFS total score | -0.733 | < 0.000 |
| Physical fatigue | -0.439 | 0.023 |
| Emotional fatigue | -0.487 | 0.011 |
| Cognitive fatigue | -0.642 | < 0.000 |
| FACT-Cog total score | 0.753 | < 0.000 |
| Corrected cognitive impairment | 0.663 | < 0.000 |
| Cognitive ability | 0.624 | 0.001 |
| Other’s evaluation | 0.186 | 0.342 |
| Impact on quality of life | 0.40 | 0.023 |
FACT-C: Functional assessment of cancer therapy – colorectal; FACT-Cog: Functional assessment of cancer therapy-cognitive function; CFS: Cancer fatigue scale.
Stepwise regression analysis results of quality of life scores
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||||||
| Constant | 4.923 | 1.429 | 3.209 | 0.004 | |||
| FACT-Cog Total score | 0.375 | 0.149 | 0.464 | 2.512 | 0.019 | 0.447 | 2.235 |
| CRF total score | -0.585 | 0.278 | -0.388 | -2.103 | 0.046 | 0.651 | 1.535 |
FACT-Cog: Functional assessment of cancer therapy-cognitive function; CRF: Cancer-related fatigue.