Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for

  • Author: Agnes Dumas x
  • Refine by Access: Content accessible to Me x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Antonio Di Meglio, Cecile Charles, Elise Martin, Julie Havas, Arnauld Gbenou, Jean-Daniel Flaysakier, Anne-Laure Martin, Sibille Everhard, Enora Laas, Nicolas Chopin, Laurence Vanlemmens, Christelle Jouannaud, Christelle Levy, Olivier Rigal, Marion Fournier, Patrick Soulie, Florian Scotte, Barbara Pistilli, Agnes Dumas, Gwenn Menvielle, Fabrice André, Stefan Michiels, Sarah Dauchy, and Ines Vaz-Luis

Background: Physical activity (PA) and psychosocial interventions are recommended management strategies for cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Randomized trials support the use of mind–body techniques, whereas no data show benefit for homeopathy or naturopathy. Methods: We used data from CANTO ( identifier: NCT01993498), a multicenter, prospective study of stage I–III breast cancer (BC). CRF, evaluated after primary treatment completion using the EORTC QLQ-C30 (global CRF) and QLQ-FA12 (physical, emotional, and cognitive dimensions), served as the independent variable (severe [score of ≥40/100] vs nonsevere). Outcomes of interest were adherence to PA recommendations (≥10 metabolic equivalent of task [MET] h/week [GPAQ-16]) and participation in consultations with a psychologist, psychiatrist, acupuncturist, or other complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioner (homeopath and/or naturopath) after CRF assessment. Multivariable logistic regression examined associations between CRF and outcomes, adjusting for sociodemographic, psychologic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Results: Among 7,902 women diagnosed from 2012 through 2017, 36.4% reported severe global CRF, and 35.8%, 22.6%, and 14.1% reported severe physical, emotional, and cognitive CRF, respectively. Patients reporting severe global CRF were less likely to adhere to PA recommendations (60.4% vs 66.7%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71–0.94; P=.004), and slightly more likely to see a psychologist (13.8% vs 7.5%; aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05–1.58; P=.014), psychiatrist (10.4% vs 5.0%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10–1.76; P=.0064), acupuncturist (9.8% vs 6.5%; aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.17–1.82; P=.0008), or CAM practitioner (12.5% vs 8.2%; aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.23–1.82; P<.0001). There were differences in recommendation uptake by CRF dimension, including that severe physical CRF was associated with lower adherence to PA (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63–0.86; P=.0001) and severe emotional CRF was associated with higher likelihood of psychologic consultations (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06–1.79; P=.017). Conclusions: Uptake of recommendations to improve CRF, including adequate PA and use of psychosocial services, seemed suboptimal among patients with early-stage BC, whereas there was a nonnegligible interest in homeopathy and naturopathy. Findings of this large study indicate the need to implement recommendations for managing CRF in clinical practice.