METHODS: This is an open-label randomized controlled trial with 60 participants divided into 2 study groups in a 1:1 ratio. The intervention group will receive 12 weeks of Guolin Qigong intervention with a 4-week follow-up while control will receive usual care under waitlist. The primary outcome will be feasibility measured based on recruitment and retention rates, class attendance, home practice adherence, nature, and quantum of missing data as well as safety. The secondary subjective outcomes of fatigue, sleep quality and depression will be measured at Week-1 (baseline), Week-6 (mid-intervention), Week-12 (post-intervention), and Week-16 (4 weeks post-intervention) while an objective 24-hour urine cortisol will be measured at Week-1 (baseline) and Week-12 (post-intervention). We will conduct a semi-structured interview individually with participants within 3 months after Week-16 (4 weeks post-intervention) to obtain a more comprehensive view of practice adherence.
DISCUSSION: This is the first mixed-method study to investigate the feasibility and effect of Guolin Qigong on breast, lung, and colorectal cancer survivors to provide a comprehensive understanding of Guolin Qigong's intervention impact and participants' perspectives. The interdisciplinary collaboration between Western Medicine and Chinese Medicine expertise of this study ensures robust study design, enhanced participant care, rigorous data analysis, and meaningful interpretation of results. This innovative research contributes to the field of oncology and may guide future evidence-based mind-body interventions to improve cancer survivorship.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered with ANZCTR (ACTRN12622000688785p), was approved by Medical Research Ethic Committee of University Malaya Medical Centre (MREC ID NO: 2022323-11092) and recognized by Western Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee (RH15124).
METHODS: Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). After an average of 13.9 years of follow-up, there were 7024 incident prostate cancers and 934 prostate cancer deaths.
RESULTS: Height was not associated with total prostate cancer risk. Subgroup analyses showed heterogeneity in the association with height by tumour grade (P heterogeneity = 0.002), with a positive association with risk for high-grade but not low-intermediate-grade disease (HR for high-grade disease tallest versus shortest fifth of height, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03). Greater height was also associated with a higher risk for prostate cancer death (HR = 1.43, 1.14-1.80). Body mass index (BMI) was significantly inversely associated with total prostate cancer, but there was evidence of heterogeneity by tumour grade (P heterogeneity = 0.01; HR = 0.89, 0.79-0.99 for low-intermediate grade and HR = 1.32, 1.01-1.72 for high-grade prostate cancer) and stage (P heterogeneity = 0.01; HR = 0.86, 0.75-0.99 for localised stage and HR = 1.11, 0.92-1.33 for advanced stage). BMI was positively associated with prostate cancer death (HR = 1.35, 1.09-1.68). The results for waist circumference were generally similar to those for BMI, but the associations were slightly stronger for high-grade (HR = 1.43, 1.07-1.92) and fatal prostate cancer (HR = 1.55, 1.23-1.96).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this large prospective study show that men who are taller and who have greater adiposity have an elevated risk of high-grade prostate cancer and prostate cancer death.
AIM AND METHODS: We made a flash survey on COVID-19 incidence and severity among children on anticancer treatment. Respondents were asked by email to fill in a short Web-based survey.
RESULTS: We received reports from 25 countries, where approximately 10,000 patients at risk are followed up. At the time of the survey, more than 200 of these children were tested, nine of whom were positive for COVID-19. Eight of the nine cases had asymptomatic to mild disease, and one was just diagnosed with COVID-19. We also discuss preventive measures that are in place or should be taken and treatment options in immunocompromised children with COVID-19.
CONCLUSION: Thus, even children receiving anticancer chemotherapy may have a mild or asymptomatic course of COVID-19. While we should not underestimate the risk of developing a more severe course of COVID-19 than that observed here, the intensity of preventive measures should not cause delays or obstructions in oncological treatment.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of integrating clinical pharmacists into the multidisciplinary team (MDT) to manage cancer pain and assess preliminary outcomes in cancer patients receiving pain treatment. This pilot study was undertaken to inform a future definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT).
METHODS: The protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05021393). The PharmaCAP trial was conducted in two oncology centers in Nepal, where patients were randomly enrolled into usual care (UC) or an intervention group (PharmaCAP). The latter received a clinical pharmacist-led medication review, which involved a comprehensive assessment of the patient's current medications, identification of potential drug-related problems, and personalized recommendations for optimizing pain management. This was accompanied by pain assessment, education and counseling on pain management strategies. Baseline and 4-weeks post-intervention assessments measured primary outcomes, i.e., feasibility metrics (recruitment of the patients, retention of patients, patient satisfaction). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, health-related QoL, anxiety, depression, barriers to pain management, and medication adherence at 4 weeks.
RESULTS: Out of 140 screened patients, 108 were evaluated for eligibility, with 16 opting out primarily due to lack of interest (n = 11) and communication barriers (n = 5). A total of ninety-two participants with cancer pain were randomized into two groups, with 91 patients successfully recruited and 85 (93.4%) completing 4 weeks post-intervention assessment). Completion rates for the UC and PharmaCAP groups were 91.3% and 93.4%, respectively. The primary feasibility outcomes were positive: 100% of patients found random allocation acceptable. Retention rates were high, with 91.3% in the UC group and 93.4% in the PharmaCAP group, despite a few dropouts due to being unreachable, COVID-related issues, and changes in treatment centers. No evidence of contamination between groups was found, as participants did not discuss interventions or influence each other's attitudes, ensuring effective isolation of interventions The PharmaCAP intervention showed significant improvement in QoL (P
METHODS: In a single-centered, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot trial conducted from 2019 to 2022, fatigued cancer survivors ≥21 years old were recruited to receive the XBYRT intervention or placebo (5% diluted) once daily for the duration of 8 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes for QOL, CRF, cognition, blood samples for biomarker testing, and adverse events were collected at baseline (T0), 4 weeks (T1), 8 weeks (T2), and 10 weeks (T3) after baseline. Linear regression was performed to evaluate differences between groups at T2 and T3.
RESULTS: A total of 1502 patients were screened, with 672 patients considered eligible. Of the eligible, 15 XBYRT and 13 placebo subjects with similar mean ages (58.5 vs 58.4) were recruited. Both groups were predominantly Chinese (93% vs 62%), breast cancer patients (87% vs 62%), and diagnosed with stage 2 cancer (60% vs 46%). Although no significant difference was found in QOL between groups, the XBYRT group exhibited improved emotional fatigue at T3 (P = .045) and higher BDNF levels at T2 (P = .047) and T3 (P = .029). After baseline adjustment, XBYRT was associated with better perceived cognitive impairment at T2 (P = .011) and T3 (P = .017), as well as overall perceived cognitive function at T3 (P = .028). XBYRT is well tolerated, with grade 3 adverse events reported in three XBYRT (20%) and two placebo (15%) subjects.
CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, XBYRT as an integrative therapy is safe and generates encouraging improvements in cognitive and fatigue symptoms. Difficulties with recruitment limited the generalizability of trial findings, thus findings should be verified through a larger, multi-centered trial.
CLINICAL PRESENTATION AND INTERVENTION: A 41-year-old man with previous bilateral pheochromocytoma presented with chest pain. He was suffering from cardiac failure and persistent hypotension requiring an inotrope. Cardiac markers, an electrocardiogram and an echocardiogram confirmed acute myocardial infarct with poor ejection fraction and global hypokinesia. An (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT scan showed progressive left suprarenal and organ of Zuckerkandl pheochromocytomas. Blood pressure stabilisation proved challenging but was achieved by titrating an incremental dose of α-blocker against a tapering inotropic dose.
CONCLUSION: This case showed the efficacy of an α-blocker despite persistent hypotension in a patient with pheochromocytoma-induced cardiomyopathy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted at the University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC) over six months. Prostate cancer patients from UMMC received the intervention and patients from UKMMC were taken as controls. The level of depression, anxiety and stress were measured using Depression, Anxiety Stress Scales - 21 (DASS-21).
RESULTS: A total of 77 patients from the UMMC and 78 patients from the UKMMC participated. At the end of the study, 90.9% and 87.2% of patients from the UMMC and UKMMC groups completed the study respectively. There were significant improvements in anxiety (p<0.001, partial ?2=0.198) and stress (p<0.001, partial ?2=0.103) at the end of the study in those receiving muscle training. However, there was no improvement in depression (p=0.956).
CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in anxiety and stress showed the potential of APMRT in the management of prostate cancer patients. Future studies should be carried out over a longer duration to provide stronger evidence for the introduction of relaxation therapy among prostate cancer patients as a coping strategy to improve their anxiety and stress.