ArticleCancers2024
The Cancer Patient Empowerment Program: A Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Psychological Distress in Cancer Survivors, with Insights from a Mixed-Model Analysis, Including Implications for Breast Cancer Patients.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05508412 (CancerPEP Phase 2 Randomized Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
CancerPEP Phase 2 Randomized Trial: Feasibility of a Comprehensive Cancer Patient Empowerment Program Providing Immediate Versus Delayed Stress Reduction Biofeedback Equipment
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Clinical experience and satisfaction in patients with advanced breast cancer participating in the abemaciclib patient support program in Spain: a prospective observational study.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program A comprehensive health economic analysis from a randomized controlled trial.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Assessing the Accuracy and Readability of Large Language Model Guidance for Patients on Breast Cancer Surgery Preparation and Recovery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Toward the Patient Participation Pathway: A Mixed Methods Study of Patients With Cancer and Other Chronic Diseases.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Effects of the "Internet +" nursing model based on user profiling on postoperative recovery in breast cancer: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.International journal of nursing sciences · 2025Article
- Empowerment among breast cancer survivors using an online peer support community.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPsychological distress is a significant concern among cancer patients, negatively affecting their quality of life and adherence to treatment. The Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (CancerPEP) was developed as a comprehensive, home-based intervention aimed at reducing psychological distress by incorporating physical activity, dietary guidance, and social support. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, accrual and attrition rates, safety, and effectiveness of the CancerPEP intervention, with and without the biofeedback device, on psychological distress from baseline to 6 months, specifically focusing on the effects of group randomization and the difference between pre- and post-intervention results.
methodsThis single-site, crossover randomized clinical trial included 104 cancer patients who were randomized to receive the CancerPEP intervention, with or without a Heart Rate Variability (HRV) biofeedback monitor. At 6 months, participants who did not receive the device were allowed to use one until the end of the year, while those who did receive the device were followed up to 12 months. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of clinically significant psychological distress and metastatic status. Psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was the presence of nonspecific psychological distress, as measured by the K10 scale at 6 months from the trial start, based on group randomization. A secondary exploratory analysis assessed psychological distress at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months for both groups, while controlling for group randomization and prognostic covariates. Prognostic covariates included age; comorbidities; time between diagnosis and randomization; treatment modality; relationship status; and use of prescribed medications for anxiety, depression, or both. An exploratory sub-analysis was conducted for the breast cancer subgroup, based on the sample size available after recruitment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05508412).
resultsThe provision of the HRV biofeedback monitor in conjunction with the CancerPEP intervention did not significantly affect the primary outcome in either the full sample or the breast cancer subgroup, indicating that the HRV biofeedback provision was not beneficial in this trial. No self-reported or otherwise discovered adverse events at the 6-month mark were observed. About 10% of participants were lost to follow-up in both the early and late HRV monitor provision groups. Participation in the CancerPEP program led to a significant reduction in psychological distress over time. The odds of psychological distress were significantly higher at the start of the trial than at the end of the intervention (aOR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.53-4.56) or 6 months after the intervention (aOR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.62-5.30). Similarly, in the breast cancer subgroup, distress was higher at the trial's start than at 6 months, i.e., after the intervention (aOR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.24-4.08), or at the end of the trial at 12 months (aOR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.35-5.52).
conclusionsCancerPEP significantly reduces psychological distress in cancer patients, with consistent improvements noted across various cancer types and stages, including benefits specifically for breast cancer patients. These findings build upon the success of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP), indicating that a similar comprehensive intervention can be advantageous for all cancer patients and may be further tailored to address specific needs. With its holistic approach-encompassing physical, dietary, and psychosocial support-CancerPEP shows promise as a vital component of survivorship care. Ongoing 24-month evaluations will yield critical data on its long-term benefits. Additionally, a randomized trial with a control group (usual care without intervention) for breast cancer patients is currently under way and could potentially guide the integration of CancerPEP into standard oncology care to enhance patient outcomes and quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.