Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Hypotheses. Although there is evidence that psychosocial and behavioral interventions (PBIs) increase well-being, improve coping and adjustment, and reduce distress among cancer patients, findings regarding PBIs as a means for prolonging survival were not convincing. Conflicting findings resulted in tremendous controversies over the efficacy of PBIs. This study aims at estimating the pooled effects of PBIs on survival of cancer patients. Study Design and Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effects of any kind of PBIs on the survival of cancer patients included in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancer Lit, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant articles were retrieved and reviewed by 2 independent researchers. Data items derived from the articles included time and duration of study, intervention types and doses, and numbers of patients dying and surviving 1, 2, 4, and 6 years after intervention. Estimation of the collective effects of the interventions used meta-analysis via Review Manager (version 5). Results. A total of 15 RCTs met inclusion criteria, involving 2041 subjects (1118 in intervention and 923 in control groups). Inclusive total mean Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs) ranged from 0.83 to 0.99, and 3 of these effect sizes were statistically nonsignificant. Yet when the RCTs with less than 30 hours of PBIs were excluded, all the RRs decreased to some extent, with the RR for the first 2 years being decreased to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.87) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.95), respectively. Conclusion. PBIs with adequate intervention doses prolong survival at least for some cancer patients in the first 2 years after intervention, although longer term effects need to be determined via more studies.

Keywords

cancer meta-analysis psychosocial behavioral intervention survival

Introduction

Cancer has become one of the most important threats to human life and health. Its incidence and mortality rates have increased steadily since the beginning of the 20th century. People diagnosed with and dying of the disease reached 10.1 million and 6.2 million, respectively, in 2000,¹ and these figures had increased to 12.67 and 7.56 million 8 years later.² It is estimated that by 2020, people living with cancer will reach 30 million, and annual new cases and deaths from the disease will rise to 15 million and 10 million, respectively.³ Cancer and psychosocial and behavioral factors are closely intertwined. On one hand, cancer is almost universally experienced as stressful,^4-6 and numerous studies have documented much higher risk of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsion, hostility, bigotry, interpersonal impairments, and other disorders in cancer patients than in normal controls.^7-9 On the other hand, there is compelling evidence that behavioral and psychosocial factors activate the neuroendocrine stress response and alter immune, angiogenic, and inflammatory pathways important in the development, progression, and control of cancer.^10-15

Given the above evidence and beliefs, reports about various psychosocial and behavioral interventions (PBIs) incorporating cognitive-behavioral, mindfulness, supportive, and stress management approaches against cancer are emerging.^16-19 However, these reports do not point to a conclusive finding.²⁰ Although there is evidence that PBIs increase well-being, improve coping and adjustment, and reduce distress among cancer patients,^21-25 it is unclear whether PBIs prolong survival.^26-28 While some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown a survival effect,^29-33 others have yielded no positive results.^34-36 To estimate the pooled effects of PBIs on cancer patient survival, Chow et al³⁷ and Smedslund and Ringdal³⁸ performed meta-analyses separately in 2004. Both studies concluded that it was premature to draw a definite conclusion. Conflicting findings have resulted in tremendous controversies over PBIs. While some authors (eg, Andersen, Spiegel, Kraemer) are in favor of continued, even added, efforts exploring PBIs and survival, others (eg, Coyne, Palmer, Stefanek) have raised severe criticisms against published studies, especially the earlier randomized controlled studies with positive findings, and have even called for an end to funding for any studies in this area.³⁹ Since the publication of the 2 earlier meta-analyses, several additional RCTs on PBIs and survival have been published. This study aims to combine these old and new RCTs and perform more in-depth and powerful meta-analysis to shed new light on this long-disputed issue.

Methods

Article Retrieval

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancer Lit, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were used for searching eligible English-language publications. The main search algorithm was (Cancer OR tumor OR neoplasm) AND (behavior OR behavioral OR psychology OR psychological OR psychosocial OR psychiatric) AND (mortality OR survival). Reference lists of included articles were also searched manually for further relevant articles.

Inclusion Criteria

Each of the articles retrieved was screened for eligibility according to the following: (1) the article documents an RCT involving a psychosocial intervention among patients with cancer of any histology; (2) the intervention involved one or a combination of education, social support, psychotherapy, skills training, and relaxation; (3) the outcome variables included survival time or data or curves; (4) the patients in both arms received the same medical care; (5) the article allows calculation of relative risk ratios (RRs) between the intervention and control groups for survival with an associated variance.

Data Extraction

Data extracted from the selected articles consisted of name of the first author, year of publication, study location, number of patients randomized to the intervention and control groups, types of cancer, types and doses of intervention, duration of follow-up on survival, and survival rates at 1, 2, 4, and 6 years after intervention. Whenever possible, the raw numbers of survival rates were used; otherwise, the rates were estimated from published survival curves: that is, the percentage surviving was read and multiplied by the total number of patients randomized to the group to estimate the absolute number of survivors. The data extraction was performed independently by 2 of the authors, and any disagreement in extracted data was resolved by consensus with reference to the published article.

Statistical Analysis

Review Manager (version 5) was used to perform meta-analysis and estimate the pooled effects of the interventions. RRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effects model.

Risk of Biases

There existed biases both within and across individual studies due to (a) heterogeneous cancer sites and stages and intervention contents and dosage; (b) subject attrition; (c) too small sample size and chance finding; and (d) selective reporting and publication. Measures taken to assess the effect of these biases included (a) heterogeneity measurement using forest plot; (b) publication bias assessment by funnel plot; (c) selective analysis pooling only the studies with adequate intervention dosage; and (d) sensitivity analysis by excluding a few of the most flawed RCTs as indicated by a combined rating for each individual study generated by the 2 literature reviewers against a checklist adapted from the indicators recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.³⁹

Results

Trials Included

Fifteen RCT articles were identified using the search strategy and inclusion criteria described above (Figure 1).^{18,30,31,33,34,36,39-47} They comprised a total of 2041 patients (1118 in intervention groups vs 923 in control groups). Nine of the RCTs involved only breast cancer patients with metastases (n = 1390). Three of the RCTs included patients with gastrointestinal cancer, cutaneous malignant melanoma, and colorectal cancer at different stages. The remaining trials had various cancer types and stages. Table 1 gives an overview of the designs and settings of included studies. These studies were conducted in only 5 countries; half of them were conducted in the United States. The interventions were diverse, consisting of education, support, skills training, and others. Duration of the interventions ranged from a few weeks to more than 1 year, and estimated intervention doses ranged from 12 hours to more than 90 hours.

Figure 1.

Article retrieval and selection.

Table 1.

Profile of Randomized Controlled Trials Selected.

		No. of Patients		Intervention
Reference	Cancer Type	Intervention Group	Control Group	Type	Duration	Dose	Duration of Follow-Up	Power Test
Linn 1982⁴¹	Various cancer types, stage IV	62	58	Individual counseling when needed	Up to 1 year	Unclear dose	1 year	NS
Spiegel 1989⁴²	Metastatic breast cancer, stages I-IV	50	36	Weekly supportive group therapy	1 year	81 hours (1.5 h/wk)	10 years	P < .0001
Ilnyckyj 1994³⁴	Various cancer types, stages I-IV	61	31	Weekly supportive group sessions	6 months	12 hours (1 h/wk)	11 years	NS
Cunningham 1998⁴³	Metastatic breast cancer, unspecified stages	30	36	Weekly supportive and cognitive behavioral group therapy and intensive weekend coping skills training course	35 weeks	70 hours (2 h/wk)	5 years	NS
Edelman 1999⁴⁴	Metastatic breast cancer, stages I-IV	62	62	Weekly cognitive behavioral group therapy followed by monthly family night sessions	8 weeks plus 3 months	~18 hours	5 years	NS
McCorkle 2000⁴⁸	Various cancer types, stages I-IV	190	185	3 home visits and 5 telephone contracts provided by advanced practice nurses	4 weeks	~12 hours	4 years	P = .002
Goodwin 2001⁴⁹	Metastatic breast cancer, stages T1-4, TX	158	77	Weekly supportive group therapy with self-hypnosis and relaxation for pain using professional group leaders	>1 year	81 hours (1.5 h/wk)	6 years	NS
Fawzy 2003³³	Malignant melanoma, stage I	34	34	Weekly psychoeducational group therapy	6 weeks	9 hours (1.5 h/wk)	10 years	NS
Kissane 2004³⁶	Breast cancer, stages I and II	154	149	Weekly group therapy plus 3 relaxation classes	20 weeks	36 hours (1.5 h/wk)	5 years	NS
Kissane 2007⁴⁵	Metastatic breast cancer, stages I-IV	112	51	Weekly supportive expressive group therapy plus 3 classes of relaxation therapy	>1 year	87 hours (1.5 h/wk)	2 years	NS
Spiegel 2007¹⁸	Metastatic breast cancer, unspecified stages	62	56	Weekly therapy sessions	1 year	81 hours (1.5 h/wk)	14 years	NS
Kuchler 2007³¹	Gastro-intestinal cancer, unspecified stages	136	135	Psychotherapeutic support during the whole hospital stay	~1 month	~20 hours	10 years	P = .0006
Boesen 2007⁴⁶	Cutaneous malignant melanoma, stages T1-4, N1a-2a, M₀¹⁶	128	130	Weekly sessions of psychoeducation	6 weeks	12 hours (2 h/wk)	6 years	NS
Andersen 2008³⁰	Breast cancer, stages II and III	114	113	Psychological intervention provided in small cohorts	26 sessions in >1 year	39 hours (1.5 h/session)	11 years	P = .016
Ross 2009⁵⁰	Colorectal cancer, unspecified stages	125	124	A total of 10 visits by a project nurse or a project medical doctor	10 visits	~15 hours (1.5 h/visit)	6 years	NS

Abbreviation: NS, not significant.

Risk Ratios

The 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-year survival rates were available in 12, 14, 13, and 9 trials, respectively. The total mean Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios ranged from 0.83 to 0.99, and 3 of these 4 effect sizes were statistically nonsignificant (Figure 2). The heterogeneity ranged from 27% to 70%, and all the nonsignificant effect sizes were accompanied by more than 50% of heterogeneity.

Figure 2.

Meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials identified (sorted by estimated intervention dose).

When the RCTs with less than 30 hours of PBIs were excluded, the RRs for all 4 follow-up years decreased to some extent (Figure 3). The most substantial changes occurred in the RRs for years 1 and 2, from 0.86 (95% CI, 0.69-1.06) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.96) to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.87) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.95), respectively. The RRs showed an increasing trend from year 1 to year 6. The heterogeneity then again showed a similar feature: That is, nonsignificant effect sizes were accompanied by more than 50% of heterogeneity. Exclusion of 1, 2, and 3 RCTs with the lowest quality scores mentioned above did not change the statistical significance of these pooled RRs.

Figure 3.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with more than 30 hours of intervention (sorted by intervention dose).

Funnel Plot

A funnel plot was produced to detect the presence of publication bias and revealed a relatively moderate degree of asymmetry (Figure 4). More specifically, most of the studies with a lower standard error of mean (SE of log [RR]) were concentrated together and beside the centerline (the overall effect sizes); some studies (about 7) were dispersed quite far away from the centerline (either below 0.5 or above 5); and the RR of one study was even plotted to the left of the 0.1 vertical line.

Figure 4.

Funnel plot of the effect sizes against the logarithm standard error of the individual studies.

Discussion

Although PBIs have gained widespread recognition and there is growing evidence that PBIs improve the well-being of cancer patients,^47,51 it remains controversial whether addition of PBIs to routine medical care can prolong survival.^42,50 Our present study partly reflects this situation. Due to the time difference, we were able to double both the numbers of eligible RCTs and the patients involved compared with previous similar studies.⁵² Yet the findings of our inclusive meta-analysis (ie, 3 of the 4 estimated effect sizes were statistically nonsignificant) are still discouraging. Inadequate intervention dosage and inappropriate intervention focus may be the most important causes of this phenomenon. Of the 15 RCTs included, accumulated time spent in performing PBI sessions ranged from 9 to 87 hours. Compared with the total follow-up period, the time of PBI sessions accounted for only 0.010% to 0.497%. If we take the study by Spiegel et al¹⁸ as an example, the estimated accumulated Supportive-Expressive Group Therapy time was 81 hours (1.5 hours per session, once a week, 54 weeks in total), and the follow-up measurement of survival at the end of the intervention was 122 640 hours starting from the baseline, so the length of intervention sessions assumed only 0.066% (81/122 640) of total follow-up duration. If the Supportive-Expressive Group Therapy was 100% effective during intervention sessions and did not exert any additional effect outside the sessions, the intervention only reduced 0.066% of stress; such a small proportion of effects are hardly detectable in a small sample RCT. Given this huge time discrepancy, it is obvious that “out-of-session” intervention is much more important than “in-session” intervention, while most published trials neglected this point. Researchers generally took it for granted that interventions practiced during in-session time would automatically be repeated by patients in out-of-session time and gave little attention to implementing effective measures to promote and monitor patients’ out-of-session practices. Of course, readers are reminded about the subtle differences between doses of PBI and those of pharmacologic interventions. Pharmacologic agents are cleared from the body by the liver and kidneys in a relatively short period of time, whereas PBIs may remain in the patients’ minds for a longer time. Thus, our in-session versus out-of-session dose comparison may be inappropriate in a strict sense. Yet it points to the importance of out-of-session focus: That is, future studies should pay ample attention to PBIs that have enduring effects. In addition, out-of-session focus does not necessarily mean long-term continuous intervention for a patient’s entire survival period, which would be neither realistic nor cost-effective. Instead, it emphasizes reaping extended effects in out-of-session time from limited in-session activities by means of careful intervention redesign. Another factor contributing to the inconsistent findings of the included studies may be study heterogeneity. The statistics given in Figure 2 show that 3 of the 4 heterogeneity values were greater than 50%, yet meta-analysis applies well only if the heterogeneity is less than 50%. Researchers have pointed out a variety of possible sources, including discrepancies in types of cancer, stages of diseases, demographics of patients, contents and settings of PBIs, accompanying medical treatment, and compliance with treatment and interventions.⁵³ All these factors may have played a role in the studies. In addition, subject sizes were generally too small: The largest sample size was 375 and the smallest was only 66; most of the studies recruited fewer than 300 participants. This may have made higher or lower effects prone to be detected because of chance findings.

Bearing in mind the assumption that differences in intervention doses and quality may be among the most important reasons causing the huge effect size heterogeneity, we performed selective meta-analysis by excluding the 8 RCTs with less than 30 hours of PBIs. Not surprisingly, our selective meta-analysis yielded significantly improved statistics compared with the aforementioned inclusive analysis. Just as the dose of a chemotherapy regime contributes to its treatment effects, the dose of a PBI should play a key role in determining its intervention efficacy if the PBI were effective. Due to limited information about interventions and number of RCTs, we did not take account of intervention quality. Given this and the poor compliance reported,⁴¹ it should be viewed as encouraging that some 30 to 90 hours of PBIs resulted in an RR of 0.69 in the first year. However, readers are cautioned about a few issues in interpreting this finding. First, several of the studies included in our analysis have been criticized heavily for methodological reasons, including inappropriate intervention content and time point,^54,55 flawed research design and data interpretation,⁵⁶ subject loss,⁵⁷ and small scale.⁴⁰ The limited number of RCTs did not allow us to produce a quality weighted meta-analysis. Yet when we excluded the few most heavily criticized RCTs (eg, Andersen 2008,³⁰ Spiegel 1989,⁴² Spiegel 2007,¹⁸ Kuchler 2007³¹), the statistically significant effects of PBIs on survival remained unchanged. Second, as mentioned earlier, various cancer sites and stages were contained in this meta-analysis and the pooled overall effect may not be representative of the actual total cancer population since we were not able to perform site- and stage-adjusted analysis given the information available. Even so, we can still argue that PBIs have positive effects on survival at least for patients with similar composition of cancer sites and stages as those in the studies included. Third, the relatively moderate degree of asymmetry shown by the funnel plot (Figure 4) indicates some extent of publication bias, although it is not quite significant. In addition, most of the precautions advised by Chow et al³⁷ apply here as well.

Our meta-analysis also indicates a “tapering off” trend in the effects of PBIs year after year. This may be attributable to various reasons. First, almost all the PBIs ended within 1 year, yet some of the intervention effects may be dependent on ongoing practices. For example, relief of recurring stress may need continuing relaxation exercises. Second, due to the PBIs implemented, more patients in the intervention group than in the control groups survived the earlier years, and this may have resulted in the intervention groups containing more severely diseased patients in the later years. Third, in addition to using the PBIs provided by the researchers, the patients may have tried to seek PBIs from other sources on their own. And thus as time passed by, more patients in the control groups may have been involved in some sort of PBI, whereas patients in the intervention groups may have been less motivated to do so since they had already been involved in PBIs.

Finally, our meta-analysis suggests that more rigorous research is needed regarding PBIs and cancer patient survival. More than 30 years have passed since publication of the first article on this issue,⁴¹ yet our systematic search found only 15 eligible RCTs. And, as mentioned above, most of them suffered from small sample size. As well as attending to more investment and larger scale, future RCT plans and reports should pay added attention to (1) appropriate intervention focus; (2) disease and health status, for example, types and stages of cancer and complications; (3) PBI features, such as content, quality, duration, doses, sustainability, and generalization; (4) background pharmaceutical treatments and PBIs used during and after the intervention period in both trial and control groups; (5) compliance with both PBIs and pharmaceutical treatments in both groups; and (6) patients’ characteristics such as age, gender, and education.

Conclusion

Our selective meta-analysis revealed that PBIs with adequate intervention doses prolong cancer patients’ survival at least for some patients in the first 2 years after intervention, although the longer term effects need to be determined via more studies. The effect sizes may taper off to some extent as time passes after the PBIs have terminated.

Footnotes

Contributors

Yi Xia and Guixian Tong contributed equally in retrieving and processing the RCT articles, performing statistical analysis, and drafting the manuscript. Rui Feng, Jing Chai, and Jing Cheng participated in study design and manuscript revision and refinement. Debin Wang, corresponding author for this paper, conceived, funded, and facilitated the whole study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This paper was co-supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81172201) and Anhui Provincial Fund for Elite Youth (grant number 2011SQRL060).

References

Dong

Qiao

. Report of Chinese cancer control strategy. China Cancer. 2002;11:250-260. http://img.qkzz.net/magazine/zgzl/2002/05/100336468_0.pdf.

Ferlay

Shin

Bray

Forman

Mathers

Parkin

. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2893-2917.

Parkin

Bray

Ferlay

Pisani

. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74-108.

Andersen

Farrar

Golden-Kreutz

. Stress and immune responses after surgical treatment for regional breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:30-36.

Meyerowitz

. Psychosocial correlates of breast cancer and its treatments. Psychol Bull. 1980;87:108-131.

Andersen

Kiecolt-Glaser

Glaser

. A biobehavioral model of cancer stress and disease course. Am Psychol. 1994;49:389-404.

Akechi

Hirai

Motooka

. Problem-solving therapy for psychological distress in Japanese cancer patients: preliminary clinical experience from psychiatric consultations. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008;38:867-870.

Jadoon

Munir

Shahzad

. Assessment of depression and anxiety in adult cancer outpatients: a cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:594.

Chintamani

Gogne A

Khandelwal

. The correlation of anxiety and depression levels with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. JRSM Short Rep. 2011;2:15.

10.

Irwin

Miller

. Depressive disorders and immunity: 20 years of progress and discovery. Brain Behav Immun. 2007;21:374-383.

11.

Elenkov

Wilder

Chrousos

Vizi

. The sympathetic nerve—an integrative interface between two supersystems: the brain and the immune system. Pharmacol Rev. 2000;2:595-638.

12.

Chrousos

. Stress and disorders of the stress system. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2009;5:374-381.

13.

Lutgendorf

Lamkin

Jennings

. Biobehavioral influences on matrix metalloproteinase expression in ovarian carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:6839-6846.

14.

Miller

Cohen

Ritchey

. Chronic psychological stress and the regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines: a glucocorticoid-resistance model. Health Psychol. 2002;21:531-541.

15.

Black

. Stress and the inflammatory response: a review of neurogenic inflammation. Brain Behav Immun. 2002;16:622-653.

16.

Greer

Park

Prigerson

Safren

. Tailoring cognitive-behavioral therapy to treat anxiety comorbid with advanced cancer. J Cogn Psychother. 2010;24:294-313.

17.

Stan

Collins

Olsen

Croghan

Pruthi

. The evolution of mindfulness-based physical interventions in breast cancer survivors. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;2012:758641. doi:10.1155/2012/758641.

18.

Spiegel

Butler

Giese-Davis

. Effects of supportive-expressive group therapy on survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer: a randomized prospective trial. Cancer. 2007;110:1130-1138.

19.

Aguado Loi

Taylor

McMillan

. Use and helpfulness of self-administered stress management therapy in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy in community clinical settings. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2012;1:57-80.

20.

Newell

Sanson-Fisher

Savolainen

. Systematic review of psychological therapies for cancer patients: overview and recommendations for future research. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:558-584.

21.

Newell

Sanson-Fisher

Savolainen

. Systematic review of psychological therapies for cancer patients: overview and recommendations for future research. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:558-584.

22.

Smedslund

Ringdal

. Meta-analysis of the effects of psychosocial interventions on survival time in cancer patients. J Psychosom Res. 2004;57:123-131.

23.

Andrykowski

Manne

. Are psychological interventions effective and accepted by cancer patients? I. Standards and levels of evidence. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32:93-97.

24.

Manne

Andrykowski

. Are psychological interventions effective and accepted by cancer patients? II. Using empirically supported therapy guidelines to decide. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32:98-103.

25.

Manne

Andrykowski

. Seeing the forest for the trees: a rebuttal. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32:111-114.

26.

Coyne

Lepore

. Rebuttal: the black swan fallacy in evaluating psychological interventions for distress in cancer patients. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32:115-118.

27.

Coyne

Lepore

Palmer

. Efficacy of psychosocial interventions in cancer care: evidence is weaker than it first looks. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32:104-110.

28.

Lepore

Coyne

. Psychological interventions for distress in cancer patients: a review of reviews. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32:85-92.

29.

Fawzy

Hyun

. Malignant melanoma: effects of an early structured psychiatric intervention, coping, and affective state on recurrence and survival 6 years later. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993;50:681-689.

30.

Andersen

Yang

Farrar

. Psychologic intervention improves survival for breast cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial. Cancer. 2008;113:3450-3458.

31.

Kuchler

Bestmann

Rappat

Henne-Bruns

Wood-Dauphinee

. Impact of psychotherapeutic support for patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery: 10-year survival results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2702-2708.

32.

Kuchler

Henne-Bruns

Rappat

. Impact of psychotherapeutic support on gastrointestinal cancer patients undergoing surgery: survival results of a trial. Hepatogastroenterology. 1999;46:322-335.

33.

Fawzy

Canada

Fawzy

. Malignant melanoma: effects of a brief, structured psychiatric intervention on survival and recurrence at 10-year follow-up. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60:100-103.

34.

Ilnyckyj

Farber

Cheang

Weinerman

. A randomized controlled trial of psychotherapeutic intervention in cancer patients. Annals of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. 1994;27:93-96.

35.

Gellert

Maxwell

Siegel

. Survival of breast cancer patients receiving adjunctive psychosocial support therapy: a 10-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:66-69.

36.

Kissane

Love

Hatton

. Effect of cognitive-existential group therapy on survival in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4255-4260.

37.

Chow

Tsao

Harth

. Does psychosocial intervention improve survival in cancer? A meta-analysis. Palliat Med. 2004;18:25-31.

38.

Smedslund

Ringdal

. Meta-analysis of the effects of psychosocial interventions on survival time in cancer patients. J Psychosom Res. 2004;57:123-131.

39.

Mulrow

Oxman

. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Oxford, UK: Cochrane Collaboration; 1997.

40.

Coyne

Thombs

Stefanek

Palmer

. Time to let go of the illusion that psychotherapy extends the survival of cancer patients: reply to Kraemer, Kuchler, and Spiegel (2009). Psychol Bull. 2009;135:179-182.

41.

Linn

Harris

. Effects of counseling for late stage cancer patients. Cancer. 1982;49:1048-1055.

42.

Spiegel

Bloom

Kraemer

Gottheil

. Effect of psychosocial treatment on survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Lancet. 1989;2:888-891.

43.

Cunningham

Edmonds

Jenkins

. A randomized controlled trial of the effects of group psychological therapy on survival in women with metastatic breast cancer. Psychooncology. 1998;7:508-517.

44.

Edelman

Lemon

Bell

Kidman

. Effects of group CBT on the survival time of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Psychooncology. 1999;8:474-481.

45.

Kissane

Grabsch

Clarke

. Supportive-expressive group therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: survival and psychosocial outcome from a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology. 2007;16:277-286.

46.

Boesen

E H

Boesen

Frederiksen

. Survival after a psychoeducational intervention for patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma: a replication study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5698-5703.

47.

Shennan

Payne

Fenlon

. What is the evidence for the use of mindfulness-based interventions in cancer care? A review. Psychooncology. 2011;20:681-697.

48.

McCorkle

Strumpf

Nuamah

. A specialized home care intervention improves survival among older post-surgical cancer patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:1707-1713.

49.

Goodwin

Leszcz

Ennis

. The effect of group psychosocial support on survival in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1719-1726.

50.

Ross

Frederiksen

Boesen

. No effect on survival of home psychosocial intervention in a randomized study of Danish colorectal cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2009;18:875-885.

51.

Pekmezi

Demark-Wahnefried

. Updated evidence in support of diet and exercise interventions in cancer survivors. Acta Oncol. 2011;50:167-178.

52.

Link

Thompson

Bosland

Lumey

. Adherence to a low-fat diet in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2004;64:970-975.

53.

Whelan

Julian

Wright

Jadad

Levine

. Does locoregional radiation therapy improve survival in breast cancer? A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1220-1229.

54.

Beasley

Newcomb

Trentham-Dietz

. Social networks and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. J Cancer Surviv. 2010;4:372-380.

55.

Braude

Macdonald

Chasen

. Healing and survivorship: what makes a difference? Curr Oncol. 2008;15:185-187.

56.

Cohen

Janicki-Deverts

. Can we improve our physical health by altering our social networks? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4:375-378.

57.

Andersen

Beck

Ouelette-Kobasa

Revenson

Temoshok

. Directions for a psychology research agenda in cancer. Health Psychol. 1989;8:753-760.

Psychosocial and Behavioral Interventions and Cancer Patient Survival Again

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Article Retrieval

Inclusion Criteria

Data Extraction

Statistical Analysis

Risk of Biases

Results

Trials Included

Risk Ratios

Funnel Plot

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Contributors

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References