HELP

MontgomeryarticleRCT.pdf

Home >Applied Sciences homework help >HELP

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Plus Hypnosis Intervention to Control Fatigue in Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer Guy H. Montgomery, Daniel David, Maria Kangas, Sheryl Green, Madalina Sucala, Dana H. Bovbjerg, Michael N. Hallquist, and Julie B. Schnur

Guy H. Montgomery, Daniel David, Sheryl Green, Madalina Sucala, and Julie B. Schnur, Icahn School of Medi- cine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Daniel David and Madalina Sucala, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania; Maria Kangas, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Dana H. Bovbjerg, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Univer- sity of Pittsburgh; and Michael N. Hallquist, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.

Published online ahead of print at www.jco.org on January 13, 2014.

Supported by National Cancer Institute Grants No. CA131473, CA159530, CA081137, CA166042, and CA129094, and by American Cancer Society Grant No. RSGPB-04-213-01-CPPB. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute, National Insti- tutes of Health, or American Cancer Society.

Authors’ disclosures of potential con- flicts of interest and author contribu- tions are found at the end of this article.

Corresponding author: Guy H. Mont- gomery, PhD, Department of Oncologi- cal Sciences, Box 1130, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1425 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10029-6574; e-mail: [email protected].

0732-183X/14/3206w-557w/$20.00

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.3437

A B S T R A C T

Purpose The objective of this study was to test the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy plus hypnosis (CBTH) to control fatigue in patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy. We hypothesized that patients in the CBTH group receiving radiotherapy would have lower levels of fatigue than patients in an attention control group.

Patients and Methods Patients (n � 200) were randomly assigned to either the CBTH (n � 100; mean age, 55.59 years) or attention control (n � 100; mean age, 55.97 years) group. Fatigue was measured at four time points (baseline, end of radiotherapy, 4 weeks, and 6 months after radiotherapy). Fatigue was measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) –Fatigue subscale and Visual Analog Scales (VASs; Fatigue and Muscle Weakness).

Results The CBTH group had significantly lower levels of fatigue (FACIT) at the end of radiotherapy (z, 6.73; P � .001), 4-week follow-up (z, 6.98; P � .001), and 6-month follow-up (z, 7.99; P � .001) assessments. Fatigue VAS scores were significantly lower in the CBTH group at the end of treatment (z, 5.81; P � .001) and at the 6-month follow-up (z, 4.56; P � .001), but not at the 4-week follow-up (P � .07). Muscle Weakness VAS scores were significantly lower in the CBTH group at the end of treatment (z, 9.30; P � .001) and at the 6-month follow-up (z, 3.10; P � .02), but not at the 4-week follow-up (P � .13).

Conclusion The results support CBTH as an evidence-based intervention to control fatigue in patients undergoing radiotherapy for breast cancer. CBTH is noninvasive, has no adverse effects, and its beneficial effects persist long after the last intervention session. CBTH seems to be a candidate for future dissemination and implementation.

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, more than 200,000 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer (BCa),1 and nearly half will undergo adjuvant radiotherapy.2 Although BCa radiotherapy increases disease-free survival and life expectancy, it is not without adverse conse- quences, primarily fatigue. Patients receiving radio- therapy rate fatigue as their most prevalent and severe symptom.3 Fatigue increases over the course of radiotherapy,3-5 and off-treatment fatigue occurs among some BCa survivors.6,7 In fact, one study found that up to 40% of patients who received ra- diotherapy for BCa reported fatigue 1 year after treatment.8 Fatigue has been demonstrated to be the strongest predictor of quality of life in women after

radiotherapy,9 and fatigue has pervasive and detri- mental effects on numerous aspects of pa- tients’ functioning.7,10-12

Fatigue is a multidimensional construct.13

Although cancer treatments are clearly one source of fatigue, psychological factors also contribute.6,8,14-16

Meta-analysis has indicated that psychological interventions, such as cognitive-behavioral ther- apy (CBT), are efficacious in reducing cancer- related fatigue.17

Meta-analyses (in studies of pain, anxiety, and weight loss) have indicated that adding hypnosis to CBT significantly increases effect sizes relative to CBT alone.18-20 During hypnosis, patients can be given suggestions for reduced fatigue that change patients’ expectations for fatigue, which in turn may

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY O R I G I N A L R E P O R T

VOLUME 32 � NUMBER 6 � FEBRUARY 20 2014

directly lead to reductions in patients’ experiences of fatigue.21 The literature22 has supported the efficacy of hypnosis in controlling can- cer treatment–related adverse effects, including fatigue in patients with BCa undergoing surgery.23

Recognizing that the combination of CBT and hypnosis can increase clinical benefit,18 we developed an intervention combining CBT and hypnosis for controlling fatigue during BCa radiotherapy. Initial results5 revealed significant beneficial effects of CBTH on fa- tigue during radiotherapy, with medium to large effect sizes. Although these findings were encouraging, there were limitations, including a relatively small sample (n � 42), the lack of a professional attention control (AC) group, and that fatigue measurement ended at the con- clusion of radiotherapy. It was unknown whether intervention bene- fits would continue past the acute treatment period.

The objective of this study was to test the efficacy of CBTH to control fatigue in a new randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients with BCa receiving radiotherapy. We hypothesized that CBTH pa- tients would have lower levels of fatigue than patients in the AC group, and that CBTH effects would persist beyond the end of radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants

Consecutive patients with BCa receiving radiotherapy were recruited from Mount Sinai Medical Center between January 2006 and July 2011. Eligibility criteria included the following: scheduled for a 6-week course of external-beam radiotherapy; able to speak and read English; older than age 18 years; and willing to be randomly assigned to study treatment groups. Exclu- sion criteria included: uncontrolled comorbid medical or psychiatric illness (on the basis of chart review); taking medications or having conditions asso- ciated with fatigue (eg, chronic fatigue syndrome); or metastatic disease. There were no changes to the criteria after trial commencement. All participants

provided written informed consent. The study was approved by our Program for the Protection of Human Subjects (Fig 1).24

Two hundred patients were randomly assigned to either the CBTH (n � 100) or AC (n � 100) group using computer-generated random positive integers.25 Random assignment was performed by one of the authors (G.H.M.) using randomized block lengths, with an average block length of 10. Sample characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Procedures

To reduce potential bias, blinding procedures were followed for assess- ment personnel (research assistants), radiation oncologists, radiation thera- pists, nurses, and front desk staff. Although blinding to group assignment was not formally assessed, the following precautions were taken: study interven- tion sessions took place in a private room away from clinical staff; no outcome data were collected by clinical staff or study interventionists; and the same interventionists (four doctoral-level clinical psychologists) met with all pa- tients in both the CBTH and AC arms, so study assessment staff were not cued to group assignment by an interventionist’s presence. Patients could not be blinded to their group, given that this was a behavioral intervention. Interven- tionists were given each patient’s random assignment by one of the authors (G.H.M.) on the morning of the initial intervention session in a sealed enve- lope. Eligibility was confirmed before group assignment.

CBTH and AC sessions were delivered to patients individually by inter- ventionists according to the study protocol manual. On patients’ radiotherapy simulation day (the first preradiotherapy treatment planning session), baseline questionnaires were administered by an RA.

Consistent across both groups. In both groups, the initial intervention session (scheduled for patients’ radiotherapy verification day) lasted for 30 minutes. During the course of radiotherapy, patients met with an interventionist twice per week; each session lasted 15 minutes. The final intervention session (scheduled for the penultimate day of radiotherapy) lasted for 30 minutes. All patients received standard medical care. At the conclusion of radiotherapy, participants completed a Treatment Credibil- ity Questionnaire.26

CBTH group. On verification day, patients in the CBTH group received an initial CBTH training session lasing 30 minutes. The CBT segment (15

Randomly assigned

Allocated to CBTH (n = 100) Completed baseline assessment (n = 100) Received allocated intervention (n = 100)

Allocated to attention control (n = 100) Completed baseline assessment (n = 100) Received allocated intervention (n = 100)

After 4 weeks Lost to follow-up (did not return packets) (n = 5)

After 4 weeks Lost to follow-up (did not return packets) (n = 4)

After 6 months Lost to follow-up (did not return packets) (n = 4)

After 6 months Lost to follow-up (did not return packets) (n = 6)

Analyzed (n = 91)

Analyzed (n = 90)

)17 = n( dedulcxE Did not meet inclusion criteria (n = 56) Declined to participate (n = 15)

Assessed for eligibility (N = 271)

Fig 1. CONSORT diagram. CBTH, cognitive- behavioral therapy plus hypnosis.

Montgomery et al

minutes) had three major components. First, the ABC model of cognitive- behavioral therapy (A, activating events; B, beliefs; C, consequences) was taught.27,28 Patients were taught to identify negative, unhelpful beliefs and the emotional, behavioral, and physical consequences of those beliefs. Second, patients were taught to complete a thought record worksheet that was based on the ABC model.28 Interventionists completed a worksheet together with the patient in this session. Third, patients were taught behavioral strategies (eg, activity scheduling, distraction) to help manage fatigue.

On verification day, patients also received a 15-minute hypnosis session after CBT. First, to allay any potential concerns about hypnosis, possible patient concerns and misconceptions about hypnosis were addressed. Hypno- sis then began with relaxing imagery followed by suggestions for reduced

distress and reduced fatigue during radiotherapy.5,29 The standardized hypno- sis session concluded by providing patients with instructions for how to use hypnosis on their own.30 At the end of the session, each patient was given a CBTH workbook that had been developed by our group (Data Supplement).

In the first weekly session during radiotherapy, a CBT worksheet was reviewed by the patient and therapist, and the ABC model was reinforced (15 minutes). In the second weekly session, a second worksheet was reviewed by the therapist and patient for 10 minutes, and 5 minutes was devoted to hypnosis. Patients did not have to learn or maintain hypnosis on their own over the course of radiotherapy because they received a live session every week. The alternating session content pattern was repeated throughout the course of radiotherapy. On the penultimate day of radiotherapy, the 15-minute CBT

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants by Group

Characteristic

Group

Significance

CBTH (n � 100) AC (n � 100)

No. % No. %

Age, years F � 0.06; P � .81 Mean 55.59 55.97 SD 9.69 11.89

Education �2 � 3.05; P � .81 College degree or higher 66 66 66 66 Less than college degree 34 34 34 34

Marital status Currently married 53 53 51 51 Not currently married 47 47 49 49

Race �2 � 0.95; P � .63 White 69 69 66 66 African American 20 20 22 22 Other 11 11 12 12

Ethnicity �2 � 0.28; P � .60 Hispanic 22 22 19 19 Non-Hispanic 78 78 81 81

Chemotherapy before radiotherapy �2 � 0.52; P � .47 Yes 43 43 38 38 No 57 57 62 62

KPS, % F � 0.01; P � .92 Mean 93.95 94.05 SD 7.78 6.13

Adjuvant hormone treatment �2 � 0.08; P � .96 Tamoxifen 30 30 31 31 Aromatase inhibitors 44 44 42 42 None 26 26 27 27

Stage �2 � 0.26; P � .97 0 29 29 32 32 I 39 39 38 38 II 21 21 19 19 III 11 11 11 11

Total radiation dose, Gy F � 0.01; P � .91 Mean 61.83 61.79 SD 2.66 2.22

Total No. of study sessions F � 0.45; P � .51 Mean 12.29 12.08 SD 2.55 2.01

Neuroticism F � 0.25; P � .63 Mean 20.82 20.31 SD 7.71 6.83

Treatment credibility F � 2.30; P � .14 Mean 42.48 40.98 SD 6.34 6.52

Abbreviations: AC, attention control group; CBTH, cognitive-behavioral therapy plus hypnosis; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; SD, standard deviation.

CBTH Reduces Fatigue Associated With Breast Radiotherapy

component of the session reviewed themes that had emerged over the course of treatment and provided relapse prevention strategies. The second 15- minute period was devoted to hypnosis, including suggestions for increased well-being and reduced fatigue after the conclusion of radiotherapy.

AC group. An AC group was used to control for attention, notably the potential effects of simply interacting with an empathic interventionist. AC participants met with an interventionist for the same amount of time as CBTH participants. AC procedures were based on manualized approaches.23,31 For AC participants, the interventionist did not lead the patient in imagery, relax- ation, evaluation of thought processes, or even simple discussion. Rather, the interventionist allowed the patient to direct the flow of the conversation and provided supportive/empathic comments.

All interventionists had advanced training in CBT and hypnosis, under- went didactic and practical training, and completed at least five practice inter- ventions with healthy volunteers under the direct supervision of one of the authors (J.B.S.). Patient permission was obtained to audiotape sessions, and 20% of audiotapes were randomly reviewed by one of the authors (G.H.M.) to ensure treatment fidelity using a standardized fidelity checklist. There were no significant effects of interventionist on outcome variables (Ps � .52).

Outcomes

Patients completed self-report outcome measures at baseline (simula- tion day), at the end of radiotherapy (penultimate day of radiotherapy), and at 4 weeks and 6 months after radiotherapy. At 4 weeks and 6 months, patients returned questionnaires using prepaid and preaddressed envelopes. Patients were reminded by RAs over the phone to return follow-up questionnaires. There were no changes to trial outcomes after study commencement.

Primary fatigue measure. The 13-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale was used to measure fatigue.32 The FACIT-F has demonstrated excellent internal consistency (� � .93 to .95), good test-retest reliability (� � .90), and validity in patients with BCa.32 For ease of interpretation, the FACIT-F was scored such that higher scores indicated greater fatigue. In the present sample, baseline � was .94.

Secondary fatigue measures. Two 100-mm visual analog scales (VASs) were used to assess fatigue and muscle weakness.5,23,33 The fatigue VAS stated, “RIGHT NOW how fatigued do you feel?” The line was anchored by “Not at all fatigued,” and “As fatigued as I could be.” A VAS to assess muscle weakness, another aspect of fatigue,13 was used in an identical manner (“RIGHT NOW how much muscle weakness do you have?” The line was anchored by “No muscle weakness at all,” and “As much muscle weakness as there could be”).

Possible covariates. On the basis of previous research,5,34,35 possible covariates of fatigue included neuroticism and chemotherapy history. The NEO Neuroticism Subscale (NEO-N)36 was used to assess neuroticism. The NEO-N36 is a widely used, well-validated, self-report questionnaire with 12 items and good internal consistency (� � .86; present sample, � � .85). Chemotherapy history was assessed via medical charts and scored dichoto- mously (yes/no). Self-reported demographic data were also collected, and relevant medical history variables (eg, adjuvant hormonal therapy, Karnofsky performance status37) were abstracted from medical records.

Sample Size

Sample size was based on published effect sizes for CBTH on fatigue in this population (d, 0.59 to 0.82)5 and the ability to detect the influence of up to six potential covariates. With power set at 0.80, two-tailed � set at .05, and using a repeated-measures design, the minimum total sample size was calcu- lated to be 175 participants.38 Intent-to-treat procedures were followed. Spe- cifically, the mixed-effects regression approach that was employed used all available observations to estimate effects at each time point. Effects were computed using full information maximum likelihood estimation, which provides unbiased estimates when data are missing at random. Mixed-model approaches are consistent with the intent-to-treat principle in that all available patients are used to estimate effects. This approach provides tests that have greater statistical power and lower bias than other methods of handling miss- ing observations in RCTs.39

CA B

M ea

n FA

CI T−

F Sc

or e

Assessment Point

Bas eli

End o f R

4- wee

fo llo

w-u p

6- m

onth

fo llo

w-u p

AC CBTH

M ea

n W

ea kn

es s

VA S

Sc or

Assessment Point

Bas eli

End o f R

4- wee

fo llo

w-u p

6- m

onth

fo llo

w-u p

AC CBTH

M ea

n Fa

tig ue

V AS

S co

Assessment Point

Bas eli

End o f R

4- wee

fo llo

w-u p

6- m

onth

fo llo

w-u p

AC CBTH

* * * ****

Fig 2. The effects over time of cognitive-behavioral therapy plus hypnosis (CBTH) on fatigue in patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy (RT). Asterisks indicate adjusted P � .05, controlling for family-wise error (multiple comparisons). (A) CBTH effects on mean FACIT-F, (B) CBTH effects on mean Fatigue VAS, (C) CBTH effects on mean Muscle Weakness VAS. AC, attention control group; FACIT-F, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue; VAS, Visual Analog Scale.

Montgomery et al

Statistical Analyses

To test the efficacy of CBTH on fatigue, we fit a series of multilevel models, wherein observations were nested within individuals and the model intercept was a random effect.40 Given the uneven spacing of measurements and our expectation that treatment effects would not be a linear function of time, we treated assessment point as a categorical independent variable. Thus, our primary analyses tested whether there were significant group differences between CBTH and AC at baseline, end of radiotherapy, 4-week follow-up, and 6-month follow-up. To control for multiple statistical comparisons, we applied a family-wise error correction that maintained an overall � level of .05 for each outcome model.41 Adjusted P values are reported on the basis of this single-step multiple comparison correction.

Pretreatment comparisons of sample characteristics were conducted us- ing analysis of variance and �2 tests. All statistical tests were two-tailed. It was planned that any factor differing between the groups would be included as a covariate.

RESULTS

Groups did not differ with respect to any medical or demographic characteristics, number of study sessions, neuroticism, or treatment credibility (Table 1).

Effects of CBTH on Fatigue

There were significant main effects of group [�2(1) � 58.20; P � .001] and time [�2(3) � 80.54; P � .001] on FACIT-Fatigue. These main effects were qualified by a time � group interaction [�2(3) � 59.86; P � .001]. We then estimated the simple main effects of group on FACIT-Fatigue at each time point, controlling for family-wise error (Fig 2A). The CBTH group had significantly less fatigue at all three outcome assessment points: end of treat- ment (z, 6.73; adjusted P � .001; d, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.11),

4-week follow-up (z, 6.98; adjusted P � .001; d, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.21), and 6-month follow-up (z, 7.99; adjusted P � .001; d, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.01). There was no significant difference in fatigue at baseline (z, 0.92; adjusted P � 0.82; d, 0.11; 95% CI, �0.16 to 0.39).

There were significant main effects of group [�2(1) � 21.65; P � .001] and time [�2(3) � 91.33; P � .001] on the Fatigue VAS. Main effects were qualified by a time � group interaction [�2(3) � 25.48; P � .001]. Fatigue VAS scores were significantly lower in the CBTH group at the end of treatment (z, 5.81; adjusted P � .001; d, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.98) and the 6-month follow-up (z, 4.56; P � .001; d, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.97). Fatigue VAS in the CBTH group at the 4-week follow-up was not significantly lower than in the AC group (z, 2.38; adjusted P � .07; d, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.64; Fig 2B), although marginal. There was no significant group difference in Fatigue VAS at baseline (z, 0.03; adjusted P � 1.0; d, 0.06; 95% CI, �0.22 to 0.34).

There were significant main effects of group [�2(1) � 25.40; P � .001] and time [�2(3) � 87.21; P � .001] on Muscle Weakness VAS (Fig 2C). These main effects were qualified by a time � group interaction [�2(3) � 56.84; P � .001]. Muscle Weakness VAS scores were significantly lower in the CBTH group at the end of radiotherapy (z, 9.30; adjusted P � .001; d, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.37) and at the 6-month follow-up (z, 3.10; adjusted P � .02; d, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.90). Muscle Weakness in the CBTH group at the 4-week follow-up was not significantly lower than in the AC group (z, 2.12; adjusted P � .13; d, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.59). There was no significant group difference in Muscle Weakness VAS at baseline (z, 0.17; adjusted P � 1.0; d, 0.03; 95% CI, �0.24 to 0.31).

M ea

n FA

CI T−

F Sc

or e

Assessment Point

End o f R

4- wee

fo llo

w-u p

6- m

onth

fo llo

w-u p

−1 SD Mean +1 SD

M ea

n FA

CI T−

F Sc

or e

Assessment Point

End o f R

4- wee

fo llo

w-u p

6- m

onth

fo llo

w-u p

−1 SD Mean +1 SD

5 **

Fig 3. Effects of baseline fatigue levels on intervention effects over time in (A) attention control group and (B) cognitive-behavioral ther- apy plus hypnosis group. Asterisks indicate adjusted P � .05, controlling for family-wise error (multiple comparisons). FACIT-F, Functional Assessment of Chronic Ill- ness Therapy–Fatigue; RT, radiotherapy; SD, standard deviation.

CBTH Reduces Fatigue Associated With Breast Radiotherapy

Effects of Baseline Fatigue

To explore whether baseline fatigue moderated the efficacy of CBTH, we tested whether there was a group � baseline fatigue � time interaction, using FACIT-F scores (our most sensitive measure) and correcting for multiple comparisons.41 We found a significant three- way interaction [�2(2) � 8.97; P � .01] driven by the differences in the timing of the baseline fatigue moderation effect (Figs 3A and 3B). However, the main effect of group remained highly significant after controlling for baseline fatigue [�2(1) � 122.84; P � .001].

DISCUSSION

This RCT demonstrated that CBTH was efficacious for controlling fatigue in patients with BCa who underwent radiotherapy for up to 6 months after radiotherapy. Beneficial CBTH effects were independent of participants’ medical and demographic characteristics, suggesting the generalizability of CBTH effects. Results are consistent with liter- ature that supports combining CBT with hypnosis5,18-20 and literature that supports the benefits of CBT for controlling cancer-related fa- tigue.17,42,43 Effect sizes reported here (d, 0.62 to 1.69) are greater than those reported for CBT alone (d, 0.43) or exercise (d, 0.38).17 Addi- tionally, significant between-group differences were greater than min- imally important difference thresholds for the FACIT-F (3 to 4 points),44 and for fatigue VASs (8 to 11 points).45

There are several potential explanations for the large clinical benefit of CBTH. First, CBTH includes hypnosis, unlike previous CBT interventions. CBT in the present study was based on Rational Emo- tive Behavior Therapy (REBT),27,28 rather than other CBT ap- proaches. An important difference between REBT and most other forms of CBT is REBT’s focus on addressing core irrational beliefs, which are seen as the proximal causes of dysfunctional feelings and behaviors.46 In addition, CBTH was conducted face-to-face in the radiotherapy clinic, which may have reduced patient burden. CBTH was also conducted twice per week, whereas many other CBT ap- proaches involve once-per-week sessions. CBTH was intended to be preventive, so the intervention began before radiotherapy. And lastly, interventionists were doctoral-level clinical psychologists.

Interestingly, there were no group differences using the VASs at the 4-week follow-up; most likely because of the greater measurement error typically associated with single-item measures (VASs) relative to multi-item approaches (FACIT-F).47 The present results are consis- tent with recommendations that studies investigating fatigue as a primary end point use multi-item assessment approaches.13

Fatigue levels in this study were equivalent to those previously published for patients with BCa receiving radiation.5 AC fatigue levels indicate that patients were experiencing clinically relevant levels of fatigue on the basis of published norms48,49 and support the view that fatigue during radiotherapy is problematic for patients and an appro- priate target for clinical interventions.

Baseline fatigue levels did have differential effects by group over time (Fig 3). Baseline fatigue levels moderated group effects at the end

of radiotherapy in the CBTH group, and at the 4-week follow-up in the AC group. This finding may be a result of the decreasing influence of baseline fatigue in the CBTH group, perhaps reflecting the in- creased influence of the intervention (eg, patients becoming more facile with the techniques). In the AC group, there may have been a ceiling effect at the end of radiotherapy, such that all patients, regard- less of baseline fatigue, had higher levels of fatigue at that time. How- ever, baseline fatigue did not account for intervention effects on fatigue.

Results suggest four future directions to address study limita- tions. First, investigation of the contributions of individual interven- tion components (REBT, hypnosis) to CBTH effects is needed. We chose to test effects of an intervention that combined multiple cognitive-behavioral components and hypnosis. We prioritized estab- lishing clinical effects of the CBTH package over examining unique contributions of intervention elements. Consequently, we cannot de- termine the required active ingredients, so to speak, of CBTH. In subsequent work, we plan to experimentally investigate the relative contributions of intervention components. Second, it will be impor- tant to investigate potential mediators of intervention effects sug- gested by the literature on REBT and hypnosis16,21 (REBT: irrational beliefs; hypnosis: expectancies). We speculate that CBTH works through changing irrational beliefs (eg, catastrophizing) to more ra- tional alternatives, by changing expectancies for fatigue, and by reduc- ing emotional distress.21 Third, psychologists may not be available at all institutions. Future research should test the delivery of CBTH by other professionals (eg, nurses, physicians) or technologies (Web or smartphone). Fourth, investigations of cost-effectiveness seem war- ranted as a step toward future dissemination.

In conclusion, the results should encourage additional investiga- tion of CBTH as an evidence-based intervention to control fatigue in patients with BCa undergoing radiotherapy. CBTH is noninvasive, had no adverse effects, and had beneficial effects long after the last intervention session and the end of radiotherapy. CBTH thus seems to be a promising candidate for future dissemination.

AUTHORS’ DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The author(s) indicated no potential conflicts of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conception and design: Guy H. Montgomery, Daniel David, Maria Kangas, Dana H. Bovbjerg, Julie B. Schnur Collection and assembly of data: Guy H. Montgomery, Sheryl Green, Madalina Sucala, Julie B. Schnur Data analysis and interpretation: Guy H. Montgomery, Daniel David, Michael N. Hallquist Manuscript writing: All authors Final approval of manuscript: All authors

REFERENCES

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 63:11-30, 2013

2. National Cancer Data Base: Radiation Therapy of Breast Cancer Diagnoses in 2000 to 2009. Chi-

cago, IL, The Commission on Cancer of the Ameri- can College of Surgeons, 2012

3. Hickok JT, Morrow GR, Roscoe JA, et al: Occurrence, severity, and longitudinal course of twelve common symptoms in 1129 consecutive patients during radiotherapy for cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 30:433-442, 2005

4. Knobf MT, Sun Y: A longitudinal study of symptoms and self-care activities in women treated with primary radiotherapy for breast cancer. Cancer Nurs 28:210-218, 2005

5. Montgomery GH, Kangas M, David D, et al: Fatigue during breast cancer radiotherapy: An initial randomized study of CBT plus hypnosis. Health

Montgomery et al

Psychol 28:317-322, 2009 6. Andrykowski MA, Donovan KA, Laronga C, et

al: Prevalence, predictors, and characteristics of off-treatment fatigue in breast cancer survivors. Cancer 116:5740-5748, 2010

7. Schmidt ME, Chang-Claude J, Vrieling A, et al: Fatigue and quality of life in breast cancer survivors: Temporal courses and long-term pattern. J Cancer Surviv 6:11-19, 2012

8. Noal S, Levy C, Hardouin A, et al: One-year longitudinal study of fatigue, cognitive functions, and quality of life after adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:795- 803, 2011

9. Lee TS, Kilbreath SL, Refshauge KM, et al: Quality of life of women treated with radiotherapy for breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 16:399-405, 2008

10. Jereczek-Fossa BA, Marsiglia HR, Orecchia R: Radiotherapy-related fatigue. Crit Rev Oncol Hema- tol 41:317-325, 2002

11. Spelten ER, Verbeek JH, Uitterhoeve AL, et al: Cancer, fatigue and the return of patients to work: A prospective cohort study. Eur J Cancer 39:1562-1567, 2003

12. Alcântara-Silva TR, Freitas-Junior R, Freitas NM, et al: Fatigue related to radiotherapy for breast and/or gynaecological cancer: A systematic review. J Clin Nurs 22:2679-2686, 2013

13. Barsevick AM, Cleeland CS, Manning DC, et al: ASCPRO recommendations for the assessment of fatigue as an outcome in clinical trials. J Pain Symptom Manage 39:1086-1099, 2010

14. Jacobsen PB, Andrykowski MA, Thors CL: Relationship of catastrophizing to fatigue among women receiving treatment for breast cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol 72:355-361, 2004

15. Montgomery GH, Bovbjerg DH: Presurgery distress and specific response expectancies predict postsurgery outcomes in surgery patients confront- ing breast cancer. Health Psychol 23:381-387, 2004

16. Sucala M, Schnur JB, Brackman EH, et al: The role of specific and core dysfunctional beliefs in breast cancer radiotherapy patients’ fatigue. J Health Psychol [epub ahead of print on April 30, 2013]

17. Kangas M, Bovbjerg DH, Montgomery GH: Cancer-related fatigue: A systematic and meta- analytic review of non-pharmacological therapies for cancer patients. Psychol Bull 134:700-741, 2008

18. Kirsch I, Montgomery G, Sapirstein G: Hypno- sis as an adjunct to cognitive-behavioral psychother- apy: A meta-analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol 63: 214-220, 1995

19. Castel A, Cascón R, Padrol A, et al: Multicom- ponent cognitive-behavioral group therapy with hyp- nosis for the treatment of fibromyalgia: Long-term outcome. J Pain 13:255-265, 2012

20. Bryant RA, Moulds ML, Guthrie RM, et al: The additive benefit of hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral

therapy in treating acute stress disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 73:334-340, 2005

21. Montgomery GH, Hallquist MN, Schnur JB, et al: Mediators of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients: Re- sponse expectancies and emotional distress. J Con- sult Clin Psychol 78:80-88, 2010

22. Montgomery GH, Schnur JB, Kravits K: Hyp- nosis for cancer care: Over 200 years young. CA Cancer J Clin 63:31-44, 2013

23. Montgomery GH, Bovbjerg DH, Schnur JB, et al: A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1304-1312, 2007

24. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al: CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Obstet Gynecol 115:1063-1070, 2010

25. SAS Institute: SAS Proprietary Software 9.2. Cary, NC, SAS Institute, 2009

26. Borkovec TD, Nau SD: Credibility of analogue therapy rationales. J Behav Ther Exp Psychol 3:117- 126, 1972

27. Ellis A: Reason and Emotion in Psychother- apy. Secaucus, NJ, Birch Lane, 1994

28. Walen S, Digiuseppe R, Dryden W: A Practi- tioner’s Guide to Rational Emotive Therapy (ed 2). New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 1992, pp 3-377

29. Lynn SJ, Rhue JW, Kirsch I (eds): Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis (ed 2). Washington, DC, Amer- ican Psychological Association, 2010

30. Enqvist B, Fischer K: Preoperative hypnotic techniques reduce consumption of analgesics after surgical removal of third mandibular molars: A brief communication. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 45:102-108, 1997

31. Lang EV, Benotsch EG, Fick LJ, et al: Adjunc- tive non-pharmacological analgesia for invasive medical procedures: A randomised trial. Lancet 355: 1486-1490, 2000

32. Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, et al: Mea- suring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage 13:63-74, 1997

33. Geinitz H, Zimmermann FB, Thamm R, et al: Fatigue in patients with adjuvant radiation therapy for breast cancer: Long-term follow-up. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 130:327-333, 2004

34. Michielsen HJ, Van der Steeg AF, Roukema JA, et al: Personality and fatigue in patients with benign or malignant breast disease. Support Care Cancer 15:1067-1073, 2007

35. Donovan KA, Jacobsen PB, Andrykowski MA, et al: Course of fatigue in women receiving chemo- therapy and/or radiotherapy for early stage breast cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 28:373-380, 2004

36. Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR: Revised NEO Per- sonality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor

Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Lutz, FL, Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992

37. Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH: The clinical eval- uation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer, in MacLeod CM (ed): Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents. New York, NY, Columbia University Press, 1949, pp 199-205

38. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, et al: G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Be- hav Res Methods 39:175-191, 2007

39. Touloumi G, Babiker AG, Pocock SJ, et al: Impact of missing data due to drop-outs on estima- tors for rates of change in longitudinal studies: A simulation study. Stat Med 20:3715-3728, 2001

40. Snijders TAB, Bosker R: Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, 1999

41. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P: Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346-363, 2008

42. Goedendorp MM, Peters ME, Gielissen MF, et al: Is increasing physical activity necessary to diminish fatigue during cancer treatment? Compar- ing cognitive behavior therapy and a brief nursing intervention with usual care in a multicenter ran- domized controlled trial. Oncologist 15:1122-1132, 2010

43. Gielissen MF, Verhagen S, Witjes F, et al: Effects of cognitive behavior therapy in severely fatigued disease-free cancer patients compared with patients waiting for cognitive behavior therapy: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 24:4882- 4887, 2006

44. FACIT.org: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F) Scale: Summary of development and validation—June 27, 2007 Update. www.facit.org/FACITOrg/Questionnaires

45. Khanna D, Pope JE, Khanna PP, et al: The minimally important difference for the fatigue visual analog scale in patients with rheumatoid arthritis followed in an academic clinical practice. J Rheuma- tol 35:2339-2343, 2008

46. David D, Lynn SJ, Ellis A (eds): Rational and Irrational Beliefs: Research, Theory, and Clinical Practice. New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2010

47. Peter JP: Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. J Mark Res 16:6-17, 1979

48. FACIT.org: Population norms. www.facit.org/ FACITOrg/Questionnaires

49. Cella D, Lai JS, Chang CH, et al: Fatigue in cancer patients compared with fatigue in the gen- eral United States population. Cancer 94:528-538, 2002

■ ■ ■

CBTH Reduces Fatigue Associated With Breast Radiotherapy

www.facit.org/FACITOrg/Questionnaires

Acknowledgment

We thank the radiation oncology clinic staff and research study team, as well as all of the study participants for so graciously sharing their experiences.

Montgomery et al