How to cite item

The impact of psychosocial intervention on survival in cancer: a meta-analysis

  
@article{APM9641,
	author = {Wayne W. Fu and Marko Popovic and Arnav Agarwal and Milica Milakovic and Terence S. Fu and Rachel McDonald and Gordon Fu and Michael Lam and Ronald Chow and Stephanie Cheon and Natalie Pulenzas and Henry Lam and Carlo DeAngelis and Edward Chow},
	title = {The impact of psychosocial intervention on survival in cancer: a meta-analysis},
	journal = {Annals of Palliative Medicine},
	volume = {5},
	number = {2},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {},
	abstract = {Background: The impact of psychosocial interventions on survival remains controversial in patients with cancer. A meta-analysis of the recent literature was conducted to evaluate the potential survival benefit associated with psychosocial interventions for cancer patients.
Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central were searched from January 2004 to May 2015 for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared survival outcomes between cancer patients receiving a psychosocial intervention and those receiving other, or no interventions. Endpoints included one-, two-, and four-year overall survival. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare group-versus individually-delivered interventions, and to assess breast cancer-only trials.
Results: Of 5,080 identified articles, thirteen trials were included for analysis. There was a significant survival benefit for the intervention group at one year [risk ratio (RR) =0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67–1.00; P=0.04] and two years (RR =0.86; 95% CI, 0.78–0.95; P=0.003). However, no significant difference was detected at four years (RR =0.94; 95% CI, 0.85–1.04; P=0.24). Among patients with breast cancer, there was a significant survival benefit of psychosocial interventions at one year (RR =0.59; 95% CI, 0.42–0.82; P=0.002), but no difference at two years (RR =0.82; 95% CI, 0.67–1.02; P=0.07) or four years (RR =0.95; 95% CI, 0.73–1.23; P=0.68). Group-delivered interventions had a significant survival benefit favouring the intervention group at one year (RR =0.57; 95% CI, 0.41–0.79; P=0.0008), but no difference at two years (RR =0.84; 95% CI, 0.68–1.02; P=0.08) or four years (RR =0.94; 95% CI, 0.75–1.20; P=0.64). Individually-delivered interventions had no significant survival benefit at one year (RR =0.92; 95% CI, 0.79–1.08; P=0.32), two years (RR =0.87; 95% CI, 0.75–1.00; P=0.05), or four years (RR =0.93; 95% CI, 0.84–1.04; P=0.21). 
Conclusions: For the main analysis and group-delivered treatments, psychosocial interventions demonstrated only short-term improvements in survival. Individually-delivered interventions failed to show any survival benefit. Future studies with longer follow-up are warranted to investigate long-term survival outcomes.},
	issn = {2224-5839},	url = {https://apm.amegroups.org/article/view/9641}
}