Cited by 68Cancer survivorship and careMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies

Feasibility of a mindful yoga program for women with metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized pilot study

Open access
Porter, Laura S., Carson, James W., Olsen, Maren, Carson, Kimberly M., Sanders, Linda, Jones, Lee, Westbrook, Kelly, Keefe, Francis J.·2019·Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract

Purpose Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) experience high levels of symptoms. Yoga interventions have shown promise for improving cancer symptoms but have rarely been tested in patients with advanced disease. This study examined the acceptability of a comprehensive yoga program for MBC and the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial testing the intervention.Methods Sixty-three women with MBC were randomized with a 2:1 allocation to yoga or a support group comparison condition. Both interventions involved eight weekly group sessions. Feasibility was quantified using rates of accrual, attrition, and session attendance. Acceptability was assessed with a standardized self-report measure. Pain, fatigue, sleep quality, psychological distress, mindfulness, and functional capacity were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and 3 and 6 months post-intervention.Results We met goals for accrual and retention, with 50% of eligible patients enrolled and 87% of randomized participants completing post-intervention surveys. Sixty-five percent of women in the yoga condition and 90% in the support group attended ≥ 4 sessions. Eighty percent of participants in the yoga condition and 65% in the support group indicated that they were highly satisfied with the intervention. Following treatment, women in the yoga intervention had modest improvements in some outcomes; however, overall symptom levels were low for women in both conditions.Conclusions Findings suggest that the yoga intervention content was highly acceptable to patients with MBC, but that there are challenges to implementing an intervention involving eight group-based in-person sessions. Alternative modes of delivery may be necessary to reach patients most in need of intervention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00520-019-04710-7

Cites

25 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The sample had somewhat low baseline symptom levels, which is unusual among advanced cancer populations, and the intervention study demands may have prevented patients with higher symptom burden from enrolling.

    “Given that our sample was experiencing somewhat low levels of symptoms at baseline, which is unusual among advanced cancer populations, the intervention study demands (i.e. 12 in-person study visits) may have prevented patients with higher symptom burden from enrolling.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Porter, L. S., Carson, J. W., Olsen, M., Carson, K. M., Sanders, L., Jones, L., Westbrook, K., & Keefe, F. J.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Durham VA Medical Center (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Porter, Laura S.
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2019-03-15
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
4307-4316
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W2921208935
Cited by
68
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01 AT007572)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Keywords
mindful yoga, metastatic breast cancer, feasibility, acceptability, cancer symptoms, pain, fatigue, sleep quality, psychological distress, mindfulness, functional capacity, support groups, group intervention
MeSH terms
Adult, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Metastasis, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Yoga, Mindfulness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review