Randomized Controlled Trial of a Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Plus Hypnosis Intervention to Control Fatigue in Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer.
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Previous trials with similar interventions have demonstrated moderate/large effect sizes on pain and fatigue.
“Previous trials with similar interventions have demonstrated moderate/large effect sizes on pain and fatigue [60,100].”
Based on previous studies, the control group is expected to score 5 (SD 2.4) on NRS at 3 months follow-up and 18 (SD 7) on FACIT-F.
“Based on previous studies, it is expected that the control group scores 5 (SD 2.4) on NRS at 3 months follow-up [101], and 18 (SD 7) on FACIT-F [60].”
From Pre- and post-operative psychological interventions to prevent pain and fatigue after breast cancer surgery (PREVENT): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as [60]
Citation [60] is attached to the FACIT-F expectation, not the NRS estimate cited to [101]. The Outcomes section says the trial used FACIT-F, but the passages found when searching for the control-group mean and SD do not report a score of 18 (SD 7). (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 123
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 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
- Authors
- Montgomery, G. H., David, D., Kangas, M., Green, S., Sucala, M., Bovbjerg, D. H., Hallquist, M. N., & Schnur, J. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2014-02-20
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 557-563
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- PMC
- PMC3918539
- OpenAlex
- W2096202341
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8
- FWCI
- 7.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r25ca081137-15)
- National Cancer Institute (R25-CA081137, CA159530, CA081137, R25CA129094, R03CA159530, CA129094, K07CA131473, R25CA166042, CA166042, CA131473)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Keywords
- cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnosis, cancer-related fatigue, breast cancer, radiotherapy, fatigue management, muscle weakness, FACIT-Fatigue, psychological intervention
- MeSH terms
- Breast Neoplasms, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Hypnosis, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome
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