Skip to main content
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Aug 6;16(5):1023–1046. doi: 10.1007/s11764-021-01094-8

Effects of tandem cognitive behavioral therapy and healthy lifestyle interventions on health-related outcomes in cancer survivors: a systematic review

Sarah Addison 1, Damalie Shirima 2, Emmanuela B Aboagye-Mensah 1, Shanon G Dunovan 3, Esther Y Pascal 4, Maryam B Lustberg 2,5, Elizabeth K Arthur 2,6, Timiya S Nolan 2,6,
PMCID: PMC8342979  PMID: 34357555

Abstract

Purpose

Healthy lifestyle (HL) behaviors and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) have been individually shown to improve adverse effects of cancer treatment. Little is known about how such programs in tandem affect health-related outcomes. This review evaluates extant literature on tandem CBT/HL interventions on health-related outcomes in cancer survivors.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Embase databases revealed numerous studies involving CBT and HL tandem interventions in cancer survivors in the last 20 years. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were examined and assessed by the authors.

Results

The 36 studies included 5199 participants. Interventions involved the use of CBT in combination with a HL condition (stress reduction, increasing physical activity, etc.). These tandem conditions were compared against no intervention, usual care, and/or CBT alone or HL alone. Interventions were delivered by a variety of interventionists, and over different durations. The most common HL target outcomes were stress, and insomnia. Most studies (31 of 36) reported a reduction in adverse treatment and/or cancer-related effects.

Conclusion

Findings were biased with the overrepresentation of breast cancer survivors, and underrepresentation of minority groups, and those with advanced cancer. Thus, this review highlights the need for further research to test tandem interventions against CBT alone and HL alone, and toward identifying the most efficacious interventions for dissemination and implementation across diverse groups of cancer survivors.

Implications for cancer survivors

Tandem CBT/HL interventions can improve health-related outcomes for cancer survivors when compared to usual care, but there is a paucity of knowledge to suggest differential outcomes when compared to CBT or HL alone.

Keywords: Cancer survivorship, Healthy lifestyle behaviors, Cognitive behavior therapy, Quality of life, Interventions

Introduction

Cancer is a leading cause of illness and disability in the world today [1]. With the advent of early screening and innovative treatments extending survival, considerable progress has been made in extending the lives of cancer survivors [2]. A cancer survivor, as described by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), is defined as someone who has been diagnosed with cancer, and is still living [3]. The number of cancer survivors in the USA is expected to be over 22 million by 2030 [2]. While this is cause for celebration, this brings the new challenge of minimizing the side effects and psychological burden associated with the aftermath of cancer. Depending on the cancer type, stage of cancer, and type of treatments, survivors may be faced with a sequalae of cancer induced and/or treatment related symptoms that linger from months to years (e.g., fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), cancer related fatigue, hot flashes, insomnia) [48]. These effects have a deleterious impact on quality of life in survivors [9]. Thus, the urgency of monitoring and ameliorating these conditions, as the diagnosis of cancer transitions from a fatal condition to a chronic illness, is vital [10].

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a psychological intervention used to alter dysfunctional behaviors and thought patterns. While CBT has been used traditionally for patients with mental health disorders, such as depression, or anxiety, it has been receiving more attention for its use in survivorship care. In fact, it has been shown to be the most successful psychological intervention in improving cancer related fatigue, and there is evidence suggesting that it may improve overall quality of life in cancer survivors [1118]. Despite these findings, the majority of cancer survivors have not discussed psychological interventions with their providers, nor have they used one [19]

Similar to CBT, healthy lifestyle interventions have been instrumental in improving the quality of life of cancer survivors. The emerging data around healthy lifestyle behaviors (i.e., diet, physical activity, minimizing distress (stress management/spiritual management), sleep, alcohol, sunscreen use, tobacco use, and weight management) suggest promise to improve the side effects of cancer related treatments [3, 18, 2025]. For example, a recent study found that survivors who quit smoking had reduced levels of FCR compared to survivors who continued to smoke [26]. Unfortunately, the majority of cancer survivors do not meet recommended guidelines from public health entities for physical activity, nor healthy eating [2731]. Moreover, recent studies describe the amount of cancer survivors who continue to smoke to be anywhere from 12 to 27% [27, 32, 33]. Given the evidence presented, it is not surprising that there may be a benefit in a combined health behavior-oriented and CBT program [13]. By adding the use of CBT, there may be a positive effect on the intention-behavior gap that assists with achieving more sustainable change in survivors [34].

Consequently, it is imperative that we identify and implement methodology and interventions that can be used to lessen the physical and psychological side effects of cancer treatment, while also improving the quality of life of survivors. Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have analyzed the effectiveness of CBT in cancer survivors, or lifestyle interventions in cancer survivors, yet little is known about how such programs in tandem affect health-related outcomes. One systematic review highlighted the relationship between health promotion activities, and general psychological interventions in young adult cancer survivors. However, it was limited in that it focused solely on young adult survivors, and only evaluated two studies that included CBT as a component [35]. Another systematic review found “moderate” evidence suggesting increased adherence with physiotherapy when combined with CBT [36]. No review has summarized the data on the use of tandem lifestyle interventions and CBT in cancer survivors; however, structured appraisal on such interventions is needed. As such, the purpose of this review was to illuminate and evaluate the combined efficacy of CBT and lifestyle interventions on quality of life and clinical symptomatology in cancer survivors.

Methods

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2009 Statement and Checklist provided the methodological framework to enhance the rigor of this review [37, 38]. These guidelines directed the systematic preparation, extraction, appraisal, and reporting of information gathered from randomized studies. The conceptual frameworks used in this review were the cognitive-behavioral model for psychotherapy, quality of life (QOL) model, and aspects of a healthy lifestyle as defined by the NCCN [3, 3942]

Search strategy

A systematic search protocol was developed with a reference librarian. PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Embase databases were searched for randomized studies involving the tandem use of CBT and HL interventions. The outcomes of treatment were not included in the search strategy. The search was limited to quantitative, randomized studies in adults ages 18–80 years old, published in English between 1990 and 2019. The year range was chosen to reflect the timeline surrounding CBT’s use in clinical practice settings, as well as its initial use in cancer patients [42, 43]. The authors and the reference librarian iteratively optimized search strings from conceptual frameworks. They consisted of Boolean phrases of the following database-specific indexed terms (i.e., MeSH, Emtree, subject headings, thesaurus, etc.): healthy lifestyle, lifestyle changes; health behavior, attitude to health, health attitudes, health beliefs; quality of life, health-related quality of life, psychological well-being; cognitive behavior therapy, CBT, cognitive therapy, behavior therapy; neoplasm(s), cancer, cancer survivor(s), cancer patient(s), cancer care facilities, and psycho-oncology.

Selection strategy

The initial inclusion criteria for determining study eligibility were randomized studies involving cognitive behavioral therapy and lifestyle interventions (i.e., stress management, spiritual support, sleep hygiene, alcohol use, tobacco use, weight management, exercise, nutrition) for adult cancer survivors (i.e., from diagnosis through the remainder of life) with quantitative lifestyle and/or quality of life outcomes. Exceptions were made to include interventional studies that randomized to waitlist control groups or multiple intervention groups instead of simply being randomized to a control group from enrollment. Studies were excluded based on the following criteria: qualitative studies; literature reviews; non-interventional quantitative studies without random sampling; animal studies; pediatric population; intervention involving mindfulness-based stress reduction without CBT, and studies disseminated in a language other than English. Covidence® software facilitated the delimitation process and the creation of the PRISMA flow diagram (see Fig. 1) [44]. The identified abstracts and subsequently full-text studies were evaluated for eligibility criteria by a minimum of two authors independently. In the case of a conflict, all of the authors discussed and reached consensus for eligibility.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram

Data extraction and evaluation

Data extraction

Data was extracted from the included studies by a minimum of two authors utilizing a data matrix with the following domains: author (year); purpose; sample; lifestyle focus and components of the intervention; delivery mode and length of intervention; control conditions; outcome measures; results; quality assessment score. Next, these domains were used to compare the included studies’ data patterns and to identify relationships for data synthesis.

Quality appraisal

The included studies’ methodological quality, sources of bias, and representativeness were critically appraised by a minimum of two authors using the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Quality Assessment of Controlled Intervention Studies [45]. Each selected “yes,” “no,” or “cannot determine/not reported/not applicable” responses to a range of items addressing methodological rigor, internal validity, and sources of bias with respect to the included studies which collectively determined a percentage “yes” total score. Studies with a total score of < 50%, 50–75%, or > 75% were considered to be of poor, fair, or good quality, respectively (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Studies included in this review

Author (year) and country Study purpose Length/intensity of intervention Sample population Cancer type Outcome measures Main study findings Quality assessment score

Abrahams et al. (2017)

The Netherlands

To examine whether internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) is superior to care as usual (CAU) in reducing severe fatigue in survivors of breast cancer The intended length of ICBT was 6 months, and the intervention was completed with a face to face evaluation session

Gender: female only

Race: no specifics

Mean age: ICBT = 52.5 (8.5)

CAU = 50.5 (7.6) Participants: 132

Breast Fatigue Severity subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-Fatigue Severity) ICBT participants reported significantly lower fatigue scores compared to those who received CAU after 6 months (Δ = 11.5, [95% CI], 7.7–15.3). Large effect size (Cohen d = 1.0) Good (78.6%)

Antoni et al. (2006)

USA

To assess psychological outcomes of a cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) intervention for women with breast cancer. To examine whether skills taught account for beneficial effects The group intervention met weekly for 2-h sessions over the span of 10 weeks

Gender: female only

Race: 68.3% White, 24.1% Hispanic, 7.5% African American

Mean age: nI = 50.83 (8.97), no = 49.58 (9.11)

Participants: 199

Breast Sickness Impact Profile, Positive States of Mind (PSOM), Affects Balance Scale (ABS), Measure of Current Status (MOCS) Reduced reports of social disruption and increased emotional wellbeing, positive states of mind, positive lifestyle change, increased confidence in being able to relax at will, and positive affect for up to 12 months Fair (53.6%)

Dirksen and Epstein (2008)

USA

To examine the effects of cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) on psychosocial outcomes associated with insomnia in breast cancer survivors A 10-week intervention with 2-week pretreatment (baseline) period, a 6-week treatment period, and a 2-week posttreatment period

Gender: female only

Race: no specifics

Mean age: nI = 57.2 (9.9), no = 59.2 (10.7)

Participants: 72

Breast Profile of Mood States Fatigue/ Inertia Subscale (POMSF/I), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Breast Cancer (FACT-B), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) From pre to post treatment, CBT-I group improved on fatigue, trait anxiety, and depression (with a trend toward significance for the CC group). Significant interaction for fatigue and quality of life. Lower fatigue [t(70) = 1.87, p = 0.07] and higher quality of life-social [t(70) = 1.66, p = 0.10] in the CBT-I group Fair (64.3%)

Duffy et al. (2006)

USA

To examine whether cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is superior to enhanced usual care (EUC) in reducing comorbid smoking, problem drinking, and depression in head and neck cancer patients The intended length of CBT was 6 months, and the intervention was completed with 9 to 11 sessions of telephone and pharmacologic management

Gender: 84% Male

Race: 90% White, 10% Other

Mean age: nl = 56 (10.8), no = 58 (8.9)

Participants: 184

Head and neck Current smoking measured as smoking within the past six months, 10-item Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test. Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form For smokers who had comorbid depression and problem drinking, quitting rates remained higher in the CBT group as compared to the EUC (p < 0.05). The CBT intervention increased smoking cessation rates by 50% over EUC Fair (53.6%)

Duijts et al. (2012)

The Netherlands

To evaluate the effect of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), physical exercise (PE), and both CBT + PE on menopausal symptoms in patients with breast cancer experiencing treatment induced menopause CBT was six weekly group sessions of 90 min each; PE was 12-week sessions of 2.5 to 3 h per week

Gender: female only

Race: no specifics

Mean age: 48.2 (5.6) Participants: 422

Breast Endocrine subscale of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy questionnaire (FACT-ES), Hot Flush Rating Scale Significant group differences in improvement over time for endocrine symptoms (p = 0.001) and perceived burden of hot flashes/night sweats (p = 0.001). Each intervention more effective than control Fair (60.7%)

Espie et al. (2008)

UK

To determine whether cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is effective in treating persistent insomnia in patients with cancer when compared to treatment as usual (TAU) The intended length of CBT was 6 months, and the intervention was completed with five, weekly, 50-min sessions

Gender: 69% female

Race: no specifics

Median age: CBT = 60.5 (IR = 53.3–70), TAU = 58 (IR = 52–68)

Participants: 150

Breast, prostate, colorectal, and gynecological Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Epworth sleepiness scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale-General (FACT-G) CBT was associated with 16-min reduction in sleep-onset latency, and 38 min in wake time after sleep onset, compared to a 0-min reduction in TAU (p < 0.001) Fair (71.4%)

Ferguson et al. (2012)

USA

To evaluate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) when used for cognitive dysfunction following chemotherapy An 8-week intervention with four biweekly individual office visits that last 30–50 min with phone contacts between visits

Gender: female only

Mean age: nl = 51.21 (7.3), no = 49.43 (5.1)

Race: 97.5% Caucasian

Participants: 40

Breast Multiple Ability Self-Report Questionnaire (MASQ), Quality of Life-Cancer Survivors (QOL-CS), California Verbal Learning Test-2 (CVLT-II) MAAT participants demonstrated improvement in CVLT-II total score (verbal memory) when compared to the control (p < 0.05). Effect sizes for MAAT participants were larger than that of wait-list controls from the baseline to both post-treatment and the 2-month follow-up Good (85.8%)

Ferguson et al. (2016)

USA

To determine if cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)—specifically Memory and Attention Adaptation Training (MAAT)—is effective when delivered through a videoconference platform to cancer survivors who have chemotherapy related cognitive dysfunction An 8-week intervention with 30- to 45-min videoconference visits

Gender: female only

Race: 100% Caucasian

Mean age: nl = 54.0 (12.82), no = 55.61 (11.39)

Participants: 35

Breast Perceived Cognitive Impairments (PCI) and Perceived Cognitive Abilities Subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) There was a significant difference between the MAAT and control group at 2-month follow-up (F(1,28), 6.07; p = 0.02), with a medium effect (d = 0.52) Good (82.2%)

Gielissen et al. (2006)

The Netherlands

To evaluate whether cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is more effective than remaining on a waiting list in reducing fatigue severity, functional impairment, and psychological distress in cancer survivors A 6-month intervention with five to twenty-six sessions (number of sessions dependent on the individual) with a 1-h duration

Gender: 51% male

Race: no specifics

Mean age: nI = 44.6 (9.9), no = 45.3 (10.3)

Participants: 98

Breast, testicular, hematologic, other solid tumors Fatigue severity subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-fatigue), Sickness Impact Profile-8 (SIP-8) Patients with intervention had significant improvement on fatigue severity, functional impairment, and self-rated improvement as compared to patients on waiting list conditions Good (78.6%)

Goedendorp et al. (2012)

The Netherlands

To determine whether cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is effective for fatigue in patients undergoing curative cancer treatment and assess the intervention's long-term effect on post-cancer fatigue A 6-month intervention with five to twenty-six sessions (number of sessions dependent on the individual) with a 1-h duration

Gender: 65% female

Race: no specifics

Mean age: BNI: 57.2 (10.1), CBT: 55.6 (11.6), UC: 56.9 (11.1)

Participants: 210

Breast, prostate, other solid tumors Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC-QLQ-C30), Fatigue severity subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-fat), Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), Health Survey Short Form-36 (SF-36) Patients with intervention had significant effect of condition for self-reported cognitive disability (F(5, 96) = 3.33; p = 0.040); CBT patients (48%) had less clinically relevant concentration problems compared to control (73%) (p = 0.003) Good (89.3%)

Goedendorp et al. (2010)

The Netherlands

To determine the efficacy of brief nursing intervention (BNI) + cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), and physical activity in reducing post-cancer fatigue and fatigue during cancer treatment, respectively BNI intervention was mostly face to face and consisted of two 1-h sessions. The CBT intervention was 7 months with six 1-h sessions

Gender: 61% female

Race: no specifics Mean age: BNI: 57.1 (10.0), CBT: 55.6 (11.3), UC: 57.3 (11.1)

Participants: 220

Breast, prostate, urogenital, gynecological, lymphoma, sarcoma, melanoma, thyroid, other solid tumors Fatigue subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-fat), Actometer, Questionnaire Physical Activity (QPA), Health Survey Short Form-36 (SF-36), Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30) CBT group had significantly had less fatigue than those in control (p = 0.019). No significant difference in fatigue between BNI group and control (p = 1.000). No significant differences in physical activity between the two intervention groups and control Good (82.1%)

Greer et al. (2012)

USA

To determine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of brief cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to patient population A 2-month intervention with six sessions conducted weekly

Gender: 70% female

Race: 95% White, 5% Hispanic/Latino

Mean age: nI = 54.55 (11.43), no = 57.25 (10.41)

Participants: 40

Lung, pancreatic, colorectal, other cancer Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI), Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Impact of Events Scale (IES), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Questionnaire Majority of patients who received CBT (80%) participated in at least five of the sessions. Those assigned to CBT had greater improvements in HAM-A scores compared to control (95% CI) Fair (67.9%)

Groarke et al. (2013)

Ireland

To evaluate if a brief Cognitive-Behavioral (CBT) intervention can reduce stress and distress and enhance benefit in woman with cancer A 5-week intervention with 8 sessions that last for 3 h

Gender: female only

Race: majority White Mean age: nl = 53.30 (9.86), no = 54.10 (10.62)

Participants: 179

Breast Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Impact of Events Scale (IES), Life Orientation Test (LOT), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Silver Lining Questionnaire (SLQ) Anxiety decreased more in the intervention arm than in the control arm [F(1.89, 331.11) = 3.39, p = 0.04]. Global stress decreased more in the intervention group as opposed to control [F(1.90, 332.95) = 3.62, p = 0.03] Good (82.2%)

Gudenkauf et al. (2015)

USA

To determine if cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) which is composed of Cognitive-Behavioral Training (CBT) and Relaxation Training (RT) improves psychological adaptation A 5-week intervention with sessions lasting for 1.5 h

Gender: female only

Race: 41.5% Hispanic, 41.5% White, 8.7% African American, 6.6% Other

Mean age: 64.28 (10.06)

Participants: 183

Breast Affects Balance Scale (ABS), Impact of Event Scale-Intrusion (IES-I), Social Impact Profile-Social Interaction (SIP-SI) Subscale, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Emotional Well-being (FACT-EWB) Subscale, Social Provisions Scale (SPS), Measure of Current Status-Part A (MOCS-A) Women in CBT and RT showed significantly greater improvement in ABS-depressive affect scores compared to control, respectively Good (82.2%)

Irwin et al. (2017)

USA

To determine if Tai Chi Chinh (TCC) produces similar effects to cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in reducing insomnia symptoms in cancer survivors Weekly 120-min sessions for 2 months with additional 1-month period of exposure

Gender: female only

Race: 86% White

Mean age: TCC = 59.6 (7.9), CBT = 60.0 (9.3)

Participants: 90

Breast Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Athens Insomnia Severity Index (AISI) CBC-I and TCC resulted in similar rate of treatment response. There were no group differences in sleep quality, fatigue, daytime sleepiness, and depression Good (78.6%)

Korstjens et al. (2008)

The Netherlands

To compare the effects of cognitive-behavioral training (CBT) and self-management program with a physical training (PT) program on the quality of life (QoL) of cancer survivors Both interventions lasted for the duration of 12-weeks with 1 to 2-h sessions

Gender: female only

Race: no specifics

Mean age: PT + CBT = 47.8 (10.5), PT = 49.9 (11.3), WLC (wait-list comparison) = 51.3 (8.8)

Participants: 209

Breast RAND 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36) PT + CBT group showed no significant changes. Self-Management groups showed significant improvements in physical functioning, vitality, and health Good (89.3%)

Lee H et al. (2011)

Republic of Korea

To analyze the effects of a nurse-led cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) program on fatigue and quality of life (QOL) with patients undergoing radiotherapy A 6-week intervention with sessions held once a week and session times lasting 50 to 120 min

Gender: female only

Race: no specifics

Age range: 30–40 (16.9%), 41–50 (52.1%), 51–60 (31.0%)

Participants: 71

Breast Revised Piper Fatigue Scale, Quality of Life (QOL) Scale for Korean Patients with Cancer Fatigue levels increased in both groups; however, patients in intervention group experienced lower fatigue than control Fair (53.6%)

Mann et al. (2012)

UK

To investigate how cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) helps cancer survivors to effectively manage hot flashes and night sweats (HFNS) A group-based 6-week CBT intervention with weekly 90-min sessions

Gender: female only

Race: 89% White

Mean age: nI = 53.16 (8.10), no = 54.05 (7.76)

Participants: 96

Breast Hot flushes and night sweats (HFNS) problem rating score, Sternal Skin Conductance (SSC), General Health Survey Short Form 36 (SF-36), Women's Health Questionnaire (WHQ) Group CBT significantly reduced HFNS problem ratings compared to usual care (p < 0.0001). Improvements were maintained at 26 weeks (p < 0.0001) Good (89.3%)

Pakiz et al. (2011)

USA

To analyze the effect of weight loss and physical activity on the action of inflammatory markers associated with breast cancer In-person 16-week intervention of weekly educational and physically active group meetings followed by monthly follow-up sessions for 12 months, telephone calls which decrease in frequency with study duration; control received monthly calls and mailed communications

Gender: female only

Race: 94%, White, 6% not reported

Mean age: nI = 56 (9), no = 56 (8)

Participants: 68

Breast Anthropometric measurements, physical activity data, physical fitness data, presence of certain cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α, VEGF) Intervention group displayed significant weight loss in comparison to control group. Favorable changes in the IL-6 levels and physical activity of intervention participants who increased their physical activity were noted Fair (67.9%)

Penedo et al. (2004)

USA

To investigate the effect of group cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) on treatment related symptoms, physiologic stress, and mood in a diverse cohort of cancer patients A 10-week intervention with weekly 2-h meetings. Hourly sessions include a 90-min didactic period and a 30-min relaxation training. Control group taught stress management skills through one, 4-h seminar conducted in groups

Gender: male only

Race: 35% White, 34% Hispanic, 22% African American, 9% Other

Mean age: 63.1 (2.2)

Participants: 92

Prostate Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐General Module (FACT‐G), Measure of Current Status (MOCS) Participation in CBSM intervention was associated with significant improvements in quality of life. Improvement not correlated with ethnic group membership Fair (57.2%)

Penedo et al. (2006)

USA

To determine the effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) intervention on benefit finding and the quality of life (QoL) of recovering males treated for prostate cancer In-person, group-based 10-week CBSM intervention of educational and discussion driven sessions (90 min/week) and 30 min/week of relaxation training; control met once for 4 h and got intervention educational materials

Gender: male only

Race: 11.5% African American/Black, 40.8% White, 40.8% Hispanic, 6.8% Other

Mean age: nl = 65.30 (7.77), no = 64.87 (7.64)

Participants: 191

Prostate Measure of Current Status, Positive Contributions Scale-Cancer (PCS-C), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Module (FACT-G) Intervention group exhibited a greater increase in benefit finding (BF), perceived stress management skill (PSMS), and QoL pre- to post- intervention. The increase BF and QoL can be attributed to the increase in PSMS. Control group did not change significantly in any outcome. Post-intervention, QL and BF were positively related Fair (66.6%)

Penedo et al. (2007)

USA

To explore the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) intervention tailored for ethnic minority group, in the pursuit of behavioral stress management Culturally modified, 10-week CBSM intervention delivered in groups

Gender: male only

Race: Hispanic

Mean age: 65.5 (7.6)

Participants: 71

Prostate Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Module (FACT-G), Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) Physical well-being and emotional well-being for participants significantly improved for the intervention group compared to control (p < 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively) Fair (57.2%)

Prinsen et al. (2013)

The Netherlands

To examine the effect of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on physical activity and fitness as well as determine whether the effects of CBT are facilitated by physical activity and/or fitness Physical activity and a maximum of 2 sessions offered within a 6-month follow-up period with a trained therapist

Gender: 51.4% female, 48.6% male

Race: no specifics

Mean age: nl = 49.3 (9.3), no = 51.1 (10.9)

Participants: 37

Breast, head and neck, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate, testicular, thyroid and other solid cancers Actigraphy, maximal exercise test, fatigue severity scale of the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-fatigue), Sickness Impact Profile-8 (SIP-8) Patients administered an average of 12 individual sessions showed larger changes in fatigue scores than waitlist group. Follow-up sessions revealed no significant differences between intervention and waitlist groups Fair (73.8%)

Qiu et al. (2018)

Republic of China

To explore the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression on insomnia and quality of life (QOL) compared to self-care management (SCM), and usual care (UC) A 12-week intervention with nine sessions, 1 to 5 sessions carried out once a week and 6 to 9 sessions every 2 weeks

Gender: female only

Race: no specifics

Mean age: CBT = 46.83 (8.91), SCM = 47.29 (8.72), UC = 47.06 (8.32)

Participants: 392

Breast 17-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Breast Cancer (FACT-B) Insomnia scores in CBT group were significantly lower compared with those in control (p < 0.01). The improvement in depression for the CBT group was much greater than control Good (85.7%)

Qui et al. (2013)

Republic of China

To investigate the effects of group cognitive-behavioral therapy (GCBT) in treating major depression in cancer patients A 6-month intervention with weekly 2-h sessions and a booster session during the last month

Gender: female only

Race: no specifics

Mean age: nl = 51.68 (5.95), no = 49.58 (8.03)

Participants: 62

Breast 17-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), Self-Esteem Scale (SES) Patients in the GCBT group had a significant (9 point) reduction in depression score as compared to control (p < 0.001). Patients in the GCBT group had significantly greater improvement in quality of life (p < 0.01) and self-esteem (p < 0.05) as compared to control Good (89.3%)

Ritterband et al. (2012)

USA

To evaluate the ability of a cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) program to improve insomnia symptoms in cancer survivors SHUTi: an interactive 6 core (45–60 min/core) program accessible for 9 weeks that teaches behaviors to improve sleep quality

Gender: 85.7% females

Race: 92.9% White, 3.6% Black, 3.6% Mixed

Mean age: nl = 53.7 (10.8), no = 59.6 (12.3)

Participants: 28

Breast and other cancers Insomnia severity index (ISI), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), sleep diary Clinically significant gains made by SHUTi users. Program users improved sleep efficiency by 19% and fatigue scores while control group improved sleep efficiency by 6% only Good (80.9%)

Savard et al. (2005)

Canada

To gauge the short-term effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for chronic primary insomnia in breast cancer survivors CBT consisted of eight weekly group sessions of 90 min each administered by a master-level psychologist

Gender: not specified

Race: no specifics

Mean age: nI = 54.81 (7.01), no = 53.37 (7.72)

Participants: 57

Breast Insomnia Interview Schedule (IIS), sleep diary, Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C33) Treatment group had significantly improved subjective sleep indices, lower frequencies of medicated nights, and lower levels of depression and anxiety Good (89.3%)

Savard et al. (2014)

Canada

To assess the effectiveness of a video-based cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (VCBT-I) compared to that professionally administered (PCBT-I) in breast cancer patients In-person weekly sessions of 50 min for 6 weeks for those receiving PCBT-I; 60-min animated video and 6 booklets for those receiving VCBT-1; those receiving psychosocial and pharmocological + F9 services allowed to continue their use

Gender: female only

Race: no specifics

Mean age: nl = 54.4(8.8), no = 55.4 (8.8)

Participants: 242

Breast Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), sleep diary and actigraphy Both VCBT-I and PCBT-I programs were associated with significant improvements in insomnia severity, waking up early, depression, fatigue, and dysfunctional sleep attitudes. PCBT-I remission rates of insomnia greater than VCBT-I Good (82.2%)

Stagl et al. (2015)

USA

To observe whether less depressive symptoms and better quality of life (QOL) are reported in women participating in a group-based cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) intervention 2–10 weeks postsurgery compared to women not participating in intervention 8–15 years postsurgery for early stage breast cancer In-person 10-week CBSM intervention which includes cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and relaxation training; control group received 1-day self-help seminar and materials to view on their own

Gender: female only

Race: 70% White, 21% Hispanic, 5% Black, 3% Asian

Mean age: nl = 60.75 (9.21), no = 64.27 (8.48)

Participants: 99

Breast Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Breast Cancer (FACT-B) Intervention group had reduced risk of all-cause mortality (p = 0.040) and breast cancer-specific mortality (p = 0.006) Poor (46.5%)

Stefanopoulou et al. (2015)

UK

To evaluate the effects of a guided self-help cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention on hot flushes and night sweats (HFNS) problem-rating and frequencies as well as on mood and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) 4-week intervention consisting of a booklet of self-guided information, a CD of relaxation breathing exercises, and telephone call every 2 weeks; control received treatment as usual (TAU)

Gender: male only

Race: 73.5% White, 25.0% Black, 1.5% Other

Mean age: nl = 67.97 (7.65), no = 69.71 (7.90)

Participants: 68

Prostate Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires (EORTC QLQ‐C30 and the EORTC QLQ‐PR25 (prostate cancer‐specific)) Compared to control, intervention arm had significantly reduced hot flushes ratings (p = 0.001) and hot flushes frequency (p = 0.02) Good (85.7%)

Traeger et al. (2013)

USA

To assess the effectiveness of (cognitive-behavioral stress management) CBSM in improving the emotional well-being of prostate cancer survivors by improving illness perceptions 10-week, manualized intervention held 2 h/week in groups which focused on managing stress and health; control group attended a half-day seminar

Gender: male only

Race: 42% Hispanic, 40.9% White, 16.7% African American

Mean age: nl = 65.9 (7.5), no = 64.6 (7.8)

Participants: 257

Prostate Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Module (FACT-G), Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) Greater stress at the start of the intervention, predicted greater increase in perceived illness coherence and in perceived treatment control Fair (57.2%)

Trask et al. (2003)

USA

To examine the effect of a cognitive-behavioral intervention (CBI) on distress levels and HRQOL (health-related quality of life) in melanoma patients with medium-to-high levels of distress compared to those who receive standard medical treatment CBI group received weekly, in-person training sessions on relaxation, cognitive challenging and problem-solving in the scope of the patient perspective for 4 weeks (50 min/week) and one psychiatric intake session

Gender: 70.8% female

Race: 100% Caucasian

Mean age: 53.4 (15.36)

Participants: 48

Melanoma BSI (Brief Symptom Inventory), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Survey‐Short Form‐36 (SF-36) Distress was not impacted significantly by CBI. Anxiety levels of CBI group were significantly reduced at the 2-month and 6-month follow-up. CBI group's general health, vitality, social functioning, and mental health scores improved immediately after treatment while bodily pain scores improved significantly 2 months after treatment compared to standard medical treatment group Fair (71.4%)

VanWeert et al. (2010)

The Netherlands

To compare the effect of physical training and cognitive based therapy (CBT) on cancer fatigue with physical training alone and no intervention at all In-person, 12-week intervention including 2 h of CBT/week and 2 h of individual training/week and 2 h of group sports/week; nonintervention control group (WLC) waited 3 months before starting rehabilitation

Gender: 85.6% female

Race: no specifics

Mean age: PT + CBT = 47.8 (10.5), PT = 49.9 (11.3), WLC = 51.3 (8.8)

Participants: 209

Breast, Hematological, Gynecological, other (unspecified) Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) WLC reported experiencing significantly more fatigue than other groups participating in study. Though the PT group reported reductions in general (p = .007), mental (p = .04), and physical fatigue (p < .001), and reduced activation (p = .02). No significant contrasts could be made between the groups experiencing PT + CBT, and PT only Fair (64.3%)

Van de Wal et al. (2017)

The Netherlands

To evaluate the effectiveness of blended cognitive behavior therapy (bCBT) in reducing fear of cancer reoccurrence (FCR) levels in breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer survivors BCBT over the course of 3 months consisted of: five 1-h, in-person sessions, three 15-min e-consultations with a Web site/three 15-min telephone consultations with a workbook (same content); control received care as usual (CAU)

Gender: 53.4% female

Race: no specifics

Mean age: nI = 58 (11.3), no = 59.7 (10.0)

Participants: 88

*Psychosocial services not restricted

Breast, prostate, and colorectal Cancer Worry Scale, Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI) Group receiving bCBT saw a greater reduction in FCR than those receiving CAU. Weak-to-moderate correlation of decreased FCR with therapy sessions completed. Total FCRI scores of bCBT participants greatly improved compared to CAU group Fair (64.4%)

Yanez et al. (2015)

USA

To examine the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) intervention for psychosocial benefits on a diverse cohort An internet and group based, 10-week CBSM intervention program delivered through a tablet provided through the study

Gender: male only

Race: 56.8% White, 40.5% Black, 2.7% Multiracial, 1.4% Hispanic

Mean age: 68.84 (9.23)

Participants: 74

Prostate Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures by computerized adaptive testing (CAT) Feasibility was held at high rates (< 85%) and acceptable average attendance rates (< 70%). Those in intervention group had significant reductions in depressive symptoms (p < 0.05) and improved relaxation self-efficacy (p < 0.05) Fair (71.4%)

Zachariae et al. (2018)

Denmark

To determine the efficacy of internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (iCBT) in breast cancer survivors experiencing clinically significant sleep disturbance An internet-based, 6 core programs delivered via email; email reminders to complete sleep diary

Gender: female only

Race: no specifics

Mean age: nI = 53.2 (8.8), no = 52.9 (8.9)

Participants: 255

Breast Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy for Fatigue (FACIT-F), Wake After Sleep Onset (WASO) Effect sizes for ISI and PSQI saw a large improvement while those for total sleep time were of a medium size. Small effect sizes were for reductions in fatigue and less time spent awake after falling asleep. Follow-up sessions revealed that improvements had been maintained Good (82.2%)

Results

Selection of studies

The search for studies meeting the criteria resulted in a total of 1494 studies. As denoted in Fig. 1, 1437 of these were removed due to being a duplication, in a language other than English, or not meeting the eligibility criteria. Fifty-seven papers were then selected for full-text evaluation, and screened further. Of these, 36 studies met inclusion criteria and were evaluated (see Table 1). Of note, Goedendorp et al. is a secondary analysis of Goedendorp et al. [46, 47]. Both studies are included in this review.

Study characteristics

The 36 studies included a total of 5199 participants. The majority of studies evaluated several different outcomes, which included quality of life, distress, FCR, insomnia, physical activity, smoking cessation, and other related measures. Thirteen of the 36 papers did not include a longitudinal assessment of participants postintervention [4860]. Of the 23 that did, the time range for follow up extended anywhere from two months, to 15 years [46, 47, 6181].

In terms of length, interventions ranged from 4 weeks to 7 months. The interventions also varied in the method of delivery, including face to face, telephone, internet based, or some component of each. Most studies excluded those actively seeking treatment, with advanced cancer (> stage III), or with any type of metastasis. The quality of the studies, as assessed by reviewers, ranged anywhere from 28.5 to 100%.

Tandem CBT and lifestyle interventions

Overview of interventions

Anxiety, depression, and/or stress management were the predominant (n = 13) focus of most interventions [5355, 57, 58, 61, 67, 68, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81]. Following, was the use of CBT and HL interventions in the reduction of insomnia (n = 9) [48, 49, 56, 59, 64, 69, 74, 75, 79], and fatigue (n = 7) [46, 47, 50, 51, 60, 70, 72]. Very few studies focused on cancer related cognitive changes (n = 2) [65, 66], weight loss and diet (n = 1) [52], and smoking cessation (n = 1) [62].

Tandem content

Stress, depression, anxiety, mood, and FCR

In total, 13 studies concentrated on anxiety, stress, mood, and/or FCR [5355, 57, 58, 61, 67, 68, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81]. The majority reported positive outcomes in the reduction of adverse emotional states. Many studies also included HL interventions that were heavily education-based, seemingly aimed at building long lasting stress reduction and coping skills in survivors. For instance, a 2006 study by Antoni et al. examined the use of stress reduction methods such as muscle relaxation, and the recitation of recorded relaxation exercises to facilitate the honing of coping skills in breast cancer survivors, in ten weekly, 2-h sessions [61]. The participants reported several positive outcomes postintervention, including “reduced reports of social disruption and increased emotional well-being,” and greater confidence in their ability to relax at will. Many of these effects were sustained at a 12-month follow-up.

Similarly, in a randomized control trial conducted by Yanez et al., prostate cancer survivors took part in an intervention focused on mitigating depressive symptoms and increasing relaxation [80]. Specifically, the intervention involved “changing negative stressor appraisal… and building or enhancing social networks.” At 6-month follow up, the participants reported clinically significant (p < 0.05) positive outcomes.

Only two studies focused on patients with advanced or terminal cancer [67, 80]. One of these, a 2012 study by Greer et al. consisted of a CBT intervention focused on reducing anxiety in those with terminal cancer. The results of the study indicated tremendous improvements in anxiety, but no difference in depressive symptoms between the intervention and control group at posttreatment. Weaknesses of this study include a lack of control for the use of psychotropic medication, and their overwhelmingly (95%) white cohort. A major strength of this study was that the authors tried to ensure that the CBT intervention took place on the same day as other medical visits participants had, to increase accessibility and the rate of retention. The rate of attrition was high in this study, at 30%, in large part due to participants being medically unable to continue, or passing away before the study’s end.

Insomnia and sleep management

Nine studies evaluated insomnia and/or sleep management as a primary outcome [48, 49, 56, 59, 64, 69, 74, 75, 79]. Many used a combination of CBT involving either sleep hygiene education, sleep restriction, and/or stimulus control components. All nine studies reported positive outcomes. Interestingly, to further elucidate the role of each CBT component in the management of insomnia and fatigue, a 2008 study by Dirksen et al. compared the use of CBT with components of sleep restriction, education, hygiene and stimulus control with a control group with only sleep education and hygiene for the treatment of insomnia in breast cancer survivors [49]. While both groups showed improvement in quality of life, the intervention group reported a greater reduction in fatigue than the control. The intervention group also reported statistically significant improvements in anxiety, and depression. However, longitudinal sustainability was not assessed, so whether or not these results endured is unknown.

Physical activity and fatigue

Seven studies focused on increasing physical activity, and/or the use of physical activity to reduce fatigue or increase functioning [46, 47, 50, 51, 60, 70, 72]. While positive outcomes were reported in all studies, only four of the seven directly analyzed the impact of the addition of CBT to physical activity in the reduction of cancer-induced and/or treatment-related symptoms [46, 60, 70, 72].

One of these, a 2013 study from Prinsen et al., focused on CBT’s effect on physical activity and postcancer fatigue [72]. The intervention itself incorporated the encouragement of realistic physical activity standards (i.e., walking or cycling), and CBT. The outcomes of the tandem intervention revealed a statistically significant change, compared to the waitlist control group. At the 6-month follow-up, the difference in fatigue between the intervention and control group was sustained; however, physical activity was found to be statistically insignificant when analyzed between the intervention and waitlist control group. Ultimately, the authors concluded that physical activity did not mediate CBT in reducing fatigue in these patients. Similarly, a 2010 study by Goedendorp et al. compared three conditions—a CBT/physical training based intervention, a brief nursing intervention focused on education, a “usual care” (UC) group to examine the best means of decreasing fatigue among cancer survivors [46]. The CBT/HL intervention focused on encouraging patients to engage in physical activity to minimize fatigue. A significant reduction in fatigue was found in the CBT/HL intervention group, when compared with the brief nursing intervention and UC groups. Despite this positive outcome, further analysis demonstrated that the introduction of physical activity did not mediate the decrease in fatigue.

Weight loss and diet

Only one study focused on diet and weight loss. This study from Pakiz et al. lasted 12 months and aimed to foster “regular physical activity and reduced energy intake in order to facilitate weight loss” [52]. Participants received counseling over the phone, and took part in group meetings with rotating topics (i.e., “portion control, exercise, weight maintenance skills”). The intervention was efficacious, with the difference in weight loss between the control and intervention group found to be statistically significant “(− 5.7 [3.5] vs. 0.2 [4.1] kg, P < 0.001)”. The intervention group also reported increased levels of physical activity and improvements in fitness; however, there was no follow-up scheduled at the end of the yearlong intervention, so it is difficult to determine whether or not these results were sustainable.

Alcohol and smoking cessation

Only one study included smoking and alcohol cessation as an intervention focus [62]. The basis of this intervention was to reduce smoking, alcohol consumption, and depressive symptoms in head and neck cancer survivors. The intervention itself consisted of nurse-led CBT with “pharmacologic management as needed.” This pharmacologic therapy consisted of treatments such as nicotine patches, and bupropion. The authors compared this patient set with those who received “enhanced” usual care. This “enhanced” care consisted of an equivalent amount of attention as the intervention group, and a referral “as needed for smoking cessation, and/or alcohol treatment, and/or psychiatric evaluation.” The researchers discovered that the intervention condition increased smoking cessation by greater than 50%, when compared to care as usual. However, they also found that the intervention was not particularly efficacious in reducing alcohol consumption or depression compared to the control group. Of note, the criteria for a current smoker in this study included those who had reported quitting smoking within a month prior to the intervention [62].

Method of delivery

The CBT interventions were delivered by various means, with some studies using in-person groups, in-person one on one, Internet, phone-based interventions, or a combination of them all. A 2014 randomized control trial further probed this dynamic in breast cancer survivors, by exploring the efficacy of self-administered video based CBT (VCBT-I) compared to professionally administered interventions (PCBT-I), and a no treatment control group [59]. The authors concluded that “…PCBT-I was significantly more efficacious than VCBT-I in reducing ISI [Insomnia Severity Index] scores, EMA [early morning awakening], depression, fatigue, and dysfunctional beliefs about sleep.” These results must be taken judiciously, however, considering that the PCBT-I patient received five more treatment sessions compared to the VCBT-I group. Also of note, was the rate of attrition—VCBT-I’s dropout rate was more than double that of PCBT-I (13.6% compared to 28.8%).

Interventionist

Another distinction was the type of interventionist. The interventions were most commonly led by psychologists, master degree level psychology students, or clinical psychology fellows (n = 17) [5355, 5759, 61, 6568, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 81]. However, many other interventions were led by nurses, therapists, social workers, physiotherapists, or research assistants given CBT training. One such study, performed by Lee et al., examined the efficacy of a “nurse-led” CBT intervention in increasing quality of life, and reducing fatigue in women currently undergoing radiotherapy for breast cancer [51]. The nurses (“registered nurse, student of master’s degree in nursing”), received 36 h of training in cognitive behavioral therapy prior to the intervention. The results were favorable, with women in the intervention group experiencing less fatigue and greater quality of life than the control group.

Effectiveness

Thirty-one out of 36 studies revealed positive outcomes in some but not all of their measures. Those that did not include the following: Prinsen et al., Goedendorp et al. (2010), vanWeert et al., Irwin et al., and Korstjens et al. [46, 60, 69, 70, 72]. Similar to aforementioned findings from Goedendorp et al. (2010) and Prinsen et al., studies from Korstjens et al. and van Weert et al. also concluded that the addition of physical activity to CBT did not significantly enhance the results of the intervention condition. The tandem intervention performed by Korstjens et al. combined physical training twice a week, with CBT once per week [70]. This condition was compared against a group of participants completing only physical training. Finally, both conditions were compared against a control group, who were provided no intervention. The authors found that the tandem intervention did not surpass physical training alone, in any of their measured outcomes (role limitations, quality of life). However, both conditions significantly outperformed the control group. Likewise, in the study by van Weert et al., the physical training (PT) condition outperformed the CBT/PT tandem intervention. Specifically, the authors found that “the PT group showed more reduction in 4 domains of fatigue, whereas the PT + CBT group showed more reduction in one domain only.” [60]

Analogously, a 2017 study performed by Irwin et al., found Tai Chi Chih to be noninferior to CBT with sleep education and hygiene components for the treatment of insomnia in breast cancer survivors [69].

Sustainability

Similarly to intervention effectiveness, not all reported positive outcomes reached significance at follow-up. For instance, a 2015 study from Stefanopoulou et al., aimed at reducing hot flushes and improving quality of life in prostate cancer survivors, noted a significant positive improvement for the intervention group in hot flushes and night sweats problem rating and frequency at the end of treatment [76]. But, 26 weeks later, although the results were sustained, the differences between the care as usual group and the intervention group were not significant.

Overall, of the 23 studies that clearly assessed for longitudinal follow-up (> 2 months), 19 reported sustained positive effects in at least one measured outcome, two (Prinsen 2013, Groarke 2013) reported that the positive outcomes were not sustained at 6 and 12 months, respectively, and another (Espie et al. 2008), reported a diminished positive effect at six months. Finally, Goedendorp et al. (2012) reported reduced positive effects at seven months and a completely absent effect at 12 months [46, 47, 6181].

Racial demographics

Twenty-four out of the 36 studies either did not record racial demographic data, noted that the participants were “majority Caucasian,” or had greater than 85% white participants [4652, 56, 59, 60, 6270, 72, 75, 7779]. Notably, the 2012 study by Ritterband et al. reported only two black participants out of 28, with the authors remarking that the remaining 26 were mostly “highly educated Caucasian women” [56]. The lack of racial data in some instances is likely due to the country in which the study was conducted. These include studies from the Netherlands, China, South Korea, and Ireland. However, there were many US-based studies that either did not provide a racially diverse pool of participants, or did not report this data at all. In total, only eight of the 36 studies recorded 8% or greater black participants [53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 71, 76, 80]. Hispanics were poorly represented as well, with greater than 5% in only six studies, which includes one study with only Latinos [5355, 57, 61, 81].

Adherence

Intervention adherence data was absent or unclear in the majority of studies, with only 11 out of 36 studies clearly referencing it, and many of those not providing associated data points [48, 59, 60, 63, 6769, 71, 76, 77, 79]. Data on adherence is necessary to move forward with large scale trials on these tandem interventions.

Discussion

As the landscape of cancer survivorship care shifts to focus on the lingering effects of cancer, so too must the treatments. As such, the aim of this review was to evaluate and consolidate information on the usefulness of tandem CBT and HL interventions in cancer survivors in hopes of informing clinical practice guidelines. Current survivorship guidelines advocate for the use of CBT and healthy lifestyle interventions (i.e., physical activity, alcohol cessation, etc.) to reduce cancer-induced and/or treatment-related symptom burden; however, little is known of the efficacy of a hybrid intervention [82].

The results of this review revealed that the majority of included studies reported positive outcomes in at least one aspect, suggesting that there may be benefit in the use of tandem interventions in cancer survivors. However, very few studies compared the combination of CBT/HL against a HL intervention alone [60, 70], or CBT/HL to CBT alone [46, 72]. This lack of direct comparison of each component of a multi-modal intervention makes it challenging to elucidate whether the addition of CBT, or a HL intervention to treatment regimens would be superior to a CBT or HL intervention alone, or merely redundant.

Additionally, due to the heterogeneous nature of each intervention, it is difficult to make generalizations about the integrity of comparisons. Major sources of variability include the duration, mode of delivery, and length of each intervention. For instance, participants in a 2008 study by Espie et al. met for five weekly 50-min sessions, while in another study, by Qiu et al., participants met weekly for 10 weeks, for sessions lasting 2 h each [64, 73]. This leaves us to question whether or not the positive outcomes could be due in part to the amount of contact, or intensity of treatment sessions. Moreover, despite the studies sharing common goals, the criteria and measurements used were not homogenous among the studies. This lack of consistency in outcome measurements makes rigorous comparisons difficult to perform. As such, the quality of evidence for the usefulness of tandem interventions in clinical practice is difficult to extrapolate.

Another emerging area of research in survivorship care involves increasing patient accessibility to survivorship related treatments and care, in hopes of broadening reach. Minimizing the amount of in person contact time needed may be one such avenue [83]. One way to practically achieve this is to allow patients to access these treatments remotely, on their own schedule, as done with recorded video-based interventions. As aforementioned, this was explored by a study in our cohort [59]. The authors concluded that although VCBT is more available, it was not as effective, or as well adhered to as CBT administered face-to-face. However, this may need to be evaluated further due to the impact of SARS-CoV-2, which has pushed healthcare systems to rapidly adopt tele-health and virtual platforms [84]. Nurse led interventions, may be another possibility in making these interventions adaptable for use in clinical practice. Notably, Lee et al. found their nurse led intervention to be more efficacious than “standard care.” Though, this should be taken cautiously considering it was not directly compared to an equivalent physician or psychologist led intervention [51] However, considering that nursing has been named the most trusted profession for nearly 20 years straight, this should be an area of further study [85]. Moreover, considering that the average amount of time spent by physicians with cancer survivors in outpatient settings is 22.9 min, the use of a multidisciplinary team, consisting of psychologists, social workers, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, may be a more time efficient avenue for clinical practices to explore, and a more flexible and readily accessible option for patients to receive [86].

The field also appears to be saturated with certain cancer types, while having a paucity of information on others. Breast cancer was the most common cancer type examined, as these survivors were the sole focus of 18 out of the 36 studies [48, 49, 51, 52, 58, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 7375, 79, 81]. Moreover, breast cancer patients also accounted for > 50% of participants in six additional studies [46, 47, 56, 60, 64, 70]. The second most common cancer type examined was prostate cancer, as the sole focus of six studies [5355, 57, 76, 80]. On the other hand, head and neck cancers were the focus of only one study [62]. This is understandable, considering the high rates of breast and prostate cancer; however, it makes it difficult to take away generalizable evidence for other cancers from these findings [87]. As coping and maintaining health are important for all cancer types, it is disappointing that there is a limited pool of information on the use of multifaceted interventions in cancer types outside of breast and prostate cancer.

Also contributing to a lack of diversity, is the absence of studies focusing on, or even allowing the inclusion of those with terminal, and/or advanced cancers. Of the 36 studies in this review, only two were dedicated to those with advanced or terminal cancers [67, 80]. Yanez et al. conducted an intervention focused on improving distress, and reducing depressive symptoms in men with advanced (stage III or IV) prostate cancer at initial diagnosis, however those with “prior history of surgery or chemotherapy treatment within the past 6 months” were excluded [80]. This has been recently highlighted—with researchers pointing out the staggering absence of studies focused on improving the quality of life of metastatic cancer survivors despite a growing need for such examination [10].

Overall, the evidence suggests that tandem interventions appear to be efficacious, but there is no consensus on the optimal dose or delivery mechanism. To provide tangible conclusions, the next step in the assessment of these tandem interventions may be the use of pragmatic and/or dissemination and implementation trials.

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this review include the use of randomization in all included studies, the screening of each study by a minimum of two independent evaluators, and the use of the NIH quality assessment tool by a minimum of two individual screeners to assess quality. Additionally, the rigor of the systematic search and data collection are significant strengths of this review. Accuracy was safeguarded by the use of PRISMA, as well as the involvement of multiple authors to gather outcomes. The authorship group met many times to discuss any discrepancies in consensus and ensure an iterative nature to data collection.

The most salient limitation is the lack of participant diversity of the included studies. This refers not only to the absence of racial diversity, but also in types and stages of cancer. Consequently, this homogeneity makes it difficult to generalize the findings to the average patient population. Also of note, many studies did not include adherence data. The absence of this information makes it challenging to uniformly deduce how much of a given intervention is needed to effect a positive outcome. Moreover, without this data, it is difficult to make thorough comparisons against other interventions, and to determine whether or not pursuing the clinical translation of these multifaceted treatment modalities would be a wise way to allocate resources in survivorship care.

Other limitations of this review include the possibility of publication bias, the variable quality of the studies included, and the exclusion of studies in a non-English language, and those focusing on a populations aged 18 and under. It is possible that the high number of positive outcomes could be due in part to publication bias. As such, it is possible that we would not have access to studies with more negative outcomes, as they would not have been published.

The exclusion of non-English studies, as well as those focusing on the pediatric population (0–17 years old), limits the breadth that can be gleamed from the findings. It is possible that informative studies, otherwise meeting our criteria, may not have been translated into English, and thus were excluded. The same holds true for studies focusing on pediatric patients. With these factors in mind, it is necessary to consider the scope of this systematic review before extrapolating results across a wider spectrum of individuals.

Furthermore, there was also a great deal of variability in mode of delivery and duration of interventions, with some studies including voluntary modules which were left up to the participants to complete and thus completed by some participants, but not others [48]. Such presentations make it difficult to draw conclusions or overarching inferences on the true efficacy of these tandem interventions. Finally, participants were also not blinded in any of the studies, and many studies did not control for attention, as they used waitlist controls or care as usual. Both of these stipulations are understandable given the nature of these interventions; however, it does reduce the rigor of evidence that can be gleaned from their results.

Conclusion

This review is the first to systematically review the extant literature on tandem CBT/HL interventions in the care of cancer survivors. While the results are promising, due to the heterogeneity of studies comparing CBT/HL to CBT only, or HL only, the overrepresentation of certain cancers, underrepresentation of Blacks, and other people of color, and variability of dose and delivery, conclusive evidence cannot be gleaned. While there is evidence emerging on the utility of such tandem interventions, it is difficult to make definitive suggestions for clinical practice guidelines. This serves to highlight the need for further research in this area.

Author contribution

Sarah Addison: investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, data curation, formal analysis, validation. Damalie Shirima: investigation, writing—review and editing, data curation. Emmanuela B. Aboagye-Mensah: investigation, writing—review and editing, data curation. Shanon G. Dunovan: conceptualization, methodology, software, writing—original draft. Esther Y. Pascal: writing—review and editing, data curation. Maryam B. Lustberg: writing—review and editing, validation. Elizabeth K. Arthur: investigation, supervision, writing—review and editing, data curation, formal analysis, validation. Timiya S. Nolan: conceptualization, investigation, project administration, supervision, visualization, writing—review and editing, data curation, formal analysis, validation.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute [R03CA245999-01A, K08CA245208-01]; and the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio [Roessler Medical Student Research Scholarship].

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Sarah Addison, Email: sarah.addison@osumc.edu.

Damalie Shirima, Email: damalieshirima@gmail.com.

Emmanuela B. Aboagye-Mensah, Email: emmanuela.aboagye-mensah@osumc.edu

Shanon G. Dunovan, Email: shanon.dunovan@unmc.edu

Esther Y. Pascal, Email: pascal.11@osu.edu

Maryam B. Lustberg, Email: Maryam.Lustberg@osumc.edu

Elizabeth K. Arthur, Email: liz.arthur@osumc.edu

Timiya S. Nolan, Email: nolan.261@osu.edu

References

  • 1.Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber RM, Barregard L, Bhutta ZA, Brenner H, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:524–548. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Miller KD, Nogueira L, Mariotto AB, Rowland JH, Yabroff KR, Alfano CM, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:363–385. doi: 10.3322/caac.21565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Network NCC. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). 2020. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/survivorship.pdf
  • 4.Kayl AE, Meyers CA. Side-effects of chemotherapy and quality of life in ovarian and breast cancer patients. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;18:24–28. doi: 10.1097/01.gco.0000192996.20040.24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tan SY, Turner J, Kerin-Ayres K, Butler S, Deguchi C, Khatri S, et al. Health concerns of cancer survivors after primary anti-cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27:3739–3747. doi: 10.1007/s00520-019-04664-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Berger AM, Gerber LH, Mayer DK. Cancer-related fatigue: implications for breast cancer survivors. Cancer. 2012;118:2261–2269. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Davidson JR, MacLean AW, Brundage MD, Schulze K. Sleep disturbance in cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1309–1321. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00043-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tao JJ, Visvanathan K, Wolff AC. Long term side effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer. Breast. 2015;2:20. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.07.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Janelsins MC, Mustian KM, Peppone LJ, Sprod LK, Shayne M, Mohile S, et al. Interventions to alleviate symptoms related to breast cancer treatments and areas of needed research. J Cancer Sci Ther. 2011;29:1948–5956. doi: 10.4172/1948-5956.s2-001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Langbaum T, Smith TJ. Time to study metastatic-cancer survivorship. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1300–1302. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1901103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Benjamin CL, Puleo CM, Settipani CA, Brodman DM, Edmunds JM, Cummings CM, et al. History of cognitive-behavioral therapy in youth. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2011;20:179–189. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2011.01.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kaczkurkin AN, Foa EB. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders: an update on the empirical evidence. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2015;17:337–346. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2015.17.3/akaczkurkin. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.McCarter K, Martínez Ú, Britton B, Baker A, Bonevski B, Carter G, et al. Smoking cessation care among patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016;6:2016–012296. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ye M, Du K, Zhou J, Zhou Q, Shou M, Hu B, et al. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of cognitive behavior therapy on quality of life and psychological health of breast cancer survivors and patients. Psychooncology. 2018;27:1695–1703. doi: 10.1002/pon.4687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Matthews E, Carter P, Page M, Dean G, Berger A. Sleep-wake disturbance: a systematic review of evidence-based interventions for management in patients with cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2018;22:37–52. doi: 10.1188/18.CJON.37-52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zhang Q, Gao X, Liu S, Yu L, Zhu J, Qiu S. Therapies for cognitive impairment in breast cancer survivors treated with chemotherapy: a protocol for systematic review. Medicine. 2020;99:0000000000020092. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tauber NM, O'Toole MS, Dinkel A, Galica J, Humphris G, Lebel S, et al. Effect of psychological intervention on fear of cancer recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:2899–2915. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mustian KM, Alfano CM, Heckler C, Kleckner AS, Kleckner IR, Leach CR, et al. Comparison of pharmaceutical, psychological, and exercise treatments for cancer-related fatigue: a meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:961–968. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Forsythe LP, Kent EE, Weaver KE, Buchanan N, Hawkins NA, Rodriguez JL, et al. Receipt of psychosocial care among cancer survivors in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1961–1969. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.2101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Stout NL, Baima J, Swisher AK, Winters-Stone KM, Welsh J. A systematic review of exercise systematic reviews in the cancer literature (2005–2017) Pm R. 2017;9:S347–S384. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.07.074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cormie P, Zopf EM, Zhang X, Schmitz KH. The impact of exercise on cancer mortality, recurrence, and treatment-related adverse effects. Epidemiol Rev. 2017;39:71–92. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxx007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Norman SA, Potashnik SL, Galantino ML, De Michele AM, House L, Localio AR. Modifiable risk factors for breast cancer recurrence: what can we tell survivors? J Womens Health. 2007;16:177–190. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2006.0047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bourke L, Doll H, Crank H, Daley A, Rosario D, Saxton JM. Lifestyle intervention in men with advanced prostate cancer receiving androgen suppression therapy: a feasibility study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:647–657. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Schmitz KH, Ahmed RL, Troxel A, Cheville A, Smith R, Lewis-Grant L, et al. Weight lifting in women with breast-cancer-related lymphedema. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:664–673. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Palesh O, Scheiber C, Kesler S, Mustian K, Koopman C, Schapira L. Management of side effects during and post-treatment in breast cancer survivors. Breast J. 2018;24:167–175. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Westmaas JL, Thewes B, Séguin Leclair C, Lebel S. Smoking versus quitting and fear of cancer recurrence 9 years after diagnosis in the American Cancer Society's Longitudinal Study of Cancer Survivors-I (SCS-I) Cancer. 2019;125:4260–4268. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Beesley VL, Eakin EG, Janda M, Battistutta D. Gynecological cancer survivors' health behaviors and their associations with quality of life. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19:775–782. doi: 10.1007/s10552-008-9140-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Blanchard CM, Courneya KS, Stein K. Cancer survivors' adherence to lifestyle behavior recommendations and associations with health-related quality of life: results from the American Cancer Society's SCS-II. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2198–2204. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.6217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Irwin ML, Crumley D, McTiernan A, Bernstein L, Baumgartner R, Gilliland FD, et al. Physical activity levels before and after a diagnosis of breast carcinoma: the Health, Eating, Activity, and Lifestyle (HEAL) study. Cancer. 2003;97:1746–1757. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Irwin ML. Physical activity interventions for cancer survivors. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43:32–38. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.053843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jones LW, Courneya KS. Exercise discussions during cancer treatment consultations. Cancer Pract. 2002;10:66–74. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-5394.2002.102004.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ehrenzeller MF, Mayer DK, Goldstein A. Smoking prevalence and management among cancer survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2018;45:55–68. doi: 10.1188/18.ONF.55-68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gallaway MS, Glover-Kudon R, Momin B, Puckett M, Lunsford NB, Ragan KR, et al. Smoking cessation attitudes and practices among cancer survivors - United States, 2015. J Cancer Surviv. 2019;13:66–74. doi: 10.1007/s11764-018-0728-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rhodes RE. Bridging the physical activity intention-behaviour gap: contemporary strategies for the clinician. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2014;39:105–107. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2013-0166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bradford NK, Chan RJ. Health promotion and psychological interventions for adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: a systematic literature review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2017;55:57–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.McLean SM, Burton M, Bradley L, Littlewood C. Interventions for enhancing adherence with physiotherapy: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2010;15:514–521. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2010.05.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ferrans CE, Zerwic JJ, Wilbur JE, Larson JL. Conceptual model of health-related quality of life. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2005;37:336–342. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00058.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Alford BA, Beck AT. The integrative power of cognitive therapy. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Beck AT. Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. Oxford, England: International Universities Press; 1976. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wright JH, Thase ME, Beck AT. Cognitive-behavioral therapy. 7th ed: The American Psychiatric Association Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry; 2019. 10.1176/appi.books.9781615372980.lr33
  • 43.Farrington A. Cancer, emotional responses and cognitive behavioural psychotherapy. Eur J Cancer Care. 1994;3:175–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.1994.tb00040.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Innovation VH. Covidence systematic review software [computer software]. Covidence.org. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation Ltd.
  • 45.National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Health NIo. NIH Quality assessment of controlled intervention studies. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
  • 46.Goedendorp MM, Peters ME, Gielissen MF, Witjes JA, Leer JW, Verhagen CA, et al. Is increasing physical activity necessary to diminish fatigue during cancer treatment? Comparing cognitive behavior therapy and a brief nursing intervention with usual care in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Oncologist. 2010;15:1122–1132. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Goedendorp MM, Gielissen MF, Peters ME, Verhagen CA, Bleijenberg G. Moderators and long-term effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for fatigue during cancer treatment. Psychooncology. 2012;21:877–885. doi: 10.1002/pon.1981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Abrahams HJG, Gielissen MFM, Donders RRT, Goedendorp MM, van der Wouw AJ, Verhagen C, et al. The efficacy of Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for severely fatigued survivors of breast cancer compared with care as usual: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2017;123:3825–3834. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dirksen SR, Epstein DR. Efficacy of an insomnia intervention on fatigue, mood and quality of life in breast cancer survivors. J Adv Nurs. 2008;61:664–675. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04560.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gielissen MF, Verhagen S, Witjes F, Bleijenberg G. 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. 2006;24:4882–4887. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.8270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lee H, Lim Y, Yoo MS, Kim Y. Effects of a nurse-led cognitive-behavior therapy on fatigue and quality of life of patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy: an exploratory study. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 52.Pakiz B, Flatt SW, Bardwell WA, Rock CL, Mills PJ. Effects of a weight loss intervention on body mass, fitness, and inflammatory biomarkers in overweight or obese breast cancer survivors. Int J Behav Med. 2011;18:333–341. doi: 10.1007/s12529-010-9079-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Penedo FJ, Dahn JR, Molton I, Gonzalez JS, Kinsinger D, Roos BA, et al. Cognitive-behavioral stress management improves stress-management skills and quality of life in men recovering from treatment of prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100:192–200. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Penedo FJ, Molton I, Dahn JR, Shen BJ, Kinsinger D, Traeger L, et al. A randomized clinical trial of group-based cognitive-behavioral stress management in localized prostate cancer: development of stress management skills improves quality of life and benefit finding. Ann Behav Med. 2006;31:261–270. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm3103_8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Penedo FJ, Traeger L, Dahn J, Molton I, Gonzalez JS, Schneiderman N, et al. Cognitive behavioral stress management intervention improves quality of life in Spanish monolingual hispanic men treated for localized prostate cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Med. 2007;14:164–172. doi: 10.1007/BF03000188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ritterband LM, Bailey ET, Thorndike FP, Lord HR, Farrell-Carnahan L, Baum LD. Initial evaluation of an Internet intervention to improve the sleep of cancer survivors with insomnia. Psychooncology. 2012;21:695–705. doi: 10.1002/pon.1969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Traeger L, Penedo FJ, Benedict C, Dahn JR, Lechner SC, Schneiderman N, et al. Identifying how and for whom cognitive-behavioral stress management improves emotional well-being among recent prostate cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2013;22:250–259. doi: 10.1002/pon.2074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Gudenkauf LM, Antoni MH, Stagl JM, Lechner SC, Jutagir DR, Bouchard LC, et al. Brief cognitive-behavioral and relaxation training interventions for breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015;83:677–688. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Savard J, Ivers H, Savard MH, Morin CM. Is a video-based cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia as efficacious as a professionally administered treatment in breast cancer? Results of a randomized controlled trial. Sleep. 2014;37:1305–1314. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.van Weert E, May AM, Korstjens I, Post WJ, van der Schans CP, van den Borne B, et al. Cancer-related fatigue and rehabilitation: a randomized controlled multicenter trial comparing physical training combined with cognitive-behavioral therapy with physical training only and with no intervention. Phys Ther. 2010;90:1413–1425. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20090212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Antoni MH, Lechner SC, Kazi A, Wimberly SR, Sifre T, Urcuyo KR, et al. How stress management improves quality of life after treatment for breast cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74:1143–1152. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Duffy SA, Ronis DL, Valenstein M, Lambert MT, Fowler KE, Gregory L, et al. A tailored smoking, alcohol, and depression intervention for head and neck cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:2203–2208. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Duijts SF, van Beurden M, Oldenburg HS, Hunter MS, Kieffer JM, Stuiver MM, et al. Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and physical exercise in alleviating treatment-induced menopausal symptoms in patients with breast cancer: results of a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4124–4133. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.41.8525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Espie CA, Fleming L, Cassidy J, Samuel L, Taylor LM, White CA, et al. Randomized controlled clinical effectiveness trial of cognitive behavior therapy compared with treatment as usual for persistent insomnia in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4651–4658. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.9006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ferguson RJ, McDonald BC, Rocque MA, Furstenberg CT, Horrigan S, Ahles TA, et al. Development of CBT for chemotherapy-related cognitive change: results of a waitlist control trial. Psychooncology. 2012;21:176–186. doi: 10.1002/pon.1878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ferguson RJ, Sigmon ST, Pritchard AJ, LaBrie SL, Goetze RE, Fink CM, et al. A randomized trial of videoconference-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for survivors of breast cancer with self-reported cognitive dysfunction. Cancer. 2016;122:1782–1791. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Greer JA, Traeger L, Bemis H, Solis J, Hendriksen ES, Park ER, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive-behavioral therapy for anxiety in patients with terminal cancer. Oncologist. 2012;17:1337–1345. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Groarke A, Curtis R, Kerin M. Cognitive-behavioural stress management enhances adjustment in women with breast cancer. Br J Health Psychol. 2013;18:623–641. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Irwin MR, Olmstead R, Carrillo C, Sadeghi N, Nicassio P, Ganz PA, et al. Tai Chi Chih compared with cognitive behavioral therapy for the treatment of insomnia in survivors of breast cancer: a randomized, partially blinded, noninferiority trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2656–2665. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.0285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Korstjens I, May AM, van Weert E, Mesters I, Tan F, Ros WJ, et al. Quality of life after self-management cancer rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial comparing physical and cognitive-behavioral training versus physical training. Psychosom Med. 2008;70:422–429. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e31816e038f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Mann E, Smith MJ, Hellier J, Balabanovic JA, Hamed H, Grunfeld EA, et al. Cognitive behavioural treatment for women who have menopausal symptoms after breast cancer treatment (MENOS 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:309–318. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70364-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Prinsen H, Bleijenberg G, Heijmen L, Zwarts MJ, Leer JW, Heerschap A, et al. The role of physical activity and physical fitness in postcancer fatigue: a randomized controlled trial. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:2279–2288. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1784-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Qiu J, Chen W, Gao X, Xu Y, Tong H, Yang M, et al. A randomized controlled trial of group cognitive behavioral therapy for Chinese breast cancer patients with major depression. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;34:60–67. doi: 10.3109/0167482X.2013.766791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Qiu H, Ren W, Yang Y, Zhu X, Mao G, Mao S, et al. Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression on improving insomnia and quality of life in Chinese women with breast cancer: results of a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018;14:2665–2673. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S171297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Savard J, Simard S, Ivers H, Morin CM. Randomized study on the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia secondary to breast cancer, part I: Sleep and psychological effects. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6083–6096. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Stefanopoulou E, Yousaf O, Grunfeld EA, Hunter MS. A randomised controlled trial of a brief cognitive behavioural intervention for men who have hot flushes following prostate cancer treatment (MANCAN) Psychooncology. 2015;24:1159–1166. doi: 10.1002/pon.3794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Trask PC, Paterson AG, Griffith KA, Riba MB, Schwartz JL. Cognitive-behavioral intervention for distress in patients with melanoma: comparison with standard medical care and impact on quality of life. Cancer. 2003;98:854–864. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.van de Wal M, Thewes B, Gielissen M, Speckens A, Prins J. Efficacy of blended cognitive behavior therapy for high fear of recurrence in breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors: the SWORD study, a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2173–2183. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.5301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Zachariae R, Amidi A, Damholdt MF, Clausen CDR, Dahlgaard J, Lord H, et al. Internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia in breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110:880–887. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Yanez B, McGinty HL, Mohr DC, Begale MJ, Dahn JR, Flury SC, et al. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a technology-assisted psychosocial intervention for racially diverse men with advanced prostate cancer. Cancer. 2015;121:4407–4415. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Stagl JM, Bouchard LC, Lechner SC, Blomberg BB, Gudenkauf LM, Jutagir DR, et al. Long-term psychological benefits of cognitive-behavioral stress management for women with breast cancer: 11-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2015;121:1873–1881. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Network NCC. NCCN Guidelines for Patients Survivorship for Cancer-Related Late and Long-Term Effects. 2020. https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/content/PDF/survivorship-crl-patient.pdf
  • 83.Zhou ES, Recklitis CJ. Internet-delivered insomnia intervention improves sleep and quality of life for adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020;67:22. doi: 10.1002/pbc.28506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Koonin LM, Hoots B, Tsang CA, Leroy Z, Farris K, Jolly T, et al. Trends in the Use of Telehealth During the Emergence of the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, January-March 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1595–1599. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6943a3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Gaines. Nurses Ranked Most Trusted Profession 19 Years in a Row. 2021. https://nurse.org/articles/nursing-ranked-most-honest-profession/
  • 86.Guy GP, Richardson LC. Visit duration for outpatient physician office visits among patients with cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8:2s–8s. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Society AC. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures 2020. https://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


Articles from Journal of Cancer Survivorship are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES