1
|
Hack CC, Häberle L, Brucker SY, Janni W, Volz B, Loehberg CR, Hartkopf AD, Walter CB, Baake G, Fridman A, Malter W, Wuerstlein R, Harbeck N, Hoffmann O, Kuemmel S, Martin B, Thomssen C, Graf H, Wolf C, Lux MP, Bayer CM, Rauh C, Almstedt K, Gass P, Heindl F, Brodkorb T, Willer L, Lindner C, Kolberg HC, Krabisch P, Weigel M, Steinfeld-Birg D, Kohls A, Brucker C, Schulz V, Fischer G, Pelzer V, Rack B, Beckmann MW, Fehm T, Rody A, Maass N, Hein A, Fasching PA, Nabieva N. Complementary and alternative medicine and musculoskeletal pain in the first year of adjuvant aromatase inhibitor treatment in early breast cancer patients. Breast 2020; 50:11-18. [PMID: 31958661 PMCID: PMC7377331 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2019.12.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2019] [Revised: 12/30/2019] [Accepted: 12/31/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Patients with breast cancer (BC) show strong interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), particularly for adverse effects of adjuvant endocrine treatment — e.g., with letrozole. Letrozole often induces myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia, with potential noncompliance and treatment termination. This analysis investigated whether CAM before aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy is associated with pain development and the intensity of AI-induced musculoskeletal syndrome (AIMSS) during the first year of treatment. Patients and methods The multicenter phase IV PreFace study evaluated letrozole therapy in postmenopausal, hormone receptor–positive patients with early BC. Patients were asked about CAM use before, 6 months after, and 12 months after treatment started. They recorded pain every month for 1 year in a diary including questions about pain and numeric pain rating scales. Data were analyzed for patients who provided pain information for all time points. Results Of 1396 patients included, 901 (64.5%) had used CAM before AI treatment. Throughout the observation period, patients with CAM before AI treatment had higher pain values, for both myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia, than non-users. Pain increased significantly in both groups over time, with the largest increase during the first 6 months. No significant difference of pain increase was noted regarding CAM use. Conclusions CAM use does not prevent or improve the development of AIMSS. Pain intensity was generally greater in the CAM group. Therefore, because of the risk of non-compliance and treatment discontinuation due to the development of higher pain levels, special attention must be paid to patient education and aftercare in these patients. Pain levels of myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia increase under letrozole intake. Within one year pain levels increase in both, CAM users as well as non-CAM users. In CAM users pain levels were higher at all time points than in non-CAM users. The greatest increase of pain levels was noted in the first six treatment months. CAM does not prevent or improve the development of myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C C Hack
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - L Häberle
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany; Biostatistics Unit, Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany
| | - S Y Brucker
- Department of Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - W Janni
- Department of Gynecology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - B Volz
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - C R Loehberg
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany; St. Theresien Hospital, Nuremberg, Germany
| | - A D Hartkopf
- Department of Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - C-B Walter
- Department of Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - G Baake
- Oncological Medical Practice Pinneberg, Pinneberg, Germany
| | - A Fridman
- Breast Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cologne Hospital, Cologne, Germany; Evangelisches Krankenhaus Kalk, Cologne, Germany
| | - W Malter
- Breast Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cologne Hospital, Cologne, Germany
| | - R Wuerstlein
- Breast Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cologne Hospital, Cologne, Germany; Breast Center, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics and CCC Munich, University of Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - N Harbeck
- Breast Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cologne Hospital, Cologne, Germany; Breast Center, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics and CCC Munich, University of Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - O Hoffmann
- Department of Gynecology, Essen University Hospital, Essen, Germany
| | - S Kuemmel
- Breast Unit, Essen Mitte Clinics, Evang. Huyssens-Stiftung/Knappschaft GmbH, Essen, Germany
| | - B Martin
- Tuttlingen Clinic, Tuttlingen, Germany
| | - C Thomssen
- Department of Gynecology, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
| | - H Graf
- Helios Clinics Meiningen, Meiningen, Germany
| | - C Wolf
- Ulm Medical Center, Ulm, Germany
| | - M P Lux
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - C M Bayer
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - C Rauh
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - K Almstedt
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany; Department of Gynecology, Mainz University Hospital, Mainz, Germany
| | - P Gass
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - F Heindl
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - T Brodkorb
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - L Willer
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - C Lindner
- Agaplesion Diakonie Clinic Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - H-C Kolberg
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Marienhospital Bottrop, Bottrop, Germany
| | - P Krabisch
- Department of Gynecology, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH, Chemnitz, Germany
| | - M Weigel
- Department of Gynecology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Schweinfurt, Germany
| | - D Steinfeld-Birg
- Gynecologic Onocologic Practice Steinfeld-Birg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - A Kohls
- Protestant County Hospital of Ludwigsfelde-Teltow, Ludwigsfelde-Teltow, Germany
| | - C Brucker
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Nuremberg General Hospital, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg, Germany
| | - V Schulz
- Gynecologic Practice Abts+partner, Kiel, Germany
| | - G Fischer
- Mittweida Hospital gGmbH, Mittweida, Germany
| | - V Pelzer
- Department of Gynecology, GFO Clinics Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - B Rack
- Department of Gynecology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - M W Beckmann
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - T Fehm
- Department of Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Department of Gynecology, Heinrich Heine University of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
| | - A Rody
- Department of Gynecology, Campus Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein University Hospital, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
| | - N Maass
- Department of Gynecology, Campus Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein University Hospital, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
| | - A Hein
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - P A Fasching
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany.
| | - N Nabieva
- Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cheng AL, Calfee R, Colditz G, Prather H. PROMIS Physical and Emotional Health Scores Are Worse in Musculoskeletal Patients Presenting to Physiatrists than to Other Orthopedic Specialists. PM R 2019; 11:604-612. [PMID: 30609319 DOI: 10.1002/pmrj.12068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2018] [Accepted: 12/05/2018] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Physiatrists' unique training in person-centered biopsychosocial management of complex problems may influence musculoskeletal patients' expectations and self- and/or physician-referral patterns to physiatrists. Consequently, average patient complexity and need for multi-disciplinary services may be increased in physiatric patients. OBJECTIVE To compare musculoskeletal patients' self-reported physical and emotional health according to provider specialty. Researchers tested the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores between patients who present to physiatrists in comparison to other musculoskeletal specialists. DESIGN Cross-sectional study. SETTING Orthopedic department of a tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS Participants included 31 791 new adult patients (mean age 52.6 ± 16.2 years) who presented for initial elective evaluation of a musculoskeletal problem by an orthopedic surgeon or sports medicine trained emergency medicine, family medicine, pediatric, or physiatric physician. METHODS Patients completed the PROMIS computer adaptive test (CAT) Physical Function, Pain Interference, Anxiety, and Depression domains at department check-in prior to the physician encounter. Score differences by provider type were assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Mean PROMIS score in each domain subdivided by physiatric, surgical, and other nonsurgical provider type. RESULTS In total, 2081 patients presented to physiatrists, 28 267 presented to surgeons, and 1443 presented to other nonsurgical providers. For each respective provider type, average PROMIS scores were Physical Function 38.9 ± 8.2, 41.5 ± 9.5, and 43.5 ± 8.2; Pain Interference 62.6 ± 7.2, 60.9 ± 7.7, and 59.2 ± 6.8; Anxiety 54.5 ± 10.4, 51.9 ± 10.6, and 49.8 ± 9.8; and Depression 49.3 ± 10.4, 47.0 ± 10.0, and 44.2 ± 8.7. Physiatric patients had significantly worse average scores for all domains compared to surgical (P < .001) and other nonsurgical patients (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Average PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, Anxiety, and Depression scores were worse in musculoskeletal patients who presented to physiatrists in comparison to surgical or other nonsurgical providers. This suggests that some patients who choose to see or are referred to see physiatrists may have more or be more willing to endorse having biopsychosocial impairments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abby L Cheng
- Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - Ryan Calfee
- Division of Hand and Wrist, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - Graham Colditz
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - Heidi Prather
- Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| |
Collapse
|