Progressive relaxation training in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitor therapy-randomized controlled trial.
Free full text in Europe PMC
Abstract
Background
Aromatase inhibitors have positive impacts on the disease-free life of patients with breast cancer. However, their side effects, especially arthralgia, may be experienced by many patients. This study sought to assess the efficacy of Progressive Relaxation Exercises on the prevalent side effects of Aromatase Inhibitors in patients with breast cancer.Materials and methods
This clinical trial was conducted with single-blind randomization at a physiotherapy department in a local hospital. Patients who received Aromatase Inhibitor were assigned at random to either the study or control group. The study group (n = 22) performed a Progressive Relaxation Exercises program four days a week for six weeks, while the control group (n = 22) received advice on relaxation for daily life. Data was collected before the intervention and after six weeks. The study's primary endpoint was the Brief Pain Inventory, which was used to measure pain severity. Secondary endpoints included assessments of quality of life and emotional status, which were measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scales, respectively.Results
The study group exhibited a significant reduction in Pain Severity (p = 0.001) and Pain Interference (p = 0.012) sub-scores. Reduction in Pain Severity (p<0.001) and Patient Pain Experience (p = 0.003) sub-scores was also noted between the groups. Quality of Life and Emotional Status showed no significant variation both within and between the groups (p>0.05).Conclusion
The study demonstrated that Progressive Relaxation Exercises caused a significant reduction in pain scores among Breast Cancer patients receiving Aromatase Inhibitors. While a decrease in pain during the 6-week period is valuable data, it is necessary to monitor the long-term effects of relaxation techniques.Free full text
Progressive relaxation training in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitor therapy-randomized controlled trial
1
,* Songül Atasavun Uysal, Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review & editing,
2
Zeynep Erdogan İyigün, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing,
3
Çetin Ordu, Project administration, Writing – review & editing,
4
Gürsel Remzi Soybir, Project administration, Writing – review & editing,
5
and Vahit Ozmen, Project administration, Resources, Writing – review & editing
6
Abstract
Background
Aromatase inhibitors have positive impacts on the disease-free life of patients with breast cancer. However, their side effects, especially arthralgia, may be experienced by many patients. This study sought to assess the efficacy of Progressive Relaxation Exercises on the prevalent side effects of Aromatase Inhibitors in patients with breast cancer.
Materials and methods
This clinical trial was conducted with single-blind randomization at a physiotherapy department in a local hospital. Patients who received Aromatase Inhibitor were assigned at random to either the study or control group. The study group (n = 22) performed a Progressive Relaxation Exercises program four days a week for six weeks, while the control group (n = 22) received advice on relaxation for daily life. Data was collected before the intervention and after six weeks. The study’s primary endpoint was the Brief Pain Inventory, which was used to measure pain severity. Secondary endpoints included assessments of quality of life and emotional status, which were measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scales, respectively.
Results
The study group exhibited a significant reduction in Pain Severity (p = 0.001) and Pain Interference (p = 0.012) sub-scores. Reduction in Pain Severity (p<0.001) and Patient Pain Experience (p = 0.003) sub-scores was also noted between the groups. Quality of Life and Emotional Status showed no significant variation both within and between the groups (p>0.05).
Conclusion
The study demonstrated that Progressive Relaxation Exercises caused a significant reduction in pain scores among Breast Cancer patients receiving Aromatase Inhibitors. While a decrease in pain during the 6-week period is valuable data, it is necessary to monitor the long-term effects of relaxation techniques.
Introduction
Whilst Aromatase Inhibitor (AI) can have positive effects on a disease-free life, their usage may be limited due to side effects such as joint pain, stiffness, arthralgia and myalgia [1–3]. Almost 50% of patients receiving AI experience arthralgia, particularly as part of AI-induced musculoskeletal syndrome (AI-MSS) [4]. The most common musculoskeletal adverse events associated with AI-MSS are bone loss and arthralgia, which are primarily caused by estrogen deficiency [5]. The mechanism behind AI-induced arthralgia has been defined in several ways [6]. One is that reduced estrogen levels increase pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and IL-1 in articular cartilage cells, causing joint pain and swelling [7]. The other mechanism is that the aromatase and estrogen receptors are expressed in the brain and the spinal cord analgesic system. This contributes to significantly reduced pain thresholds. This contributes to significantly reduced pain thresholds [8]. Additionally, MRI findings have revealed the pathophysiology of AI-MSS, which is associated with tenosynovial changes such as tenosynovial fluid accumulation and edema in the subcutaneous tissue that may cause pain in patients receiving AI [9, 10]. Moreover, patients receiving AI can experience side effects such as cognitive dysfunctions [11], anxiety and depression [12], sleep problems, and fatigue [13]. All of these adverse events can seriously affect patients’ quality of life (QoL) and are the reason for discontinuation of therapy. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to modulate the quality of life of breast cancer patients by reducing the adverse events of AI [14, 15].
Besides pharmacological approaches, other interventions to reduce AI side effects include acupuncture, nutritional supplementation, relaxation techniques and physical exercise. Exercise interventions have been recommended as a means of alleviating the side effects of AI in patients with breast cancer (BC). These interventions include walking, aquatic exercise, strength training, bench press, leg press, seated row, and others [6, 16]. Aerobic, resistive or combined exercises are commonly used to improve the quality of life in BC patients undergoing AI treatment [17, 18]. These exercise interventions are mostly effective on reduction in pain and stiffness, improving in muscle strength, quality of life and pain threshold [16]. Only two studies, one involving yoga and the other Thai-chi, have examined the effectiveness of relaxation techniques on AI associated arthralgia [19]. The non-utilization of direct relaxation exercises to reduce AI side effects can be considered as a gap. However, there is inadequate evidence regarding the impact of relaxation techniques on treatment-related side effects in breast cancer patients.
Jacobson first described Progressive Muscle Relaxation Exercises (PRE) in 1938 [20]. PRE is a technique used in various studies to relax the whole body. It works by maximum contraction and relaxation of different muscle groups, sometimes accompanied by deep breathing [20, 21]. PRE is a widely used method with many current modifications for various health conditions [22, 23]. Physiological, perceptual, and behavioral positive findings of muscle relaxation were well-defined [21]. PRE is effective in breast cancer patients, providing improvements in upper limb function and reducing anxiety, as well as reducing the severity of chemotherapy symptoms [24–26]. On the other hand, PRE appears to be effective in managing symptoms and increasing self-efficacy in lung and head-neck cancer patients [27, 28]. Considering the types of exercises, it can be inferred that patients may find it easier to perform PRE and therefore prefer it.
Exercise interventions such as aerobic and/or resistance exercises and implementation of Tai Chi and yoga seems to reduce adverse effects in patients receiving hormone therapy and improve QoL [16, 29]. However, the effects of PRE in patients with BC receiving AI is not well-known. This study aims to investigate the effects of PRE on arthralgia, quality of life, and emotional status in patients with BC receiving AI.
Materials and methods
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Research Ethics Committee sanctioned the study, and written informed consent was obtained from all study participants. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Bilim University (Protocol number: 23.07.2019/2019-15-02) and was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with registration number ‘NCT04163692’ on 15.11.2019.
Study design
A two-armed, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled study was conducted. BC survivors receiving AI were randomized to the study (PRE performed) or control group. Patients’ medical records were sourced from the Breast Cancer Centre of the hospital and eligible patients were invited to participate by telephone and recruited meanwhile between 1-10-2019 and 1-9-2020. All assessments and exercise sessions took place within the Physiotherapy Department of the same hospital. Outcomes were evaluated at the beginning of the study and six weeks after the intervention. All participants received provided information on musculoskeletal pain and relaxation exercises.
The sample size was determined based on a previous study that mentioned the impact of yoga on functional outcomes in breast cancer survivors with aromatase inhibitor-associated arthralgia [30]. The mean and standard deviation data of the QoL parameter 
mean (SD): 89,33(20,18) and 106,05(17,02) respectively] were used. The target sample size was determined with the aim of recruiting at least 20 participants per group, based on a power of 80% and a confidence interval of 95%, with an effect size of 0,88. Including estimated dropout rate of 30%, it is planned to recruit 26 patients in each group.
Participants & randomization
Postmenopausal breast cancer patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified based on a search across the medical records of Breast Cancer Center. Inclusion criteria were as follows: having used AI for more than 6 months and less than 5 years, diagnosis of breast cancer stage 1–3, being a post-menopausal woman aged under 70 years, being hormone receptor-positive, and having received approval from their physician for participating in the PRE program. The participants were excluded from the study if they had difficulty in communication, neurological or orthopedic problems that could affect to make exercise, had any type of surgery during intervention, participated in any physical training in the previous six months or during the intervention, or had a diagnosis of lymphedema.
Among 120 patients with BC receiving AI, who were eligible as per the study criteria, 54 participants agreed to participate in the study voluntarily after phone call (Fig 1). Participants were invited for the baseline assessment at the hospital and the signed informed consent form was obtained from each patient before assessment.
Participants were allocated randomly to either the study group (n = 27) or the control group (n = 27) in a 1:1 ratio, utilizing a list of computer-generated random sequence numbers. The computer-generated list was used to check the last two digits of the participants’ protocol number and determine the group. After this determination, the next participant was placed in the other group. Prior to randomization, an experienced researcher in oncologic rehabilitation, who was blinded to the allocation, evaluated patients for any musculoskeletal pain and other disorders. The patients were then asked to fill out the FACT, BPI and HAD forms. Following a 6-week intervention, the same assessor conducted a follow-up examination with the patients and had them complete the aforementioned forms once more (S1 Checklist and S1 and S2 Files).
Outcome measures
Pain
As primary outcome, The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) assesses the severity of pain and its impact on functioning. It has three dimensions of pain assessments as follows: pain severity (BPI-PS), pain interference (BPI-PI) and patient pain experience (BPI-PPE). The validated questionnaire consists of 17 questions, which evaluate the pain location, severity, and pain status, especially in the last 24 hours [31]. Higher scores are associated with higher pain [32, 33].
Quality of life
As secondary outcome, The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Breast (FACT-B) instrument evaluates the all-round quality of life in patients with breast cancer and is available in many languages. The questionnaire includes five sub-scales that assess physical, social, emotional, functional and another anxiety status. It has a 27-item general (FACT-G) scale and a 10-item breast cancer-specific scale (FACT- B) in which patients evaluate their status. Patients determine an appropriate expression for themselves in the last seven days, with a 5-point scale as follows: 0: none; 1: very little; 2: slightly; 3: quite; 4: too much. Higher scores indicate a higher quality of life. The necessary permissions were obtained from the provider to access and use the validated version [34].
Emotional status
As secondary outcome, The Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale evaluates the emotional status for physically ill patients. It consists of 14 questions 7 of which evaluate depression (HAD-D) and 7 of which consider anxiety (HAD-A). The cut-off score is 10/11 for the anxiety subscale and 7/8 for the depression subscale. Accordingly, any points above these scores are considered to be at risk [35].
Intervention
The PRE was implemented in the study group after the initial assessment in the hospital. The program was carried out four days a week, with one session being supervised and the remaining three sessions being carried out at home. The program was administered by the same physiotherapist and each session lasted for roughly 45–60 minutes. Participants were provided with a brochure detailing the exercise programs, which were identical between the supervised and home-based sessions. Participants were encouraged to continue the program independently. All queries related to home-based exercises were addressed during supervised sessions or via telephone calls. Each patient was given an exercise diary to maintain a regular routine as part of the program. Patients were advised to perform the exercises in a comfortable sitting position. Providing silence and a dim light helped to increase the effectiveness of the relaxation. Subsequently, the patients were presented with the instructions listed in Table 1 [21].
Table 1
| • Clench your fists, push your elbow towards the seat |
| • Bend your elbows |
| • Push your shoulders back |
| • Press your knee down and pull your toes towards you |
| • Pull your knees towards you and push your feet down |
| • Tighten your hips |
| • Push your head back |
| • Lift your eyebrows |
| • Make wrinkles on your nose |
| • Tighten your teeth |
| • Push your chin down |
| • Close your eyes and think of good things. |
The patients completed each exercise with 5-second-long contractions and 10-second-long relaxation periods. They repeated each exercise three times. Breathing exercises were performed between the exercise periods to enhance relaxation effectiveness. Participants who missed over 10% of the sessions or failed to maintain the program were excluded.
The control group participants were advised to relax in their daily lives and avoid stressful living conditions. No supervised exercise or follow-up procedures were provided for the control group. Participants were advised that they could participate in PRE programs for six weeks if the study provides beneficial effects after intervention.
Both groups received information about the patients’ progress and had their study-related inquiries addressed through phone calls, hospital sessions, or physician appointments.
Statistical analysis
The SPSS software (Copyright ©SPSS Version 26) was used for statistical evaluation. The mean [95% confidence intervals (CI)], standard deviations, and frequency rates were summarized for baseline characteristics. The group distributions were examined using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The group analysis was performed using the non-parametric test methods due to the low number of participants. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for the analysis of independent quantitative data, and Wilcoxon test was used for the analysis of dependent data. The McNemar test was used for dependent variables, and the Chi-Square test was used for independent variables for studying the qualitative data. Cohen’s Formula was used for calculating the effect size of differences between and within the groups. The two-group t-test was used to calculate the sample size. The SPSS graphics were used to create figures; and a P value <0.05 was considered significant.
Results
After 6-week intervention sessions, 44 out of 54 (%81.4) participants completed the assessments in both groups (Fig 1).
The groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics, which were defined as age, body mass index (BMI), marital and educational status and type of AI used (p>0.05) (Table 2).
Table 2
| PRE group (n = 22) | Control group (n = 22) | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 60.5 (6.1) | 58.8 (8.1) | .58 | |
| Body mass index (kg/m2), mean (SD) | 28.5 (4.09) | 27.7 (3.51) | .65 | |
| Marital status (n-%) | Married | 16–72,7 | 19–86,4 | .26 |
| Single | 6–27,3 | 3–13,6 | ||
| Education status (n-%) | University | 14–63,6 | 9–40,9 | .12 |
| High school | 3–13,6 | 9–40,9 | ||
| Primary education | 5–22,7 | 4–18,2 | ||
| Type of AI (n-%) | Anastrozole | 12–54,5 | 14–63,6 | .54 |
| Letrozole | 10–45,5 | 8–36,4 | ||
| Breast Cancer Stage (n-%) | Stage I | 10–45,5 | 11–50 | |
| Stage II | 8–36,4 | 8–36,4 | ||
| Stage III | 4–18,2 | 3–13,6 | .69 | |
There was no difference in BPI, FACT and HAD scores in the initial values before the intervention for both groups (p>0.05).
There was a significant reduction in BPI-PS (p = 0.001) and BPI-PI (p = 0.012) scores between the initial and final values in the study group (Fig 2).
BPI-PS: Brief Pain Inventory-Pain Severity, BPI-PI: Brief Pain Inventory-Pain interference.
In contrast, the BPI-PPE, FACT-G, FACT-B, HAD-D and HAD-A scores between the initial and final values revealed no significance (all p>0.05) within the group’s analysis (Table 3).
Table 3
| Groups | Study Group (n = 22) | Control Group (n = 22) | P* | R^ | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention outcomes | Mean (SD*) | Median | 1Q-3Q | Mean (SD*) | Median | 1Q- 3Q | |||
| BPI-PS | Baseline | 3.30 (1.81) | 3.00 | 1.94–4.38 | 2.44 (1.73) | 2.50 | 1.13–3.50 | ≤ .001 b | 0.34 |
| In Week 6 | 1.81 (1.49) | 1.50 | 0.69–3.38 | 2.90 (1.82) | 2.88 | 1.69–4.50 | |||
| Effects within the groups (Baseline to Week 6) | 1.41 (1.58) | -0.46 (1.12) | |||||||
| Significance within the groups (p) | .001 a | .17 | |||||||
| BPI-PPE | Baseline | 3.05 (1.55) | 2.93 | 1.79–3.83 | 2.08 (1.78) | 2.21 | 0.78–2.96 | .003 b | 0.99 |
| In Week 6 | 2.02 (1.61) | 1.85 | 0.68–3.49 | 2.45 (1.73) | 1.84 | 1.03–3.48 | |||
| Effects within the groups (Baseline to Week 6) | 1.03 (1.66) | -0.3 (1.12) | |||||||
| Significance within the group (p) | .20 | .30 | |||||||
| BPI-PI | Baseline | 2.80 (1.86) | 2.61 | 1.21–2.62 | 1.73 (2.05) | 1.21 | 0.00–2.71 | .11 | 0.49 |
| In Week 6 | 2.17 (2.07) | 1.85 | 0.12–4.14 | 2.01 (1.87) | 1.71 | 0.44–3.07 | |||
| Effects within the groups (Baseline to Week 6) | 0.60 (2.21) | -0.27 (1.3) | |||||||
| Significance within the group (p) | .012 a | .16 | |||||||
| FACT-G | Baseline | 80.88 (11.83) | 79.50 | 78.43 (19.90) | 84.00 | 61.83–94.66 | .89 | 0.10 | |
| In Week 6 | 82.92 (12.75) | 85.67 | 81.34 (16.71) | 85.00 | 70.45–93.51 | ||||
| Effects within the groups (Baseline to Week 6) | -2.04 (9.41) | -2.91 (7.5) | |||||||
| Significance within the group (p) | .30 | .27 | |||||||
| FACT-B | Baseline | 106.36 (17.56) | 107.00 | 104.40 (26.07) | 109.93 | 84.83–125.07 | .88 | 0.09 | |
| In Week 6 | 108.86 (16.52) | 111.67 | 107.88 (21.92) | 112.50 | 82.83–121.37 | ||||
| Effects within the groups (Baseline to Week 6) | -2.5 (12.2) | -3.5 (9.17) | |||||||
| Significance within the group (p) | .43 | .24 | |||||||
| HAD-A | Baseline | 6.59 (3.1) | 7.00 | 4.00–9.00 | 6.91 (4.8) | 6.50 | 2.75–10.25 | .42 | 0.17 |
| In Week 6 | 6.00 (3.00) | 6.00 | 4.00–8.25 | 6.73 (4.40) | 5.50 | 2.75–10.25 | |||
| Effects within the groups (Baseline to Week 6) | 0.50 (2.3) | 0.18 (2.3) | |||||||
| Significance within the group (p) | .56 | .82 | |||||||
| HAD-D | Baseline | 3.41 (2.3) | 3.00 | 1.00–5.00 | 4.50 (3.9) | 2.50 | 1.00–8.25 | .42 | 0.03 |
| In Week 6 | 3.05 (2.88) | 2.50 | 0.75–5.00 | 4.23 (3.6) | 3.50 | 1.00–7.00 | |||
| Effects within the groups (Baseline to Week 6) | 0.36 (2.9) | 0.27 (2.7) | |||||||
| Significance within the group (p) | .28 | .83 | |||||||
BPI-PS: Brief Pain Inventory-Pain Severity, BPI-PPE: Brief Pain Inventory-Patient Pain Experience, BPI-PI: Brief Pain Inventory-Pain Interference, FACT-G: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-General, FACT-B: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Breast, HAD-A: Hospital Anxiety Depression-Anxiety, HAD-D: Hospital Anxiety Depression-Depression, 1: standard deviation, a: Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test p<0.05, b: Mann-Whitney U Test p<0.05
*: Significance between the groups, ^: Effect size between the groups, data are reported as means of (%95 CI) and (SD)
The analysis showed that the differences between the study and control groups were significant in terms of BPI-PS (p<0.001) and BPI-PPE (p = 0.003) scores. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of BPI-PI, FACT-G, FACT-B, HAD-D and HAD-A scores (p>0.05) (Table 3).
Discussion
The present study has been designed to shed light on the effect of PRE as an alternative therapeutic method to reduce pain and investigate its positive impact on the QoL and AD status in patients with BC receiving AI. Pain was significantly reduced within the study group and between groups in pain sub-scores. AI-MSS is a serious problem, which could be seen by up to 50% of patients with BC receiving AI [36]. Laroche et al. suggested that pain was a mostly psychological problem rather than being affected by genetic and biological factors [37]. Presant et al. reported that therapeutic management and patient’s educational background were also significant factors for pain relief [36]. Our findings broadly support the work of other studies in this area linking to improve pain scores with PRE.
Pharmacological approaches have been identified as primary effective options to cope with AI-MSS in literature. At the same time, other complementary medicine strategies like acupuncture, nutritional supplementation, relaxing techniques and physical exercises are suggested as secondary options [19]. Some exercise methods were previously used to reduce pain and related emotional problems with limited success in AI users. Among these, aerobic exercise, resistance exercise or methods combining physical exercise with other methods seem to be efficacious techniques to cope with pain in the literature [17, 18, 38, 39]. The present study showed that, although the pain scores of the study group were higher than the control group before the intervention, it decreased even more after PRE. This shows us that they use the relaxation technique effectively to cope with pain. Improvements in the pain scores of the PRE group corroborate the literature findings.
Yoga and Tai-Chi are reported to be relaxation techniques, which are recommended to improve wellbeing and reduce pain in patients with BC receiving AI [30, 40]. PRE aims to relax most of the muscles in the form of a ‘contract and relax’ method, which is distinct from Tai-Chi and Yoga. PRE was performed as an exercise method rather than a technique to achieve muscle relaxation in the present study. Integrative therapies are recommended to reduce adverse effects of treatments, although more substantial evidence is needed to achieve a consensus for wider use [41, 42]. PRE should be considered as an integrative therapeutic method to reduce pain in patients with BC receiving AI.
The present study did not find a significant difference in QoL and anxiety-depression (AD) outcomes with the implementation of PRE. There is no consensus in the literature on the positive effect of exercises for QOL and AD in patients with BC. Some of the literature studies suggest exercise to improve QoL and AD in patients with BC receiving AI [43–45]. In particular, the aerobic and resistance training seem to be effective in improving QoL and AD in AI-receiving patients with BC [38, 39]. On the other hand, Cadmus et al. showed that exercise did not affect QoL in either recently diagnosed or post-treatment in patients with BC [46]. Therefore, QoL and ES seem to need more substantial evidence among treatments of patients with BC.
The randomized design and a high rate of technical compliance of the patients with the scheduled exercise program constitute the power of this study. Furthermore, the high rate of (81%) adherence of the patients to the program was satisfactory during the present study. In contrast, the peer support in the intervention group, which can affect intervention results positively or negatively, can be considered a limitation. The other limitation is that the baseline BPI scores were higher in the study group than in the control group. This is noteworthy because it is important that even a 1-point difference can affect significance. However, the effect size between groups is low in both ’BPI-PS’ and ’BPI-PI’ scores. Long-term follow-up procedures with an increased sample size could be meaningful for future studies to ensure patient compliance with complementary therapies. Although telephone reminders and exercise diary keeping can improve fidelity to home exercises in this study, the use of fully supervised relaxation exercises will give more meaningful results. Further studies are needed to reach a consensus to recommend PRE as one of the primary and long-term treatment options for reducing AI-related pain in patients with BC.
In conclusion, this study indicate that supervised and home-based PRE could be efficient in reducing the pain sub-scores (PS and PPE) of patients with BC receiving AI. PRE intervention is not enough to affect the QoL and AD scores.
Supporting information
S1 Checklist
CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.(DOC)
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the medical oncology department at Florence Nightingale Hospital for their support and the individuals who participated in the study.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
References
Decision Letter 0
19 Dec 2023
PONE-D-23-36160Progressive Relaxation Training in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy-Randomized Controlled TrialPLOS ONE
Dear Dr. BAHÇACI,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
==============================
==============================
Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 02 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Peter Vuylsteke, MD
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Journal requirements:
1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.
Additional Editor Comments:
This is an interesting article and hypothesis, and the results are food for thought. Congratulations for the work done.
Still the comments made by the reviewers are valid and need to be adressed and responded to in a satisfactory way, before going further in the process.
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: No
**********
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: No
**********
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
**********
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: No
**********
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: A two-arm randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted which aimed to assess the efficacy of Progressive Relaxation Exercises on the side effects of aromatase inhibitors in patients with breast cancer. The intervention group reported significantly less pain severity and pain interference than the controls. No differences in quality of life and emotional status were found.
Minor revisions:
1- P-values never equal zero; express small p-values as < 0.001.
2- Line 122: Provide full details of the sample size calculation. The power calculation should include: (1) the estimated outcomes in each group; (2) the α (type I) error level; (3) the statistical power (or the β (type II) error level); (4) the target sample size (5) statistical testing method and (6) for continuous outcomes, the standard deviation of the measurements.
3- Line 140: Indicate if block randomization was used. If so, specify the block size.
4- Line 212: For improved clarity, replace “analyzed” with “summarized.”
5- Table 3: When data is not normally distributed, it is customary to summarize the results using median, first and third quartiles.
Reviewer #2: This -to my knowledge-is the first study testing 'Progressive Relaxation Exercises' in patients receiving an oral aromatase inhibitor in early breast cancer. The study is positive for some endpoints (Pain); the authors do caution their conclusions saying that longer follow-up is needed and that PRE has no effect on other studied endpoint.
Small comments
- Please use the offical term 'AIMSS' troughout the manuscript as this is the name given to this well known problem (aromatase inhibitor musculoskeletal syndrome)
- Please describe the pathophysiology of AI-MSS (refering to fluid retention in the joints as studies by MR imaging and ultrasound); Morales et al. J Clin Oncol 2008
- The authors report on mean and SD; What clinicians do want to know is whether women (in one group) with more pain at baseline were more likely to respond to PRE/no-PRE than those with less pain at baseline.
- Some minor edits to be corrected in the text
Reviewer #3: The authors, Bahcaci et al. present data from their RCT on “Progressive Relaxation Training in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy-Randomized Controlled Trial,” which addresses an important area of morbidity for a large proportion of breast cancer patients treated with AIs, however the small sample size and the lack of analytical rigor limit clinical interpretation of this data.
The specific comments are list below. Applicable comments for the abstract are expanded upon below:
Introduction
Paragraph 1 is not needed, especially since mechanism of action is not well-described, it adds minimal value to the context. It is OK to open with Paragraph #2.
For Paragraph 2 in addition to indication listed, it is important to expand on the magnitude of the problem that AI-related adverse events lead to discontinuation of therapy.
Paragraph #3 - be specific which adverse effects are mitigated by exercise interventions and what type of exercise interventions. The current description seems very broad and again non-specific.
Paragraph 4 mixes data on muscle relaxation and exercise interventions. It is important to define the components on muscle relaxation exercises and the effect sizes seen in other populations to establish scientific plausibility that PRE would work in AI-induced arthralgias.
Methods
The details of the sample size calculation are inadequate – the authors should define what effect size they expected to see with a power of 80% and alpha of 0.05. A sample size of 20 per arm is a very small number for meaningful effect size.
Was the PRE implemented to the study participants as a group – in which case peer support will be a big confounder? I.e. did scores in pain and QALY improved due to the community/support aspect of the group and not necessarily the intervention in and of itself?
Should the analysis be intent to treat – patients excluded if they missed 10% of sessions? How did you establish fidelity of the at home sessions?
Not sure if statistical approach evaluating means is the appropriate approach, Eg. for table 3, authors assess mean in comparing scores on outcome instruments, but median and non-parametric analysis as they listed would have been most appropriate.
Results
Baseline characteristics should have also included stage of breast cancer as well as number of years on AI.
Table 3 – baseline scores for Table 3 for BPI-PS are higher for control group than for study group, and especially since the significance level is based on 1-point differences in report scores, I think this should be discussed as a limitation in interpreting effect size. Perhaps the model should have adjusted for baseline level of pain assessment. Results should also be interpreted in terms of what is a clinically significant difference between the groups – effect size between groups is not significant for any of the instruments. The instruments were described as assessing scores of 3-4 as mild, so is this study result clinically significant if the mean score @ 6 weeks for post groups fall within the mild range? In some cases, below the mild scale (<3).
Discussion:
The limitation section should be further expanded not a cursory statement that the sample size was small. Fidelity to home sessions should also be discussed. Authors should also discuss potential mediators of the effect noted. This should be an ITT analysis, is there a reason why the authors didn’t consider this?
Minor comments:
In the abstract, line 44 has an incomplete p value listed – 0.000.
**********
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #2: Yes: Neven Patrick
Reviewer #3: No
**********
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
Author response to Decision Letter 0
3 Jan 2024
We thank to editor and all reviewers for their valuable comments and contributions.
All requirements are outlined in the 'Response to Reviewers'.
Decision Letter 1
23 Feb 2024
PONE-D-23-36160R1Progressive Relaxation Training in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy-Randomized Controlled TrialPLOS ONE
Dear Dr. BAHÇACI,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 08 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Peter Vuylsteke, MD
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Journal Requirements:
Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.
Additional Editor Comments:
Dear author
Thank you for the revisions made.
Kindly attend to the minor revision suggestion of Reviewer 1, then we can go on and accept the article.
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.
Reviewer #1: (No Response)
**********
2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
6. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: Minor revisions:
Table 2: In addition to frequencies, add the corresponding percentages.
**********
7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.
Reviewer #1: No
**********
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
Author response to Decision Letter 1
24 Feb 2024
Reviewer #1: Minor revisions:
Table 2: In addition to frequencies, add the corresponding percentages.
Authors’ Response: The authors kindly thank the reviewer for their feedback. The percentages of frequencies are now included in Table 2.
Decision Letter 2
11 Mar 2024
Progressive Relaxation Training in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy-Randomized Controlled Trial
PONE-D-23-36160R2
Dear Dr. BAHÇACI,
We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.
Kind regards,
Peter Vuylsteke, MD
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Acceptance letter
8 Apr 2024
PONE-D-23-36160R2
PLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Bahçacı,
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.
At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:
* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited
* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,
* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset
If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.
Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.
If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@eracremotsuc.
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
Kind regards,
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Peter Vuylsteke
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS
Full text links
Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301020
Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301020&type=printable
Citations & impact
Impact metrics
Alternative metrics
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/162639683
Article citations
Influence of Financial Toxicity on the Quality of Life in Lung Cancer Patients Undergoing Immunotherapy: The Mediating Effect of Self-Perceived Burden.
Cancer Manag Res, 16:1077-1090, 27 Aug 2024
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 39220814 | PMCID: PMC11365491
Characterization of SUSD3 as a novel prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target for breast cancer.
Clin Transl Oncol, 06 Aug 2024
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 39107655
Data
Data behind the article
This data has been text mined from the article, or deposited into data resources.
Clinical Trials
- (1 citation) ClinicalTrials.gov - NCT04163692
Similar Articles
To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.
Effect of Acupuncture vs Sham Acupuncture or Waitlist Control on Joint Pain Related to Aromatase Inhibitors Among Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
JAMA, 320(2):167-176, 01 Jul 2018
Cited by: 133 articles | PMID: 29998338 | PMCID: PMC6583520
Effect of whole-body cryotherapy versus placebo cryotherapy on joint pain induced by aromatase inhibitors in women with early stage breast cancer: a randomised clinical trial.
BMJ Open, 13(12):e071756, 09 Dec 2023
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 38070928 | PMCID: PMC10729259
Electroacupuncture for fatigue, sleep, and psychological distress in breast cancer patients with aromatase inhibitor-related arthralgia: a randomized trial.
Cancer, 120(23):3744-3751, 30 Jul 2014
Cited by: 78 articles | PMID: 25077452 | PMCID: PMC4239308
Effect of acupuncture on aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia in patients with breast cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Breast, 33:132-138, 04 Apr 2017
Cited by: 26 articles | PMID: 28384564
Review
