Purpose-This randomized clinical trial tests the hypothesis that a psychological intervention can reduce emotional distress, improve health behaviors and dose-intensity, and enhance immune responses.Patients and Methods-We studied 227 women who were surgically treated for regional breast cancer. Before adjuvant therapy, women completed interviews and questionnaires assessing emotional distress, social adjustment, and health behaviors. A 60-mL blood sample was drawn for immune assays. Patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or assessment only group. The intervention was conducted in small patient groups, with one session per week for 4 months. The sessions included strategies to reduce stress, improve mood, alter health behaviors, and maintain adherence to cancer treatment and care. Reassessment occurred after completion of the intervention.Results-As predicted, patients receiving the intervention showed significant lowering of anxiety, improvements in perceived social support, improved dietary habits, and reduction in smoking (all P < .05). Analyses of adjuvant chemotherapy dose-intensity revealed significantly more variability (ie, more dispersion in the dose-intensity values) for the assessment arm (P < .05). Immune responses for the intervention patients paralleled their psychological and behavioral improvements. T-cell proliferation in response to phytohemagglutinin and concanavalin A remained stable or increased for the Intervention patients, whereas both responses declined for Assessment patients; this effect was replicated across three concentrations for each assay (all P < .01).Conclusion-These data show a convergence of significant psychological, health behavior, and biologic effects after a psychological intervention for cancer patients.

BACKGROUND. The question of whether stress poses a risk for cancer progression has been difficult to answer. A randomized clinical trial tested the hypothesis that cancer patients coping with their recent diagnosis but receiving a psychologic intervention would have improved survival compared with patients who were only assessed. METHODS. A total of 227 patients who were surgically treated for regional breast cancer participated. Before beginning adjuvant cancer therapies, patients were assessed with psychologic and behavioral measures and had a health evaluation, and a 60‐mL blood sample was drawn. Patients were randomized to Psychologic Intervention plus assessment or Assessment only study arms. The intervention was psychologist led; conducted in small groups; and included strategies to reduce stress, improve mood, alter health behaviors, and maintain adherence to cancer treatment and care. Earlier articles demonstrated that, compared with the Assessment arm, the Intervention arm improved across all of the latter secondary outcomes. Immunity was also enhanced. RESULTS. After a median of 11 years of follow‐up, disease recurrence was reported to occur in 62 of 212 (29%) women and death was reported for 54 of 227 (24%) women. Using Cox proportional hazards analysis, multivariate comparison of survival was conducted. As predicted, patients in the Intervention arm were found to have a reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence (hazards ratio [HR] of 0.55; P = .034) and death from breast cancer (HR of 0.44; P = .016) compared with patients in the Assessment only arm. Follow‐up analyses also demonstrated that Intervention patients had a reduced risk of death from all causes (HR of 0.51; P = .028). CONCLUSIONS. Psychologic interventions as delivered and studied here can improve survival. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

The data show that the physiologic effects of stress inhibit cellular immune responses that are relevant to cancer prognosis, including NK cell toxicity and T-cell responses. Additional, longitudinal studies are needed to determine the duration of these effects, their health consequences, and their biologic and/or behavioral mechanisms.

The authors investigated the relationship between stress at initial cancer diagnosis and treatment and subsequent quality of life (QoL). Women (n = 112) randomized to the assessment-only arm of a clinical trial were initially assessed after breast cancer diagnosis and surgery and then reassessed at 4 months (during adjuvant treatment) and 12 months (postadjuvant treatment). There were 3 types of stress measured: number of stressful life events (K. A. Matthews et al., 1997), cancer-related traumatic stress symptoms (M. J. Horowitz, N. Wilner, & W. Alvarez, 1979), and perceived global stress (S. Cohen, T. Kamarck, & R. Mermelstein, 1983). Using hierarchical multiple regressions, the authors found that stress predicted both psychological and physical QoL (J. E. Ware, K. K. Snow, & M. Kosinski, 2000) at the follow-ups (all ps < .03). These findings substantiate the relationship between initial stress and later QoL and underscore the need for timely psychological intervention. Keywords stress; quality of life; breast cancerThe impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and its treatment on quality of life (QoL) is well documented (e.g., Ganz et al., 1996;Holzner et al., 2001). Shapiro et al. (2001), in their review of the relationship between QoL and psychosocial variables in breast cancer patients, noted that "the biomedical model of disease, though crucial, does not take into account all of the complex factors involved in cancer … a broader, more integrative framework, which includes psychosocial factors, is needed" (p. 502). The biobehavioral model of cancer stress and disease course offers such a framework (see Andersen, Kiecolt-Glaser, & Glaser, 1994, for a complete discussion). In this conceptual model, cancer diagnosis and cancer treatments are defined as objective, negative events. Although negative events do not always produce stress, data from many studies document severe acute stress at cancer diagnosis and treatment (e.g., Andersen, Anderson, & deProsse, 1989;Epping-Jordan et al., 1999;Maunsell, Brisson, & Deschenes, 1992). Even when stress declines from the peak at diagnosis (Edgar, Rosberger, & Nowlis, 1992), many QoL difficulties remain and new ones may arise during treatment and/or recovery (e.g., psychological distress; relationship, social, and occupational disruption; loss of physical stamina and fatigue; financial problems; Bleiker, Pouwer, van der Ploeg, Leer, & Ader, 2000;Ganz et al., 1996;Holzner et al., 2001). The biobehavioral model postulates that higher initial stress levels (i.e., stress at the time of cancer diagnosis and treatment) can, over time, contribute to lower QoL for cancer patients.To examine the hypothesized longitudinal relationship between stress and QoL, we used stress at initial diagnosis and surgical treatment as a predictor of QoL outcomes as patients received additional difficult treatments (i.e., chemotherapy, radiation) and as they recovered (i.e., when treatments ended and medical follow-up began). As the biobehavioral model does not specify or define stress per se, ...

A convergence of biobehavioral effects and health improvements were observed. Behavioral change, rather than immunity change, was influential in achieving lower levels of symptomatology and higher functional status. Distress reduction is highlighted as an important mechanism by which health can be improved.