Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. doi: 10.2478/raon-2024-0016 243 research article Impact of early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in 600 patients with breast cancer – a prospective study Masa Auprih1, Tina Zagar2, Nina Kovacevic3,4, Andreja Cirila Skufca Smrdel5, Nikola Besic1,4, Vesna Homar4 1 Department of Surgical Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Slovenian Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 3 Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 4 Faculty of Medicine Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 5 Department of Psycho-Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Correspondence to: Prof. Nikola Besic, M.D., Ph,D., Department of Surgical Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Zaloška 2, Si-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: nbesic@onko-i.si Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Received 5 June 2023 Accepted 9 December 2023 Disclosure: No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Background. Fatigue after breast cancer treatment is a common burden that is challenging to treat. The aim of this study was to explore if such integrated rehabilitation program reduces the prevalence of chronic fatigue compared to simple, non-integrated rehabilitation. Patients and methods. The subjects of our prospective study were 600 female breast cancer patients (29–65 [mean 52 years] of age), who participated in the pilot study on the individualized integrated rehabilitation of breast cancer patients in 2019-2021 and were monitored for one year. The control group included 301 patients and the intervention group numbered 299 patients. The patients completed three questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, -BR23 and NCCN): before cancer treatment, and then six and twelve months after the beginning of cancer treatment. The control group obtained the standard rehabilitation program, while the intervention group was part of the early, individualized multidisciplinary and integrated approach of rehabilitation. The rehabilitation coordinator referred patients for addi- tional interventions (e.g., psychologist, gynecologist, pain management team, physiotherapy, clinical nutrition team, kinesiologist-guided online training, vocational rehabilitation, general practitioner). Data on the patients’ demograph- ics, disease extent, cancer treatment and complaints reported in questionnaires were collected and analyzed. Results. There were no differences between the control and the intervention group of patients in terms of age, education, disease extent, surgical procedures, systemic cancer treatment, or radiotherapy, and also no differences in the fatigue before the beginning of treatment. However, patients from the control group had a greater level of constant fatigue than patients from the intervention group half a year (p = 0.018) and a year (p = 0.001) after the beginning of treatment. Furthermore, a greater proportion of patients from the control group experienced significant interference with their usual activities from fatigue than from the intervention group, half a year (p = 0.042) and a year (p = 0.001) after the beginning of treatment. A multivariate logistic regression showed that one year after the beginning of treatment, the only independent factor correlated to fatigue was inclusion into the intervention group (p = 0.044). Inclusion in the intervention group was beneficial—patients from the control group were 1.5 times more likely to be fatigued. Conclusions. Early individualized integrated rehabilitation is associated with a lower prevalence of chronic fatigue or fatigue interfering with usual activities in breast cancer patients in comparison to the control group of patients. Key words: early integrated rehabilitation; fatigue; breast cancer; EORTC questionnaire Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients244 Introduction Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women worldwide.1 New diagnostic options and treatments result in a survival rate as high as 85– 90% after five years in developed countries which sets a new challenge for health care systems – how to successfully improve the quality of life of breast cancer patients during and after the treatment.2-5 The most important tool in achieving a good qual- ity of life is early, optimized, individualized and integrated rehabilitation adapted to the needs of each patient.2 Fatigue is one of a number of burdens for breast cancer patients, which is caused by the cancer it- self or its treatment. Fatigue is characterized by persistent physical, emotional, and cognitive tired- ness related to cancer and/or cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent physical activity, in- terferes with usual functioning and is not relieved by rest or sleep.6,7 It can also be a barrier to cancer survivors’ return to work.8 A meta-analysis, which included 12,327 breast cancer survivors, reported that approximately one in four breast cancer sur- vivors suffer from severe fatigue.9 Fatigue usually improves after the treatment, but it can also have long-term effects and can progress to chronic fa- tigue.9 Rehabilitation can help persons with chronic disease or impairment to achieve and maintain the highest possible physical, social, psychological, and occupational functioning.10 Rehabilitation is a dynamic process that starts with the diagnosis and continues to the end of life. Implementation of guidelines for fatigue evaluation and management is best accomplished by an interdisciplinary team who are able to tailor interventions to the needs of the individual patient.11 Patients are therefore referred to an appropriate health care provider − survivorship, palliative care, integrative oncology, psychology, psychiatry, physical therapy, voca- tional therapy, and/or physical medicine. The re- sults are best if rehabilitation starts early, ideally before the beginning of the treatment.11 Breast cancer patients in this study were offered an improved rehabilitation program, that started soon after diagnosis and was tailored to individual needs. The aim of this study was to explore if such integrated rehabilitation program reduces the prevalence of chronic fatigue compared to simple, non-integrated rehabilitation. FIGURE 1. A flowchart of patients’ inclusion in our study. Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients 245 Patients and methods Patients A prospective pilot study included patients that were diagnosed and treated at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana (IOL), Slovenia, from 2019 to 2022. Consecutively, 600 patients with all stages of invasive breast cancer and aged less than 65 years at the time of diagnosis were included. The exclu- sion criterion was if the patient refused to partici- pate in the study or was unable to fill in the ques- tionnaires. A flowchart of patients’ inclusion in our study is presented in Figure 1. The study was reviewed and approved by the Protocol Review Board (ERID-KSOPKR-0086/2019) and the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana (ERIDEK-0102/2019). The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the appropriate version of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and conducted with the understanding and consent of all the subjects involved. All 600 planned patients were included in the study by December 2021. The control group con- sisted of 301 patients that were included in the study from December 2019 to the end of March 2021 and had already received existing routine non-integrated rehabilitation, i.e., without a sys- tematic patient needs evaluation and preemptive measures. Implementation of non-integrated reha- bilitation began only if the individual patient spe- cifically highlighted her problem in the outpatient clinic and/or when the attending physician noticed the need of the individual patient and directed her to appropriate treatment. The inclusion of 299 patients in the interven- tion group started in September 2020 and ended in December 2021. In the intervention group, we in- cluded only those patients who live near the OIL, as we wanted them to be able to come twice a week to exercise in Ljubljana. The patients in the inter- vention group received integrated and individual- ized rehabilitation accordingly to the IOL’s clinical guidelines and pathway of integrated rehabilita- tion developed specially for this study. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was prolonged with respect to the initial timeframe to reach the targeted number of participants. Study protocol During scheduled check-ups with the oncolo- gist, each patient answered three standardized questionnaires (the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] QLQ-C30, -BR23 and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) before the treatment, half a year, and one year after the beginning of the treatment. The EORTC quality of life ques- tionnaires (QLQ) and NCCN questionnaire are an integrated system for assessing the health-related quality of life of cancer patients.11-13 The EORTC QLQ-C30 consists of a global health quality of life scale, five functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social function), and symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipa- tion, diarrhea, and financial difficulties).12 The EORTC QLQ-BR23 consists of symptom scales of systemic therapy side effects (upset by hair loss, arm symptoms, breast symptoms) and functional scales (body image, future perspective, sexual functioning, and sexual enjoyment).13 The NCCN questionnaire included questions about cardiac health, anxiety, depression, distress, cognitive function, fatigue, lymphedema, pain, hormone-re- lated symptoms, sexual function, sleep disorder, healthy lifestyle (regular physical activity or ex- ercise, diet, weight, use of vitamins or other sup- plements, smoking and consumption of alcohol), employment, and return to work.11 After completing all three standardized ques- tionnaires, each patient also had an interview with a specialized registered nurse—a rehabilitation co- ordinator. The coordinator recorded the patient’s most important needs and specific circumstances. The documentation of each patient from the inter- vention group was discussed at the multidiscipli- nary meeting for integrated rehabilitation before, half a year, and one year after the beginning of treatment. The multidisciplinary team consisted of an integrative rehabilitation coordinator, surgi- cal oncologist, radiation oncologist, medical on- cologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, general prac- titioner, physiotherapist, psychiatrist, specialist in medical rehabilitation and physical medicine, spe- cialist in vocational medicine, and gynecologist.14 The aim was to identify the patient’s problems early, predict the late treatment consequences, im- plement measures to prevent or diminish the pa- tient’s problems and start rehabilitation as soon as needed. The mainstay of the patient’s integrative rehabilitation was educating and empowering the patient to self-care and to be able to manage her symptoms and prevent undesired side effects of treatment, as already described in our recent pub- lication.14 Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients246 Management of a patient with fatigue All patients were screened for fatigue with ques- tionnaires as recommended in the NCCN clinical practice guidelines for survivorship, IOL’s guide- lines and clinical pathway of integrated rehabili- tation.11,15,16 The fatigue was graded in four grades (1 - without, 2 - mild, 3 - moderate, or 4 - severe) according to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.12 According to the NCCN questionnaire11,15,16 the level of fatigue was assessed with a quantitative or semi-quantitative assessment on a 0 to 10 nu- meric rating scale (zero = no fatigue and 10 = worst fatigue imaginable). Mild fatigue had a score of 1 to 3, moderate fatigue 4 to 6, and severe fatigue 7 to 10. According to the IOL guidelines and clinical pathway, the individualized integrated rehabili- tation was carried out on three levels.15,16 The first level was the treatment of all diseases and condi- tions that contribute to fatigue or may cause an in- creased baseline level of fatigue. The patients with moderate to severe fatigue (numeric scale from 4 to 10) were evaluated by the oncologist and/or gen- eral practitioner with regard to current disease status, history and physical examination, review of current medications, review of organ systems, and evaluation of other concurrent symptoms and contributing factors. The most important diseases that affect baseline fatigue such as heart failure or chronic kidney disease, thyroid malfunction, and/ or anemia were ruled out clinically and by labora- tory tests. Secondly, all our patients from the control and intervention group were educated about a healthy lifestyle and were offered various techniques and training to help them cope with fatigue. All pa- tients received written information about these topics and had information available on the web- site of the IOL dedicated to integrative rehabilita- tion. Prevention of fatigue is especially important before starting chemotherapy. Education and counseling are believed to be central to the effec- tive management of fatigue11 and the rehabilitation coordinator devoted a lot of time to patient edu- cation during each patient’s visit. Cancer patients were encouraged to engage in regular moderate physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week and were educated about appropriate exercise to reduce fatigue. Patients were advised to be physi- cally active each day by walking, cycling, doing resistance exercise, or a combination of aerobic and resistance exercise. All our patients from the intervention group who were treated with chemo- therapy or reported fatigue had been asked to join a physical activity guided by a kinesiologist twice a week conducted online by a videoconference. On average more than 30 patients attended each vide- oconference. Advice on maintaining a healthy diet was given during a visit to the Clinical Nutrition and Dietotherapy outpatient clinic at our Institute as well as during online workshops guided by ex- perienced clinical nutritionists. Since November 2021, the patients with fatigue from the interven- tion group were recommended to join the vide- oconferences with a yoga teacher once a week. Thirdly, patients from the intervention group with moderate or severe fatigue were referred for consultations and treatment of fatigue to the oncol- ogist, general practitioner, clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, pain relief clinic acupuncture, and/or yoga. All the interventions were covered by health insurance. Psychosocial interventions were recom- mended to all our patients with moderate to severe fatigue. These were available sooner for the first half of the intervention group than for the con- trol group of patients as the COVID-19 pandemic prevented group therapies from taking place and enabled individual therapies from March 2020 on- wards. However, because of a shortage of clinical psychologists in our country it was more difficult to obtain psychosocial intervention for the second part of the intervention group of patients. IOL’s psycho-oncology department provided psycho- logical counseling, crisis interventions, and cogni- tive behavioral psychotherapy. Evaluation at the psycho-oncology department was done during the first year after the beginning of oncological therapy in the intervention and control group of patients in 127 and 42 patients, respectively. Altogether 36 pa- tients from the intervention group attended from one to eight (median 5.6) online group meetings with a clinical psychologist. Depending on the patient’s needs, the patient was referred also to other healthcare providers within the framework of the Slovenian health system. Anesthesiologists from the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana offered acupuncture as well as pharmacological therapy. General practitioners had the possibility to refer the patient to a num- ber of workshops held at the Center for Health Promotion, which operates within the community health centers. Statistical analysis Data on the patients’ demographics, disease extent, cancer treatment, fatigue, and other complaints re- Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients 247 FIGURE 2. Data and statistical analysis from EORTC C30 questionnaires about the global health quality of life scale, physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social function scale, symptom scales about fatigue, pain and insomnia in the intervention and control group of patients before treatment, half a year, and a year after the beginning of treatment. Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients248 ported in questionnaires were collected and man- aged in REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) Version 12.4.22. Additional data processing was performed in Excel (Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2016). The average score of all answers to ques- tions from EORTC questionnaires about different function scales and symptoms was standardized with a linear transformation on a scale from 0 to 100. Differences between scores between the inter- vention and control groups at the same time point were assessed with the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Differences measured at two time points (in the same persons) used the Wilcoxon signed-rank paired difference test. Distribution between cat- TABLE 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, pathological characteristics of tumors and treatment. P-value refers to difference between control and intervention group; it is calculated by t-test in case of comparing means and by chi-squared test in case of counts Factor Subgroup All patients(N = 600) Control group (N = 301) Intervention group (N = 299) P-value Mean age of patients (years) 50.78 50.59 50.97 0.601 Living areas Urban Suburban Rural 287 105 208 125 53 123 162 52 85 0.003 Education (N = 599) Primary school Secondary school Higher 66 242 291 39 117 144 27 125 147 0.290 Socioeconomic status Low Middle Higher 71 432 95 36 217 46 35 215 49 0.940 With whom they live (N = 597) Alone With partner only Partner and children With children only Other 58 145 289 42 63 24 71 147 22 35 34 74 142 20 28 0.600 Employment (N = 581) Unemployed Employed Retired 54 433 94 35 209 45 19 224 49 0.067 Mean primary tumor size (mm) 26.3 25.5 27.2 0.285 Tumor stage In situ I II III IV 10 260 214 81 35 5 133 97 50 16 5 127 117 31 19 0.152 Concomitant diseases No Yes 301 299 154 147 147 152 0.624 Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or anti-HER-2 therapy No Yes 465 135 227 74 237 61 0.241 Breast surgery Mastectomy Tumorectomy No surgery 252 326 22 135 156 10 117 170 12 0.357 Lymph node surgery Lymphadenectomy Sentinel node biopsy No surgery 151 417 32 83 204 14 86 213 18 0.337 Breast reconstruction No Tissue expander Free-flap 431 127 42 214 69 18 217 58 24 0.402 Breast external beam radiotherapy No Yes 149 451 83 218 66 233 0.131 Chemotherapy No Yes 280 320 137 164 143 156 0.623 Anti-HER2 therapy No Yes 522 78 264 37 258 41 0.629 Hormone therapy No Yes 132 468 69 232 63 236 0.623 Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients 249 egories was analyzed using the chi-square test. ANOVA was used to test for differences in the means of three or more groups. Differences be- tween the answers from the intervention and control groups to questions from NCCN question- naires at the same time point were assessed with the ANOVA test. All statistical analyses were done in Version 27 of the SPSS Statistical Software and Software R version 4.2.2. P-values under 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results Data about patients, disease characteristics, and treatment are presented in Table 1. There were no differences between the control and the interven- tion group of patients in terms of age, education, disease extent, surgical procedures, systemic can- cer treatment, or radiotherapy. As expected, both groups of patients differed in living areas. The majority of patients from the intervention group TABLE 2. Mean values of psychological factors and pain reported by patients before, half a year and one year after the beginning of treatment Factor Time of assessment Group Mean value Standard deviation p-value Depression level Before therapy Control Intervention 4.2 3.6 2.8 2.5 0.013 After half year Control Intervention 3.0 2.2 2.4 1.7 < 0.001 After one year Control Intervention 3.2 2.3 2.4 1.9 < 0.001 Anxiety level Before treatment Control Intervention 4.2 3.8 2.7 2.6 0.041 After half year Control Intervention 3.2 2.4 2.5 1.8 < 0.001 After one year Control Intervention 3.5 2.6 2.6 2.0 < 0.001 Level of difficulty concentrating Before treatment Control Intervention 3.2 3.1 2.5 2.3 0.96 After half year Control Intervention 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.1 0.02 After one year Control Intervention 3.6 2.7 2.4 2.1 < 0.001 Constant fatigue Before treatment Control Intervention 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.2 0.59 After half year Control Intervention 3.8 3.3 2.6 2.4 0.018 After one year Control Intervention 4.0 3.3 2.7 2.3 0.001 Disturbing fatigue Before treatment Control Intervention 2.8 2.9 2.3 2.2 0.50 After half year Control Intervention 3.9 3.3 2.5 2.3 0.003 After one year Control Intervention 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.2 < 0.001 Insomnia Before treatment Control Intervention 4.2 3.9 3.0 2.8 0.22 After half year Control Intervention 4.8 4.0 3.0 2.7 0.002 After one year Control Intervention 4.8 3.9 3.0 2.9 < 0.001 Pain Before treatment Control Intervention 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.0 0.005 After half year Control Intervention 3.4 2.9 2.4 2.1 0.006 After one year Control Intervention 3.7 2.7 2.5 1.8 < 0.001 Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients250 FIGURE 3. Data and statistical analysis from EORTC BR23 questionnaires. Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients 251 lived in urban areas, while patients from the con- trol group were more distributed between rural and suburban areas. Namely, it was planned that the patients from the intervention group would exercise under the supervision of a kinesiologist in the gym close to our Institute, so only the pa- tients from central Slovenia were included in the intervention group. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we could not do physical exercise in the gym, so it was done online instead. EORTC questionnaires Data and statistical analysis from EORTC C30 questionnaires about the global health quality of life scale, physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social function scale, symptom scales about fa- tigue, pain, and insomnia in the intervention and control group of patients before treatment, half a year, and a year after the beginning of treatment are presented in Figure 2. Before the treatment, the patients from the intervention group reported significantly fewer problems in emotional and cognitive function scale and pain in comparison to the control group. Half a year after the beginning of treatment, the patients from the intervention group reported significantly fewer problems on the physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social function scale, and pain in comparison to the con- trol group. A year after the beginning of treatment, the patients from the intervention group reported significantly fewer problems on the global health quality of life scale, physical, emotional, cognitive, and social function scale, fatigue, and pain in com- parison to the control group. Data and statistical analysis from EORTC BR23 questionnaires are presented in Figure 3. Before the treatment, the patients from the intervention group reported significantly fewer problems with systemic therapy side effects but were more concerned about body image and future perspectives in comparison to the control group. Half a year after the begin- ning of treatment, the patients from the interven- tion group reported significantly fewer problems with systemic therapy side effects, arm symptoms, and breast symptoms, but were still more concerned about body image and future perspectives in com- parison to the control group. A year after the begin- ning of treatment, the patients from the intervention group reported significantly fewer problems with systemic therapy side effects but were still more concerned about body image and future perspec- tives in comparison to the control group. NCCN questionnaires Table 2 shows mean values of psychological factors and pain reported by patients and assessed on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (zero = no pain and 10 = worst imaginable) before, half a year, and one year after the beginning of treatment. Before the treat- ment, the patients from the intervention group reported a significantly lower level of depression, anxiety, and pain in comparison to the control group. Half a year and one year after the begin- ning of treatment, the patients from the interven- tion group reported a significantly lower level of depression, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, dis- turbing fatigue, insomnia, and pain in comparison to the control group. Regarding the proportion of patients with phys- ical activity of at least 150 minutes per week, there was no difference between the groups before treat- ment (p = 0.73), but after one year the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.034). Before the cancer treatment, smoking was present in the in- tervention and control group in 22% and 27% (p = 0.27), respectively. However, one year after the beginning of cancer treatment, smoking was less common in the intervention group in comparison to the control group of patients (p = 0.001). Fatigue Regarding question 18 from the EORTC C30 ques- tionnaire, 50% of the patients answered that they were not tired when asked before the beginning of the treatment. After half a year and one year after the beginning of treatment the answer was no in only 32% and 34%, respectively. FIGURE 4. The sum of responses to EORTC questions 10, 12 and 18 in the intervention and control groups before, half a year, and a year after treatment. Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients252 The symptom of fatigue was assessed with the sum of EORTC questions number 10, 12, and 18 on the Likert scale (1–without, 2–mild, 3–moderate, 4–severe). The sum of all three answers to EORTC questions before, after half a year, and after a year after treatment can be a minimum of 3 and a maxi- mum of 12. Figure 4 shows the sum of responses to EORTC questions 10, 12, and 18 in the intervention and control groups before, half a year, and a year after treatment. We considered that the patient has moderate or severe fatigue when the sum of all three responses was equal to seven or more or at least one of the patient’s responses was “4–severe”. Fatigue was present in all our patients before treat- ment, half a year, and a year after treatment in 12.7%, 47.7%, and 24.2%, respectively. The univariate association of each individual variable on fatigue by individual logistic regres- sions and multivariate models’ logistic regression about the association of all included variables si- multaneously and fatigue are presented in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. A multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that half a year after the beginning of treatment, fatigue was only associated with treat- ment with chemotherapy. Patients who received chemotherapy were 1.6 times more likely to be fatigued in comparison to those without chem- TABLE 3. The influence of each individual variable on fatigue (univariate models) by individual logistic regressions before treatment, half a year and one year after the beginning of treatment. OR – odds ratio; CI – confidence interval Before treatment OR 95% CI p-value Control group 1.3 0.8–2.2 0.245 Half a year after the beginning of treatment OR 95% CI p-value Control group 1.3 0.9–1.9 0.114 Age group 45–54 years 1.0 0.7–1.6 0.855 Age group 55–64 years 0.9 0.6–1.5 0.803 Chemotherapy – yes 1.3 0.9–1.9 0.135 Hormonal therapy – yes 0.9 0.6–1.4 0.689 Radiotherapy – yes 0.8 0.5–1.3 0.364 Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or anti-HER2 therapy 1.3 0.9–1.9 0.227 Surgery – not done 1.7 0.6–4.4 0.308 Surgery – Tumorectomy – yes 1.3 0.9–1.8 0.208 Axillary lymphadenectomy – yes 0.7 0.5–1.1 0.162 Breast reconstruction – yes 0.8 0.5–1.2 0.256 Presence of distant metastases 1.4 0.7–2.8 0.403 A year after the beginning of treatment OR 95% CI p-value Control group 1.5 1.0–2.2 0.046 Age group 45–54 years 1.2 0.8–2.0 0.387 Age group 55–64 years 0.6 0.4–1.0 0.064 Chemotherapy – yes 1.4 0.8–1.7 0.493 Hormonal therapy – yes 1.3 0.8–2.2 0.246 Radiotherapy – yes 0.7 0.5–1.2 0.191 Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or anti-HER2 therapy 1.2 0.8–1.9 0.347 Surgery – not done 1.7 0.5–5.2 0.371 Surgery – Tumorectomy – yes 1.1 0.7–1.6 0.961 Axillary lymphadenectomy – yes 0.7 0.5–1.1 0.161 Breast reconstruction – yes 0.9 0.6–1.3 0.454 Presence of distant metastases 1.8 0.8–4.0 0.130 Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients 253 otherapy. But, one year after the beginning of treatment, treatment with chemotherapy was no longer associated with fatigue. The only inde- pendent factor correlated to fatigue was inclusion into the intervention group. Inclusion into the intervention group was beneficial; patients from the control group were 1.5 times more likely to be fatigued. Answers to the NCCN questionnaires show that there were no differences between the groups regarding constant fatigue before treatment (p = 0.59). However, patients from the control group had a greater level of fatigue than patients from the intervention group half a year (p = 0.018) and a year (p = 0.001) after the beginning of treatment. Furthermore, there were no differences in mean value between both groups regarding fatigue interfering with usual activities before therapy (0.50). Patients from the control group had more fatigue interfering with usual activities than from the intervention group half a year (p = 0.003) and a year (p < 0.001) after the beginning of treatment. Discussion Most published reports on oncological rehabilita- tion include patients who started rehabilitation after oncological treatment and a minority of re- ports focus on rehabilitation during oncological treatment. The purpose of our study was to im- prove the rehabilitation of our patients with breast cancer and to start implementing integrated re- habilitation. Breast cancer patients in this study were offered an improved rehabilitation program that started early after diagnosis and was tailored to individual needs. The aim of this study was to explore if such integrated rehabilitation program reduces the prevalence of chronic fatigue com- pared to simple, non-integrated rehabilitation. We expected that earlier rehabilitation would reduce the patients’ difficulties and side effects of treat- ment, so our patients from the intervention group started with integrative oncological rehabilitation already at the beginning and it was carried on also during oncological treatment. Our results show that patients who received integrated rehabilita- tion reported significantly less fatigue and better quality of life compared to controls. Before treatment, our two groups of patients did not differ in terms of fatigue, as the two groups did not differ in terms of risk factors for fatigue (age, education level, stage of disease, and extent of treat- ment). This is understandable, since we allocated the vast majority of patients to the two groups al- most randomly according to the time of treatment; in one group there were patients who started treat- ment before the other group of patients. The es- sential reason for lower fatigue in the intervention group is that these patients received a number of measures that have been proven to reduce fatigue. The mainstay of our integrative rehabilitation was patient education about what they themselves can do to manage their symptoms, and to mitigate or even prevent the adverse effects of treatment. In contrast to the control group, the patients from the TABLE 4. The influence of all included variables simultaneously on fatigue half a year and a year after the beginning of treatment Half a year after treatment One year after treatment OR 95% CI p-value OR 95% CI p-value Control group 1.4 0.9–2.0 0.100 1.5 1.0–2.2 0.044 Age group 45–54 years 1.1 0.7–1.7 0.822 1.1 0.7–1.9 0.617 Age group 55–64 years 1.0 0.6–1.6 0.931 0.6 0.3–1.0 0.052 Chemotherapy – yes 1.6 1.1–2.5 0.025 1.3 0.9–2.1 0.206 Hormonal therapy – yes 1.1 0.7–1.8 0.616 1.6 0.9–2.6 0.088 Radiotherapy – yes 0.7 0.4–1.2 0.196 0.7 0.4–1.3 0.277 Surgery – not done 1.2 0.3–4.4 0.745 0.9 0.2–3.9 0.879 Surgery – Tumorectomy – yes 1.6 0.9–2.6 0.080 1.4 0.8–2.4 0.256 Axillary lymphadenectomy – yes 0.7 0.4–1.2 0.232 0.7 0.4–1.2 0.148 Presence of distant metastases 1.4 0.5–3.7 0.491 2.1 0.8–5.9 0.145 OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients254 intervention group had 3 interviews with the inte- grated rehabilitation coordinator, who during each interview educated patients about the prevention and treatment of fatigue. All patients were referred to a general practitioner for counseling on leading a healthy lifestyle. Additionally, patients from the intervention group were advised to be physically active and were provided with physical exercise guided by a kinesiologist twice per week, which was carried out online. They also had the possi- bility to practice yoga. Furthermore, some patients with fatigue had psychotherapy interventions and acupuncture. Fatigue in breast cancer patients is a common symptom and varies between different phases of breast cancer treatment.9,17,18 Reinertsen et al.17 in- vestigated levels of fatigue in women before, dur- ing chemotherapy and at a two-year follow-up. Chronic fatigue was reported before treatment, during chemotherapy and two years after the therapy in 8%, 12%, and 36% of patients, respec- tively. In our patients, fatigue was present before treatment, half a year, and a year after treatment in 13%, 48%, and 24%, respectively. The degree of difference between our and Norwegian patients regarding fatigue is probably related to the differ- ent tests that were used in our and the Norwegian study. Namely, we used EORTC questionnaires, while they also used a specific fatigue question- naire. A meta-analysis showed that after comple- tion of cancer treatment severe fatigue was present in 22% to 42% of 12,327 breast cancer survivors and that risk factors for chronic fatigue were de- mographic, the stage of disease, and the extent of oncological therapy.9 The relatively low proportion of fatigue reported by our patients one year after the start of treatment (24%), compared to the data from the above-mentioned meta-analysis, could be attributed to the successful measures received by the intervention group of patients, which also reduced the proportion of fatigue in both groups together. Many studies reviewed by Ruiz-Casado et al.19 reported that younger and less educated women had greater fatigue. However, a higher level of education was significantly associated with mod- erate to severe fatigue in patients treated with aro- matase inhibitors.20 Patients with a partner were less susceptible to severe fatigue than those with- out a partner.9 On the other hand, many patients have problems with fatigue even before starting treatment, and this problem may persist or even worsen during treatment.18 Preexisting comorbid conditions or medications used to treat them may contribute to increased fatigue early during cancer treatment.18,19 Such conditions include heart dis- ease, hypertension, diabetes, anemia, obesity, ar- thritis, or psychiatric conditions.18,19 Patients who experience psychosocial distress at baseline and patients who have a history of depression are prone to suffer from chronic fatigue.18 Our patients from the intervention and control groups did not differ in terms of age, educational structure, or accom- panying diseases, so the rate of fatigue between both groups of patients was not different before the beginning of treatment. However, these factors might have contributed to the difference in fatigue rate half a year and one year after the beginning of treatment. At the time of diagnosis, it is impos- sible to influence any of the studied independent risk factors for chronic fatigue. However, our re- sults clearly show that integrated rehabilitation, although not able to influence individual risk fac- tors, reduces the likelihood of developing chronic or severe fatigue compared to standard care. Risk of fatigue is significantly higher in pa- tients treated with chemotherapy.9,18 Our univari- ate analysis showed that the patients treated with chemotherapy had increased risk for fatigue half a year and one year after the beginning of treatment. Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression showed that after half a year, fatigue was the only factor associated with treatment with chemothera- py. Patients who received chemotherapy were 1.6 times more likely to be fatigued than those without chemotherapy. This is much more common than the 1.12 times more reported in the meta-analysis by Abrahams et al.9 However, one year after the be- ginning of therapy, treatment with chemotherapy was not an independent factor associated with fa- tigue and inclusion in the intervention or control group of patients was the only independent factor associated with fatigue. We assume that integrated oncological rehabilitation decreased fatigue in pa- tients from the intervention group, while patients from the control group still experienced fatigue. Conditions that are a consequence of cancer treatment such as insomnia or pain can also con- tribute to fatigue.18 Integrated rehabilitation effec- tively decreased insomnia and pain in our inter- vention group of patients. Before treatment, there were no differences in the frequency of insomnia between both groups of patients. However, after half a year and a year, insomnia was more com- mon in the control group of patients than in the intervention group. Furthermore, severe pain in patients from the control group one year after the beginning of treatment was significantly more Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients 255 common than before the treatment. On the other hand, the proportion of patients with severe pain in the intervention group did not significantly change over time. Several interventions could have positive effects on a specific symptom or a patient’s problems, and timing of the intervention is important.2 Proven in- terventions for prevention or treatment of fatigue are aerobic exercises, resistance training, yoga, psychological interventions (cognitive-behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, mindfulness), healthy lifestyle interventions, acupuncture, and phar- macotherapy.18 Our intervention group of patients were advised and received many of these interven- tions, while the control group of patients did not receive these interventions to the same degree. Aerobic exercise and resistance training is asso- ciated with an important reduction of fatigue in the majority of systematic reviews.2 Longer duration, length, and frequency of physical activity has a stronger effect on reducing fatigue.2 Furthermore, physical activity reduces fatigue if performed dur- ing or after chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy treatments.21 Based on these findings, our patients from the intervention group who had chemother- apy or fatigue had been recommended to join a physical activity guided by a kinesiologist twice a week. One year after the beginning of treatment, a significantly larger proportion of patients from the intervention group became more physically active compared to those from the control group. Juvet et al.21 in a meta-analysis of patients treated with chemotherapy found that fatigue was significantly lower in patients who received physical activity in- tervention in comparison to controls. In the group with physical activity intervention in comparison to controls during and after oncological treatment they reported a lower standard mean difference of fatigue of 0.19 and 0.52, respectively. Similarly, half a year and a year after the beginning of treatment, the rate of fatigue in our integrated rehabilitation group in comparison to the control group was 1.3 and 1.5 lower, respectively. Furthermore, early in- tegrated rehabilitation helped smoking cessation in a significantly larger proportion of patients from the intervention group compared with the control group14, adding to the healthier lifestyle of the patients. Psychological interventions are the second most effective way to reduce fatigue after physical ac- tivity.22 Moreover, the combination of physical activity and psychological interventions is even more effective than physical activity or psycho- logical interventions per se.22 During oncological treatment, fatigue may be effectively reduced with relaxation exercise, massage, cognitive-behavio- ral therapy, yoga, and different combinations of these.23 Lack of clinical psychologists and psycho- therapists in Slovenia makes it difficult to access psychotherapy. Although we had planned that all patients from the intervention group who needed it could receive psychological treatment or psy- chotherapy, we did not manage to reach this goal. During and after the COVID-19 pandemic access to psychological treatment or psychotherapy treat- ment became even more difficult than before the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a sharp increase in demand for psychological treatment or psychotherapy in the general population. Despite these limitations in access to psychological treat- ment or psychotherapy, the intervention group had significantly fewer problems compared to the control group in the global health quality of life, physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social function scale, fatigue, and pain one year after the beginning of treatment. Another important factor which reduces fatigue is psychoeducation24,25 helping participants cope with problems related to breast cancer, teaching stress management strategies, and teaching adap- tive strategies improve patients’ quality of life.26 A Cochrane review by Bennett et al.27 provided preliminary findings for the beneficial effect of educational interventions for reducing general cancer-related fatigue, fatigue intensity, fatigue distress, and fatigue interference compared with usual care. Yoga is associated with a significant improvement in quality of life and reduction of fa- tigue2,18; furthermore, acupuncture is effective for the management of fatigue particularly during an- ti-cancer treatment.28 Based on these facts, we tried to include these interventions as much as possible in the rehabilitation of our patients and to provide psychoeducation for our patients. Group and indi- vidual behavioral psychotherapy and an individu- al interview with a psychologist and acupuncture were carried out. Furthermore, the patients from the intervention group attended nutrition work- shops and yoga classes online. In addition, all pa- tients had access to online publications about can- cer diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation, avail- able on our website. Patients also received written brochures. A rehabilitation coordinator provided patients with all the necessary information and was available to them throughout the entire time. Our study has several limitations. One is that it was not randomized. We had planned to con- duct an ‘almost random’ approach. Originally, Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients256 we intended that the first half of patients would be included in the control group, and the oth- er half in the intervention group. But due to the COVID-19 pandemic, for some time we had to include patients simultaneously in the control or intervention groups based on their place of resi- dence. Another limitation is a different place of residence, which may be associated with certain psychosocial characteristics which correlate to fatigue. Furthermore, the difference in distance from the hospital could influence the significant difference in fatigue between the two groups of patients (e.g., a more tiring drive to the hospital), so this must be considered when interpreting our results. Another limitation of the study is that tar- geted precision tests for the assessment of fatigue were not used, as we were also interested in oth- er problems bothering patients. In addition, the number of included patients is still too small to enable a more detailed analysis of the connection between fatigue and other psychological factors. In addition, some patients decided to withdraw from the study and some patients did not respond to all parts of the questionnaires, therefore there are some missing data. Furthermore, different in- terventions were simultaneously implemented in order to achieve as much benefit for the patients as possible. Therefore, it was not possible to test the effect of a single intervention and to describe the contribution each intervention played in the treatment of fatigue. Due to waiting times for cer- tain treatments in Slovenia, such as acupuncture or cognitive-behavioral therapy, some patients did not receive treatment immediately, or when they needed it most. But our study enables a realistic presentation of rehabilitation in our country and what possibilities exist for improving integrated rehabilitation. Finally, the number of patients in- cluded in the research is relatively small, but it rep- resents 40% of all breast cancer patients detected annually in Slovenia, so we believe that the sample size is suitable for evaluating the effectiveness of non-integrated rehabilitation and integrative reha- bilitation on fatigue in our country. Conclusions Early individualized integrated rehabilitation is associated with a lower prevalence of chronic fa- tigue or fatigue interfering with usual activities in breast cancer patients in comparison to the control group of patients. A year after the beginning of treatment, patients from the intervention group reported significantly fewer problems also in the global health quality of life scale, pain, physical, emotional, cognitive, and social function scale in comparison with the control group. Acknowledgments We are grateful to all our colleagues who partici- pated in treatment of patients and all members of the V3-1907 research group. This research was funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia. Grant P3-0289 and V3-1907. Principal investigator: Nikola Bešić. References 1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, Znaor A, et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: an overview. Int J Cancer 2021; 149: 778-89. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33588 2. Olsson Möller U, Beck I, Rydén L, Malmström M. A comprehensive ap- proach to rehabilitation interventions following breast cancer treatment − a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Cancer 2019; 19: 472. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5648-7 3. American Cancer Society. Survival rates for breast cancer. [Internet]. Atlanta: American Cancer Society. [cited 2022 Febr 14]. Available at: https://www. cancer.org/cancer/breast-ca ncer/understanding-a-breast-cancer-diagno- sis/breast-cancer-survival-rates 4. Cancer Research UK: Breast cancer survival. [Internet]. London: Cancer Research UK. [cited 2022 Febr 14]. Available at: https://www.cancerre- searchuk.org/about-cancer/breast-cancer/survival 5. Slovenian Cancer Registry. Cancer in Slovenia 2020. [Internet]. Ljubljana: Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Epidemiology and Cancer Registry. [cited 2023 Oct 19]. Available at: https://www.onko-i.si/fileadmin/onko/datoteke/ rrs/lp/letno_porocilo_2020.pdf 6. Bower JE, Bak K, Berger A, Breitbart W, Escalante CP, Ganz PA, et al. Screening, assessment, and management of fatigue in adult survivors of cancer: an American Society of Clinical oncology clinical practice guideline adaptation. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 1840-50. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.4495 7. Bower JE. Cancer-related fatigue − mechanisms, risk factors, and treatments. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014; 11: 597-609. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.127 8. Dorland HF, Abma FI, Van Zon SKR, Stewart RE, Amick BC, Ranchor AV, et al. Fatigue and depressive symptoms improve but remain negatively related to work functioning over 18 months after return to work in cancer patients. J Cancer Surviv 2018; 12: 371-8. doi: 10.1007/s11764-018-0676-x 9. Abrahams HJG, Gielissen MFM, Schmits IC, Verhagen CAHHVM, Rovers MM, Knoop H. Risk factors, prevalence, and course of severe fatigue after breast cancer treatment: a meta-analysis involving 12,327 breast cancer survivors. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 965-74. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw099 10 Nugraha B, Gutenbrunner C. Contribution of the scientific field of physical and rehabilitation medicine to improvements in health-related rehabilita- tion at all levels of the healthcare system: a discussion paper. J Rehabil Med 2021; 53: jrm00155. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2773 11. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Survivorship. Version 1.2023 – March 24, 2023. National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®). [cited 2022 March 31]. Available at: https:// www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/survivorship.pdf 12. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). [cited 2022 Febr 14]. Available at: https:// www.eortc.org/app/uploads/ sites/2/2018/02/SCmanual.pdf 13. EORTC QLQ-BR23 Scoring Manual. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). [cited 2022 Febr 14]. Available at: https:// www.eortc.be/qol/ScoringInstructions/BR23%20Summary.pdf Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(2): 243-257. Auprih M et al. / Early integrated rehabilitation on fatigue in breast cancer patients 257 14. Cencelj-Arnez R, Besic N, Mavric Z, Mozetic A, Zagar T, Homar V, et al. Early integrated rehabilitation helps smoking cessation − A comparison between the intervention and control group in a prospective study. Med Sci Monit 2023; 29: e942272. doi: 10.12659/MSM.942272 15. Besic N, Borstnar S, Kovacec Hermann T, Homar V, Kos N, Kurir-Borovcic M, et al. [Guidelines for comprehensive rehabilitation of patients with breast cancer 2019]. [Slovenian]. Ljubljana: Institute of Oncology Ljubljana. [Internet]. [cited 2022 Febr 14]. Available at: https://www.onko-i.si/filead- min/onko/datoteke/Strokovna_knjiznica/smernice/Smernice_za_celostno_ rehabilitacijo_bolnikov_z_rakom_dojk_2019.pdf 16. Besic N, Borstnar S, Homar V, Mlakar Mastnak D, Mavric Z, Mozetic A et al. [Clinical pathway of comprehensive rehabilitation of patients with breast cancer]. Version 4 2021. [Slovenian]. [Internet]. [cited 2022 Febr 14]. Available at: https://www.onko-i.si/fileadmin/onko/datoteke/Strokovna_ knjiznica/klinicne_poti/Klinicna_pot_celostne_rehabilitacije_bolnikov_z_ rakom_dojk_2021.pdf 17. Reinertsen KV, Engebraaten O, Loge JH, Cvancarova M, Naume B, Wist E, et al. Fatigue during and after breast cancer therapy − a prospective study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2017; 53: 551-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsym- man.2016.09.011 18. Thong MSY, van Noorden CJF, Steindorf K, Arndt V. Cancer-related fatigue: causes and current treatment options. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2020; 21: 17. doi: 10.1007/s11864-020-0707-5. Erratum in: Curr Treat Options Oncol 2022; 23: 450-1. doi: 10.1007/s11864-021-00916-2 19. Ruiz-Casado A, Álvarez-Bustos A, de Pedro CG, Méndez-Otero M, Romero- Elías M. Cancer-related fatigue in breast cancer survivors: a review. Clin Breast Cancer 2021; 21: 10-25. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.07.011 20. Mao H, Bao T, Shen X, Li Q, Seluzicki C, Im EO, et al. Prevalence and risk fac- tors for fatigue among breast cancer survivors on aromatase inhibitors. Eur J Cancer 2018; 101: 47-54. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.06.009 21. Juvet LK, Thune I, Elvsaas IKØ, Fors EA, Lundgren S, Bertheussen G, et al. The effect of exercise on fatigue and physical functioning in breast cancer patients during and after treatment and at 6 months follow-up: a meta- analysis. Breast 2017; 33: 166-77. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.04.003 22. 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: 961-8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol. 2016.6914 23. Hilfiker R, Meichtry A, Eicher M, Nilsson Balfe L, Knols RH, Verra ML, et al. Exercise and other non-pharmaceutical interventions for cancer-related fatigue in patients during or after cancer treatment: a systematic review incorporating an indirect-comparisons meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2018; 52: 651-8. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096422 24. Reif K, de Vries U, Petermann F, Görres S. A patient education program is effective in reducing cancer-related fatigue: a multi-centre randomised two-group waiting-list controlled intervention trial. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2013; 17: 204-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2012.07.002 25. Corbett TK, Groarke A, Devane D, Carr E, Walsh JC, McGuire BE. The ef- fectiveness of psychological interventions for fatigue in cancer survivors: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Syst Rev 2019; 8: 324. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1230-2 26. Setyowibowo H, Yudiana W, Hunfeld JAM, Iskandarsyah A, Passchier J, Arzomand H, et al. Psychoeducation for breast cancer: a system- atic review and meta-analysis. Breast 2022; 62: 36-51. doi: 10.1016/j. breast.2022.01.005 27. Bennett S, Pigott A, Beller EM, Haines T, Meredith P, Delaney C. Educational interventions for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11: CD008144. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD008144.pub2 28. Zhang Y, Lin L, Li H, Hu Y, Tian L. Effects of acupuncture on cancer-related fa- tigue: a meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer 2018; 26: 415-25. doi: 10.1007/ s00520-017-3955-6