Secondary analysis reports that a digital program reduces treatment discontinuation in cancer patients, suggesting further exploration is needed.
Background/Objectives: Treatment disruptions and discontinuations during systemic cancer therapy are common and can compromise treatment delivery and outcomes. Structured exercise and mind–body interventions improve cancer-related symptoms, but their impact on treatment disruptions and discontinuations remains unclear. This secondary analysis of the IMPROVE trial evaluated whether participation in Integrative Medicine at Home (IM@Home), a digital multimodal mind–body and structured exercise program, was associated with differences in treatment discontinuation and related treatment disruption outcomes among patients undergoing systemic therapy. Methods: A total of 127 adults with solid tumors were randomized to IM@Home (n = 64) or enhanced usual care (EUC; n = 63) for 12 weeks. Treatment discontinuation, dose delays, dose reductions, and overall treatment disruptions were compared between arms using chi-square tests and regression models adjusted for cancer type and disease stage. Results: In unadjusted analyses, treatment discontinuation occurred less frequently in the IM@Home group compared with EUC (9.4% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.043), but this association was attenuated after adjustment for cancer type and disease stage (aOR 0.41, 95% CI 0.13–1.17; p = 0.105). The proportion of patients experiencing any treatment disruption, as well as rates of dose delays and dose reductions, did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.16, p = 0.18, and p = 0.85, respectively). In contrast, IM@Home participants experienced fewer treatment disruption events per patient (adjusted RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35–0.96; p = 0.036). Conclusions: These exploratory findings suggest that digital structured exercise and mind–body programs may help mitigate treatment interruptions during systemic cancer therapy and should be explored further in an adequately powered prospective trial to confirm these promising findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bryl et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: