Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34641961›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Personalized versus standard cognitive behavioral therapy for fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms or cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (MATCH-study).

Susan J Harnas, Hans Knoop, Floor Bennebroek Evertsz, Sanne H Booij, Joost Dekker, Hanneke W M van Laarhoven, Marije van der Lee, Ellen Meijer, Louise Sharpe, Mirjam A G Sprangers and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Toward a better understanding of the uptake of interventions for cancer-related fatigue: the perspective of healthcare providers, patients, and partners.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Susan J HarnasDepartment of Medical Psychology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. s.j.harnas@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5468-2316
Hans KnoopDepartment of Medical Psychology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Floor Bennebroek EvertszDepartment of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sanne H BooijDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Joost DekkerDepartment of Psychiatry, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Hanneke W M van LaarhovenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marije van der LeeResearch Department, Center for Psycho-Oncology, Helen Dowling Institute, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Ellen MeijerDepartment of Hematology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Louise SharpeSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mirjam A G SprangersDepartment of Medical Psychology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Annemieke van StratenDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology & Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sonja ZweegmanDepartment of Hematology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Annemarie M J BraamseDepartment of Medical Psychology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLThe University of Sydney · AUTilburg University · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 11351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and cancer-related fatigue are prevalent symptoms among cancer survivors, adversely affecting patients' quality of life and daily functioning. Effect sizes of interventions targeting these symptoms are mostly small to medium. Personalizing treatment is assumed to improve efficacy. However, thus far the empirical support for this approach is lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate if systematically personalized cognitive behavioral therapy is more efficacious than standard cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer survivors with moderate to severe fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and/or cancer-related fatigue.

methodsThe study is designed as a non-blinded, multicenter randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms (ratio 1:1): (a) systematically personalized cognitive behavioral therapy and (b) standard cognitive behavioral therapy. In the standard treatment arm, patients receive an evidence-based diagnosis-specific treatment protocol for fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, or cancer-related fatigue. In the second arm, treatment is personalized on four dimensions: (a) the allocation of treatment modules based on ecological momentary assessments, (b) treatment delivery, (c) patients' needs regarding the symptom for which they want to receive treatment, and (d) treatment duration. In total, 190 cancer survivors who experience one or more of the targeted symptoms and ended their medical treatment with curative intent at least 6 months to a maximum of 5 years ago will be included. Primary outcome is limitations in daily functioning. Secondary outcomes are level of fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, fatigue severity, quality of life, goal attainment, therapist time, and drop-out rates. Participants are assessed at baseline (T0), and after 6 months (T1) and 12 months (T2). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of personalized cognitive behavioral therapy to standard cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer survivors. The study has several innovative characteristics, among which is the personalization of interventions on several dimensions. If proven effective, the results of this study provide a first step in developing an evidence-based framework for personalizing therapies in a systematic and replicable way.

trial registrationThe Dutch Trial Register (NTR) NL7481 (NTR7723). Registered on 24 January 2019.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsCognitive Behavioral TherapyNeoplasmsDepressionFatigueFearHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeCancer-related fatigueCancer survivorsCognitive behavioral therapyDepressionEcological momentary assessment (EMA)Fear of cancer recurrencePersonalized treatmentPsychological symptoms

Identifiers

PMID34641961
PMCPMC8507219
OpenAlexW3207280959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.