Stress-Reducing Intervention in Patients With Colorectal and Breast Cancer

he effect of 3-month heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback training and conventional cancer treatment (standard of care, SOC) vs. SOC alone on inflammation (IL-6, Tumor necrosis factor α, IL-10 from peripheral blood sample in pg/ml and tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) in %).

Effect of HRV biofeedback training on quality of life (HRV biofeedback + SOC, vs. The effect of 3-month heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback training and conventional cancer treatment (standard of care, SOC) vs. SOC alone on EORTC-QLQ-C30 (version 3) score (QLQ- Quality Life Questionnaire). The EORTC-QLQ-C30 has 30 items divided into five functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social), and three symptom scales (fatigue, pain, and nausea and vomiting). The score for each scale as well as the sum score for the whole instrument is standardized to values 0 to 100, with a higher score meaning a worse outcome.

Effect of HRV biofeedback training on executive functions (HRV biofeedback + SOC, vs. SOC alone) measured by Stroop task mean response time for color-word condition.

The effect of 3-month heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback training and conventional cancer treatment (standard of care, SOC) vs. SOC alone on salivary cortisol slopes (difference between bedtime and awakening saliva cortisol concentration in ng/ml).

The effect of 3-month heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback training and conventional cancer treatment (standard of care, SOC) vs. SOC alone on sleep quality measured by both actigraphy and self-report data. The main variables are total time spent sleeping (in hours and minutes), and sleep efficiency (proportion of time spent sleeping vs. time spent in bed trying to sleep).

Effect of HRV biofeedback training on HRV indexed by the root mean square of successive differences between heartbeats (RMSSD) in ms.

The effect of 3-month heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback training and conventional cancer treatment (standard of care, SOC) vs. SOC alone on working memory measured by digit span test score (the number of remembered digits in the longest passed sequence), for both forward and backward condition.

The effect of 3-month heart rate variability (HRV)biofeedback training and conventional cancer treatment (standard of care, SOC) vs. SOC alone on pCR rate evaluated pathologically in surgical specimen after neoadjuvant therapy, value pCR, RCB I, RCB II, RCB III.

The effect of 3-month heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback training and conventional cancer treatment (standard of care, SOC) vs. SOC alone on RFS for cohort A and B measured in months from the day of curative surgery.

The effect of 3-month heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback training and conventional cancer treatment (standard of care, SOC) vs. SOC alone on OS for cohort A and B measured in months from the day of curative surgery.

The effect of 3-months heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback training and conventional cancer treatment (standard of care, SOC) vs. SOC alone on serious adverse events (SAEs) of chemotherapy.