Skip to content

The efficacy of mindfulness-based stress reduction vs. standard or usual care in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Huiyuan Wu, Fenfen Li, Fenghao Zhang

Translational cancer research November 2022 DOI: 10.21037/tcr-22-2530 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Meta-analysis Randomized Peer reviewed
Sample size 2,224
Population Patients with breast cancer
Intervention Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)
Topics Meditation
Keywords Breast cancer Meta-analysis
Key findings Across 14 randomized trials, MBSR reduced psychological stress, anxiety, and depression and improved sleep compared with standard or usual care in breast cancer patients, but had no significant effect on fatigue or quality of life. The authors caution that high risk of bias and high heterogeneity limit interpretation.

Abstract

Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has become an alternative intervention for cancer patients, but its impact on depression and quality of life (QOL) of breast cancer patients remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of MBSR vs. standard or usual care to relieve psychological stress in patients with breast cancer. According to the PICOS principles, databases [PubMed, Cochrane Database, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database] were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the evaluation of MBSR vs. standard or usual care for patients with breast cancer, the outcome variables included depression, stress, anxiety, fatigue, sleep and QOL. Review Manager 5.4 was used to evaluate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots and funnel plots were also performed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The final analysis included 14 studies with a total of 2,224 patients (1,138 in the MBSR group and 1,086 in the control group). The overall results of risk of bias assessment showed that the reporting bias among articles was high, and other bias was relatively moderate. Funnel plots and Egger's tests showed that there was no significant publication bias. Compared with standard or usual care, MBSR effectively relieved the psychological stress [mean difference (MD), -1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): (-2.53, -0.92); P<0.0001] and anxiety [standardized mean difference (SMD), -1.36; 95% CI: (-2.13, -0.60); P=0.0005] of breast cancer patients, and improved depression [SMD, -0.62; 95% CI: (-1.20, -0.03); P=0.04] and sleep status [MD, -0.42; 95% CI: (-0.73, -0.10), P=0.009]. However, it had no significant effect on fatigue [SMD, -0.97; 95% CI: (-2.24, 0.31); P=0.14] or QOL [MD, 1.95; 95% CI: (-3.15, 7.05); P=0.45]. MBSR was better than standard or usual care for relieving psychological stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep in patients with breast cancer. Considering the limitations of this article, such as high risk of bias and high heterogeneity of included studies, the interpretation of this conclusion should be cautious.

Comparable studies

Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on meditation, most cited first.

Study Year Design Participants
Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being Diverse adult clinical populations 2014 Meta-analysis n = 3,515
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Stress Management in Healthy People: A Review and Meta-Analysis Healthy subjects 2009 Systematic review and meta-analysis
The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Nonclinical groups of adult meditators 2012 Meta-analysis n = 163
Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Prevention of Depressive Relapse Adults with recurrent depression in full or partial remission 2016 Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials n = 1,258
Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy – a systematic review of randomized controlled trials 2011 Systematic review

Citations in the library

Cited by 9

and 4 more in the library

Cites 22

and 17 more in the library

Explore topics