Linda E. Carlson, PhD ; Jennifer M. Jones, PhD ; Devesh Oberoi, MD, PhD ; Katherine-Ann Piedalue, BSc ; Peter M. Wayne, PhD ; Daniel Santa Mina, PhD ; Oluwaseyi A. Lawal, PhD ; and Michael Speca, PhD https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO-24-02540
(Summary of the article)
The MATCH study is a large, pragmatic, multisite trial that compared two mind-body interventions—Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) and Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ)—to assess their effectiveness in reducing mood disturbance in distressed cancer survivors. Importantly, this study uniquely allowed participants to choose their preferred intervention or be randomly assigned, addressing real-world conditions and patient preference, which is rarely tested in supportive cancer care trials.
A total of 587 adult cancer survivors with clinically significant distress participated, recruited from the Tom Baker Cancer Centre in Calgary and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. The majority were women (75%), with an average age of about 61 years; breast, prostate, and gastrointestinal cancers were the most common diagnoses. Participants either selected MBCR or TCQ as their preferred program or agreed to random assignment and were then allocated to either immediate treatment or a waitlist control group.
MBCR involved a nine-week course with weekly group sessions, incorporating mindfulness meditation, gentle Hatha yoga, and group reflection. TCQ consisted of an eleven-week Tai Chi/Qigong program focusing on gentle rhythmic movements, breath awareness, and cognitive focus, with roots in traditional Yang-style Tai Chi forms. Both programs included a retreat session, daily home practice, and instructor oversight for fidelity.
The study’s primary outcome was change in Total Mood Disturbance (TMD) as measured by the Profile of Mood States (POMS) from baseline to post-intervention. Both interventions significantly improved TMD scores compared to waitlist controls, with small to moderate effect sizes. MBCR showed stronger effects for reducing tension, anger, and improving vigor, while TCQ was more effective for anger, depression, and vigor.
Preference did not significantly impact outcomes: patients who chose their program did not show greater improvements than those randomly assigned, challenging assumptions that preference necessarily boosts treatment effects. Subgroup analyses indicated that women benefited more from MBCR than men. Younger participants and those with advanced-stage cancer had greater benefits from TCQ compared to older and early-stage patients, suggesting these factors may moderate responsiveness.
An exploratory pooled analysis of all immediate treatment groups confirmed that both MBCR and TCQ led to meaningful mood improvements over waiting. Additionally, anger and depression scores decreased more for TCQ than MBCR, while tension was more strongly reduced by MBCR.
This trial is noteworthy for its robust design, large sample, and focus on patient-centered care through preference-based allocation, aligning with how supportive interventions may be delivered in routine practice. The findings reinforce that both mindfulness training and Tai Chi/Qigong are valuable, evidence-based options for cancer survivors experiencing distress, offering flexible choices for patients to address psychosocial needs.
In conclusion, the MATCH study supports integrating mind-body therapies like MBCR and TCQ into survivorship care plans to help manage distress, improve mood, and enhance overall quality of life. Preference did not strongly influence effectiveness, indicating these interventions can be offered broadly, regardless of whether patients choose them or are referred.
Original Reports | Supportive Care and Quality of Life: DOI https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO-24-02540
