Journal Article Ahead of print
PubMed: 42241921 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2026.101272
Development and pilot feasibility of Kit-CAT, a serious-game-supported consultation for discussing complementary and alternative therapies in breast cancer care.
Cancer Treat Res Commun 48:101272
Authors: Nicolas Pinsault, Pauline Girard, Richard Monvoisin, Claire Eychenne, Céline Genty-Vermorel, Leo Druart
Affiliations
- Univ. Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS, UMR 5525, VetAgro Sup, Grenoble INP, TIMC, 38000 Grenoble, France; Physiotherapy Department, Université Grenoble Alpes, Saint-Martin d'Hères, France.
- Departement of Medical General Practice, University Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France; Saint-Martin-d'Hères University Interprofessional Health Center (PSIP), Saint-Martin-d'Hères, France.
- Univ. Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS, UMR 5525, VetAgro Sup, Grenoble INP, TIMC, 38000 Grenoble, France.
- Department of Radiology, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, USA; Participatory eHealth and Health Data Research Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Patients with early breast cancer frequently consider complementary therapies, yet structured, ethical discussions remain uncommon. Breast cancer is a particularly relevant context for such discussions because care pathways are prolonged, multimodal, and often associated with uncertainty, treatment-related symptoms, and high informational burden.
AIM
We developed and pilot tested Kit-CAT, a serious-game-supported consultation to scaffold evidence-based, patient-centered conversations on complementary therapies.
METHODS
After developing Kit-CAT through an iterative process including clinicians, researchers, and patients, we conducted a monocentric before-and-after pilot (6-month periods). Women with non-metastatic breast cancer were included at diagnosis; the intervention added a 90-minute primary-care consultation. Feasibility was assessed across recruitment, delivery, and acceptability. No formal a priori threshold for feasibility success was specified. Outcomes included feasibility indicators, health literacy (HLQ), attitudes to CAT (CHBQ), CAT use, and satisfaction at baseline and 6 months.
RESULTS
Of the 44 initially included participants, 41 were retained in the baseline analysis set and 38 provided at least one 6-month follow-up data point (25 in the control group and 13 in the intervention group). Recruitment to the intervention proved challenging: during the intervention phase, 49 eligible patients declined participation. Recruitment feasibility was therefore limited under the tested implementation conditions. Across several HLQ subscales, small descriptive trends in a favourable direction were observed in the intervention group, contrasting with modest declines in the control group; attitudes toward CAT were highly positive at baseline and remained stable. Satisfaction with the care pathway was high in both groups, with the intervention group numerically higher (92%vs 78% satisfied/very satisfied). No serious adverse events were reported; recorded adverse events were not considered related to Kit-CAT.
CONCLUSION
Kit-CAT was deliverable and acceptable among consenting participants, but recruitment feasibility was limited, mainly because of early timing after diagnosis, off-site delivery, and scheduling burden. Descriptive health-literacy trends should be interpreted as exploratory. Future multicentre studies should first optimize implementation format before assessing effectiveness in an adequately powered design.
MeSH
Pilots, Breast Neoplasms, Neoplasms, Drug-Related Side Effects And Adverse Reactions, Breast, Diagnosis, Therapeutics, Literacy, Complementary Therapies