Purpose We evaluated the effectiveness of a low-intensity, home-based physical activity program (Onco-Move) and a moderate- to high-intensity, combined supervised resistance and aerobic exercise program (OnTrack) versus usual care (UC) in maintaining or enhancing physical fitness, minimizing fatigue, enhancing health-related quality of life, and optimizing chemotherapy completion rates in patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Patients and Methods We randomly assigned patients who were scheduled to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 230) to Onco-Move, OnTrack, or UC. Performance-based and self-reported outcomes were assessed before random assignment, at the end of chemotherapy, and at the 6-month follow-up. We used generalized estimating equations to compare the groups over time. Results Onco-Move and OnTrack resulted in less decline in cardiorespiratory fitness (P < .001), better physical functioning (P ≤ .001), less nausea and vomiting (P = .029 and .031, respectively) and less pain (P = .003 and .011, respectively) compared with UC. OnTrack also resulted in better outcomes for muscle strength (P = .002) and physical fatigue (P < .001). At the 6-month follow-up, most outcomes returned to baseline levels for all three groups. A smaller percentage of participants in OnTrack required chemotherapy dose adjustments than those in the UC or Onco-Move groups (P = .002). Both intervention groups returned earlier (P = .012), as well as for more hours per week (P = .014), to work than the control group. Conclusion A supervised, moderate- to high-intensity, combined resistance and aerobic exercise program is most effective for patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. A home-based, low-intensity physical activity program represents a viable alternative for women who are unable or unwilling to follow the higher intensity program.

This individual patient data meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise on quality of life (QoL) and physical function (PF) in patients with cancer, and to identify moderator effects of demographic (age, sex, marital status, education), clinical (body mass index, cancer type, presence of metastasis), intervention-related (intervention timing, delivery mode and duration, and type of control group), and exercise-related (exercise frequency, intensity, type, time) characteristics. Relevant published and unpublished studies were identified in September 2012 via PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, reference checking and personal communications. Principle investigators of all 69 eligible trials were requested to share IPD from their study. IPD from 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4519 patients) that evaluated the effects of exercise compared to a usual care, wait-list or attention control group on QoL and PF in adult patients with cancer were retrieved and pooled. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the effects of the exercise on post-intervention outcome values (z-score) adjusting for baseline values. Moderator effects were studies by testing interactions. Exercise significantly improved QoL (β=0.15, 95%CI=0.10;0.20) and PF (β=0.18, 95%CI=0.13;0.23). The effects were not moderated by demographic, clinical or exercise characteristics. Effects on QoL (βdifference_in_effect=0.13, 95%CI=0.03;0.22) and PF (βdifference_in_effect=0.10, 95%CI=0.01;0.20) were significantly larger for supervised than unsupervised interventions. In conclusion, exercise, and particularly supervised exercise, effectively improves QoL and PF in patients with cancer with different demographic and clinical characteristics during and following treatment. Although effect sizes are small, there is consistent empirical evidence to support implementation of exercise as part of cancer care.

To further evaluate the higher order measurement structure of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), with the aim of generating a summary score. Using pretreatment QLQ-C30 data (N = 3,282), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test seven previously evaluated higher order models. We compared the summary score(s) derived from the best performing higher order model with the original QLQ-C30 scale scores, using tumor stage, performance status, and change over time (N = 244) as grouping variables. Although all models showed acceptable fit, we continued in the interest of parsimony with known-groups validity and responsiveness analyses using a summary score derived from the single higher order factor model. The validity and responsiveness of this QLQ-C30 summary score was equal to, and in many cases superior to the original, underlying QLQ-C30 scale scores. Our results provide empirical support for a measurement model for the QLQ-C30 yielding a single summary score. The availability of this summary score can avoid problems with potential type I errors that arise because of multiple testing when making comparisons based on the 15 outcomes generated by this questionnaire and may reduce sample size requirements for health-related quality of life studies using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire when an overall summary score is a relevant primary outcome.

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire is one of the most widely used cancer-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires worldwide. General population norm data can facilitate the interpretation of QLQ-C30 data obtained from cancer patients. This study aimed at systematically collecting norm data from the general population to develop European QLQ-C30 norm scores and to generate comparable norm data for individual countries in Europe and North America. We collected QLQ-C30 data from the general population across 11 European Union (EU) countries, Russia, Turkey, Canada and United States (n ≥ 1000/country). Representative samples were stratified by sex and age groups (18-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and ≥ 70 years). After applying weights based on the United Nations population distribution statistics, we calculated QLQ-C30 domain scores to generate a 'European QLQ-C30 Norm' based on the EU countries. Further, we calculated QLQ-C30 norm scores for all 15 individual countries. A total of 15,386 respondents completed the online survey. For the EU sample, most QLQ-C30 domains showed differences by sex/age, with men scoring somewhat better health than women, while age effects varied across domains. Substantially larger differences were seen in inter-country comparisons, with Austrian and Dutch respondents reporting consistently better health compared with British and Polish respondents. This study is the first to systematically collect EORTC QLQ-C30 general population norm data across Europe and North America applying a consistent data collection method across 15 countries. These new norm data facilitate valid intra-country as well as inter-country comparisons and QLQ-C30 score interpretation.

The population of cancer survivors has grown steadily over the past several decades. Surviving cancer, however, is not synonymous with a life free of problems related to the disease and its treatment. In this paper we provide a brief overview of selected physical and psychosocial health problems prevalent among cancer survivors, namely pain, fatigue, psychological distress and work participation. We also address issues surrounding self-management and e-Health interventions for cancer survivors, and programmes to encourage survivors to adopt healthier lifestyles. Finally, we discuss approaches to assessing health-related quality of life in cancer survivors, and the use of cancer registries in conducting psychosocial survivorship research. We highlight research and practice priorities in each of these areas. While the priorities vary per topic, common themes that emerged included: (1) Symptoms should not be viewed in isolation, but rather as part of a cluster of interrelated symptoms. This has implications for both understanding the aetiology of symptoms and for their treatment; (2) Psychosocial interventions need to be evidence-based, and where possible should be tailored to the needs of the individual cancer survivor. Relatively low cost interventions with self-management and e-Health elements may be appropriate for the majority of survivors, with resource intensive interventions being reserved for those most in need; (3) More effort should be devoted to disseminating and implementing interventions in practice, and to evaluating their cost-effectiveness; and (4) Greater attention should be paid to the needs of vulnerable and high-risk populations of survivors, including the socioeconomically disadvantaged and the elderly.

Purpose: To investigate the generic and condition-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients with low-grade glioma (LGG). Patients and Methods: A total of 195 patients with LGG, which was diagnosed, on average, 5.6 years before the study, were compared with 100 patients with hematologic (non-Hodgkin's) lymphoma and chronic lymphatic leukemia cancer (NHL/CLL) and 205 general population controls who were comparable with patients with LGG at the group level for age, sex, and education (healthy controls). Generic HRQL was assessed with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey, and condition-specific HRQL was assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study cognitive function questionnaire and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer brain cancer module. Objective neurocognitive functioning was assessed with a standardized battery of neuropsychological tests. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between patients with LGG and patients with NHL/CLL in SF-36 scores. Patients with LGG scored significantly lower than healthy controls on six of eight scales and on the mental health component score of the SF-36. Approximately one quarter of patients with LGG reported serious neurocognitive symptoms. Female sex, epilepsy burden, and number of objectively assessed neurocognitive deficits were associated significantly with both generic and condition-specific HRQL. Clinical variables, including the time since diagnosis, tumor lateralization, extent of surgery, and radiotherapy, did not show a consistent relationship with HRQL. Conclusion: Patients with LGG experienced significant problems across a broad range of HRQL domains, many of which were not condition-specific. However, the neurocognitive deficits and epilepsy that were relatively prevalent among patients with LGG were associated with negative HRQL outcomes and, thus, contributed additionally to the vulnerability of this population of patients with cancer.