Objective To assess the effect of participating in an exercise intervention compared with no exercise during cancer treatment on the duration and frequency of hospital admissions. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro and Cochrane Central Registry of Randomized Controlled Trials. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised studies published until August 2023 evaluating exercise interventions during chemotherapy, radiotherapy or stem cell transplant regimens, compared with usual care, and which assessed hospital admissions (length of stay and/or frequency of admissions). Study appraisal and synthesis Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment. Meta-analyses were conducted by pooling the data using random-effects models. Results Of 3918 screened abstracts, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 2635 participants (1383 intervention and 1252 control). Twelve studies were conducted during haematopoietic stem cell transplantation regimens. There was a small effect size in a pooled analysis that found exercise during treatment reduced hospital length of stay by 1.40 days (95% CI: −2.26 to −0.54 days; low-quality evidence) and lowered the rate of hospital admission by 8% (difference in proportions=−0.08, 95% CI: −0.13 to −0.03, low-quality evidence) compared with usual care. Conclusion Exercise during cancer treatment can decrease hospital length of stay and admissions, although a small effect size and high heterogeneity limits the certainty. While exercise is factored into some multidisciplinary care plans, it could be included as standard practice for patients as cancer care pathways evolve.

Background: Childhood cancer survivors are at increased risk of cardiometabolic complications that are exacerbated by poor health behaviors. Critically, many survivors do not meet physical activity guidelines. Objective: The primary aim was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of iBounce, a digital health intervention for educating and engaging survivors in physical activity. Our secondary aims were to assess the change in survivors’ physical activity levels and behaviors, aerobic fitness, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after participating in the iBounce program. Methods: We recruited survivors aged 8 to 13 years who were ≥12 months post cancer treatment completion. The app-based program involved 10 educational modules, goal setting, and home-based physical activities monitored using an activity tracker. We assessed objective physical activity levels and behaviors using cluster analysis, aerobic fitness, and HRQoL at baseline and after the intervention (week 12). Parents were trained to reassess aerobic fitness at home at follow-up (week 24). Results: In total, 30 participants opted in, of whom 27 (90%) completed baseline assessments, and 23 (77%) commenced iBounce. Our opt-in rate was 59% (30/51), and most (19/23, 83%) of the survivors completed the intervention. More than half (13/23, 57%) of the survivors completed all 10 modules (median 10, IQR 4-10). We achieved a high retention rate (19/27, 70%) and activity tracker compliance (15/19, 79%), and there were no intervention-related adverse events. Survivors reported high satisfaction with iBounce (median enjoyment score 75%; ease-of-use score 86%), but lower satisfaction with the activity tracker (median enjoyment score 60%). Parents reported the program activities to be acceptable (median score 70%), and their overall satisfaction was 60%, potentially because of technological difficulties that resulted in the program becoming disjointed. We did not observe any significant changes in physical activity levels or HRQoL at week 12. Our subgroup analysis for changes in physical activity behaviors in participants (n=11) revealed five cluster groups: most active, active, moderately active, occasionally active, and least active. Of these 11 survivors, 3 (27%) moved to a more active cluster group, highlighting their engagement in more frequent and sustained bouts of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; 6 (56%) stayed in the same cluster; and 2 (18%) moved to a less active cluster. The survivors’ mean aerobic fitness percentiles increased after completing iBounce (change +17, 95% CI 1.7-32.1; P=.03) but not at follow-up (P=.39). Conclusions: We demonstrated iBounce to be feasible for delivery and acceptable among survivors, despite some technical difficulties. The distance-delivered format provides an opportunity to engage survivors in physical activity at home and may address barriers to care, particularly for regional or remote families. We will use these pilot findings to evaluate an updated version of iBounce. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000259842; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=ACTRN12621000259842