Introduction: Cancer-related pain is common and undertreated. Exercise is known to have a pain-relieving effect in non-cancer pain. Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate (1) the effect of exercise on cancer-related pain in all cancers, and (2) whether the effect of exercise differed according to exercise mode, degree of supervision, intervention duration and timing (during or after cancer treatment), pain types, measurement tool and cancer type. Methods: Electronic searches were undertaken in six databases to identify exercise studies evaluating pain in people with cancer, published prior to 11 January 2023. All stages of screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two authors. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used and overall strength of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed overall and by study design, exercise intervention and pain characteristics. Results: In total, 71 studies reported in 74 papers were eligible for inclusion. The overall meta-analysis included 5877 participants and showed reductions in pain favouring exercise (standardised mean difference − 0.45; 95% confidence interval − 0.62, − 0.28). For most (> 82%) of the subgroup analyses, the direction of effect favoured exercise compared with usual care, with effect sizes ranging from small to large (median effect size − 0.35; range − 0.03 to − 1.17). The overall strength of evidence for the effect of exercise on cancer-related pain was very low. Conclusion: The findings provide support that exercise participation does not worsen cancer-related pain and that it may be beneficial. Better pain categorisation and inclusion of more diverse cancer populations in future research would improve understanding of the extent of benefit and to whom. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021266826.

Purpose: Improvements in breast cancer management continue to increase survival and life expectancy after treatment. Yet the adverse effects of treatment may persist long term, threatening physical, psychological, and social wellbeing, leading to impaired quality of life (QOL). Upper-body morbidity (UBM) such as pain, lymphoedema, restricted shoulder range of motion (ROM), and impaired function are widely reported after breast cancer treatment, but evidence demonstrating its impact on QOL is inconsistent. Therefore, the aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effect of UBM on QOL following primary breast cancer treatment. Methods: The study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020203445). CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, PsycInfo, PubMed/Medline, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched for studies reporting QOL in individuals with and without UBM following primary breast cancer treatment. Primary analysis determined the standardised mean difference (SMD) in physical, psychological, and social wellbeing scores between UBM + /UBM − groups. Secondary analyses identified differences in QOL scores between groups, according to questionnaire. Results: Fifty-eight studies were included, with 39 conducive to meta-analysis. Types of UBM included pain, lymphoedema, restricted shoulder ROM, impaired upper-body function, and upper-body symptoms. UBM + groups reported poorer physical (SMD = − 0.99; 95%CI = − 1.26, − 0.71; p < 0.00001), psychological (SMD = − 0.43; 95%CI = − 0.60, − 0.27; p < 0.00001), and social wellbeing (SMD = − 0.62; 95%CI = − 0.83, − 0.40; p < 0.00001) than UBM − groups. Secondary analyses according to questionnaire showed that UBM + groups rated their QOL poorer or at equal to, UBM − groups across all domains. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate the significant, negative impact of UBM on QOL, pervading physical, psychological, and social domains. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Efforts to assess and minimise the multidimensional impact of UBM are warranted to mitigate impaired QOL after breast cancer.