Strong evidence exists supporting the effect of lack of physical activity on the risk of developing breast cancer. However, studies examining the effects of physical activity on breast cancer outcomes, including survival and prognosis have been inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the association between physical activity and breast cancer recurrence and death. PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched up to 18 October 2014. Reference lists of retrieved articles and relevant previous reviews were also searched. Observational studies that reported risk estimates for all-cause and/or breast cancer-related death and/or breast cancer recurrences by levels of physical activity, were included in the review. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and to incorporate variation between studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to critically appraise the risk of bias across studies. Twenty-two prospective cohort studies were eligible in this meta-analysis. During average follow-up periods ranging from 4.3 to 12.7 years there were 123 574 participants, 6898 all-cause deaths and 5462 breast cancer outcomes (i.e. breast cancer-related deaths or recurrences). The average Newcastle-Ottawa score was six stars (range 4-8). Compared to those who reported low/no lifetime recreational pre-diagnosis physical activity, participants who reported high lifetime recreational pre-diagnosis physical activity levels had a significantly lower risk of all-cause (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96, p < 0.05) and breast cancer-related death (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.98, p < 0.05). Significant risk reductions for all-cause and breast cancer-related death was also demonstrated for more recent pre-diagnosis recreational physical activity (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82, p < 0.001; and HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.97, p < 0.05, respectively), post-diagnosis physical activity (HR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.43-0.64, p < 0.01; and HR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.78, p < 0.05, respectively) and meeting recommended physical activity guidelines (i.e. ≥ 8 MET-h/wk) post-diagnosis (HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76, p < 0.01; and HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.90, p < 0.01, respectively). However, there was evidence of heterogeneity across lifetime recreational pre- and post-diagnosis physical activity analyses. Both pre-diagnosis (lifetime and more recent combined) and post-diagnosis physical activity were also associated with reduced risk of breast cancer events (breast cancer progression, new primaries and recurrence combined) (HR = 0.72 95% CI 0.56-0.91, p < 0.01; and HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.98, p < 0.05, respectively). There is an inverse relationship between physical activity and all-cause, breast cancer-related death and breast cancer events. The current meta-analysis supports the notion that appropriate physical activity may be an important intervention for reducing death and breast cancer events among breast cancer survivors.

We aimed to examine the evidence for the proposed additive effect of exercise in the presence of nature (green exercise) by systematically reviewing studies that investigated the effects of outdoor or virtual green exercise compared with indoor exercise. Our review updates an earlier review, whose searches were conducted in April 2010. Trials were eligible if: (a) participants in an outdoor or virtual exercise condition were exposed to views of nature (green exercise); (b) green exercise was compared with indoor exercise with no exposure to nature; (c) included an outcome related to physical or mental health; (d) used comparative or crossover trial design. We searched the following databases from 1st January 2010 to 28th June 2018: PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, GreenFile, and Sports DISCUS. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane “risk of bias” tool. Where possible we conducted a meta-analysis using the inverse variance random-effects method, and where this approach was not possible we presented the results qualitatively and in harvest plots. We identified 28 eligible trials. In a meta-analysis of just three longitudinal trials, the only statistical finding was slightly lower post-intervention perceived exertion with green versus indoor exercise (mean difference: −1.02; 95% confidence intervals: −1.88, −0.16). Compared with indoor exercise, acute bouts of outdoor green exercise may favorably influence affective valence and enjoyment, but not emotion, perceived exertion, exercise intensity, and biological markers. No other consistent statistical differences were observed, apart from a higher enjoyment of outdoor green versus virtual green exercise. We found a high risk of bias across trials and an overall low quality of evidence. In conclusion, there was limited evidence to support the view that green exercise offers superior benefits to exercise without exposure to nature. The low quality of evidence prohibits clear interpretation of trial findings. Future robust and rigorously designed trials are needed to evaluate the effects of long-term and multiple-bout exposure to nature during exercise compared with exercise indoors.

Women with a diagnosis of breast cancer may experience short- and long-term disease and treatment-related adverse physiological and psychosocial outcomes. These outcomes can negatively impact prognosis, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychosocial and physical function. Physical activity may help to improve prognosis and may alleviate the adverse effects of adjuvant therapy. To assess effects of physical activity interventions after adjuvant therapy for women with breast cancer. We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCG) Specialised Registry, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, on 18 September 2015. We also searched OpenGrey and Healthcare Management Information Consortium databases. We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing physical activity interventions versus control (e.g. usual or standard care, no physical activity, no exercise, attention control, placebo) after adjuvant therapy (i.e. after completion of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, but not hormone therapy) in women with breast cancer. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted trial authors to ask for additional information when needed. We calculated an overall effect size with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes. We included 63 trials that randomised 5761 women to a physical activity intervention (n = 3239) or to a control (n = 2524). The duration of interventions ranged from 4 to 24 months, with most lasting 8 or 12 weeks (37 studies). Twenty-eight studies included aerobic exercise only, 21 involved aerobic exercise and resistance training, and seven used resistance training only. Thirty studies described the comparison group as usual or standard care, no intervention, or control. One-fifth of studies reported at least 20% intervention attrition and the average physical activity adherence was approximately 77%. No data were available on effects of physical activity on breast cancer-related and all-cause mortality, or on breast cancer recurrence. Analysis of immediately postintervention follow-up values and change from baseline to end of intervention scores revealed that physical activity interventions resulted in significant small-to-moderate improvements in HRQoL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.57, 22 studies, 1996 women; SMD 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17, 14 studies, 1459 women, respectively; low-quality evidence), emotional function (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.32, 26 studies, 2102 women, moderate-quality evidence; SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.53, 15 studies, 1579 women, respectively; low-quality evidence), perceived physical function (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.49, 25 studies, 2129 women; SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97, 13 studies, 1433 women, respectively; moderate-quality evidence), anxiety (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.19, 7 studies, 326 women; SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.12, 4 studies, 235 women, respectively; low-quality evidence), and cardiorespiratory fitness (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.58, 23 studies, 1265 women, moderate-quality evidence; SMD 0.83, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.27, 9 studies, 863 women, respectively; very low-quality evidence). Investigators reported few minor adverse events. Small improvements in physical activity interventions were sustained for three months or longer postintervention in fatigue (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.26; SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.11, respectively), cardiorespiratory fitness (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.69; SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79, respectively), and self-reported physical activity (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.72; SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.93, respectively) for both follow-up values and change from baseline scores. However, evidence of heterogeneity across trials was due to variation in intervention components (i.e. mode, frequency, intensity, duration of intervention and sessions) and measures used to assess outcomes. All trials reviewed were at high risk of performance bias, and most were also at high risk of detection, attrition, and selection bias. In light of the aforementioned issues, we determined that the evidence was of very low, low, or moderate quality. No conclusions regarding breast cancer-related and all-cause mortality or breast cancer recurrence were possible. However, physical activity interventions may have small-to-moderate beneficial effects on HRQoL, and on emotional or perceived physical and social function, anxiety, cardiorespiratory fitness, and self-reported and objectively measured physical activity. The positive results reported in the current review must be interpreted cautiously owing to very low-to-moderate quality of evidence, heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, imprecision of some estimates, and risk of bias in many trials. Future studies with low risk of bias are required to determine the optimal combination of physical activity modes, frequencies, intensities, and durations needed to improve specific outcomes among women who have undergone adjuvant therapy. Actividad física para las pacientes con cáncer de mama después del tratamiento adyuvante Las pacientes con diagnóstico de cáncer de mama pueden presentar enfermedades a corto y a largo plazo, así como resultados fisiológicos y psicosociales adversos relacionados con el tratamiento. Estos resultados pueden repercutir negativamente en el pronóstico, la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (CdVRS), y la función psicosocial y física. La actividad física puede ayudar a mejorar el pronóstico y...

Cancer cachexia is a debilitating consequence of disease progression, characterised by the significant weight loss through the catabolism of both skeletal muscle and adipose tissue, leading to a reduced mobility and muscle function, fatigue, impaired quality of life and ultimately death occurring with 25–30 % total body weight loss. Degradation of proteins and decreased protein synthesis contributes to catabolism of skeletal muscle, while the loss of adipose tissue results mainly from enhanced lipolysis. These mechanisms appear to be at least, in part, mediated by systemic inflammation. Exercise, by virtue of its anti‐inflammatory effect, is shown to be effective at counteracting the muscle catabolism by increasing protein synthesis and reducing protein degradation, thus successfully improving muscle strength, physical function and quality of life in patients with non‐cancer‐related cachexia. Therefore, by implementing appropriate exercise interventions upon diagnosis and at various stages of treatment, it may be possible to reverse protein degradation, while increasing protein synthesis and lean body mass, thus counteracting the wasting seen in cachexia.

Typically, management of PCOS focuses on lifestyle changes (exercise and diet), aiming to alleviate symptoms, and lower the associated risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Our objective was to analyse evidence on the effectiveness of exercise in the management of PCOS, when compared to (i) usual care, (ii) diet alone, and (iii) exercise combined with diet, and also exercise combined with diet, compared to (i) control or usual care and (ii) diet alone. Relevant databases were searched (June 2017) with no time limit for trial inclusion. Eligible trials employed a randomised or quasi-randomised design to measure the chronic effects of exercise, or exercise and diet in women with PCOS. Searches returned 2390 articles; of those, 27 papers from 18 trials were included. Results are presented as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Compared with control, exercise had a statistical effect on change from baseline fasting insulin (MD − 2.44 μIU/mL, 95% CIs − 4.24 to − 0.64; very low-quality evidence), HOMA-IR (− 0.57, − 0.99 to − 0.14; very low-quality evidence), total cholesterol (− 5.88 mg/dL, − 9.92 to − 1.83; low-quality evidence), LDL cholesterol (− 7.39 mg/dL, − 9.83 to − 4.95; low-quality evidence), and triglycerides (− 4.78 mg/dL, − 7.52 to − 2.05; low-quality evidence). Exercise also improved VO2 max (3.84 ml/kg/min, 2.87 to 4.81), waist circumference (− 2.62 cm, − 4.13 to − 1.11), and body fat percentage (− 1.39%, − 2.61 to − 0.18) when compared with usual care. No effect was found for change value systolic/diastolic blood pressure, fasting glucose, HDL cholesterol (all low-quality evidence), or waist-to-hip ratio. Many favourable change score findings were supported by post-intervention value analyses: fasting insulin (− 2.11 μIU/mL, − 3.49 to − 0.73), total cholesterol (− 6.66 mg/dL, − 11.14 to − 2.17), LDL cholesterol (− 6.91 mg/dL, − 12.02 to − 1.80), and VO2 max (5.01 ml/kg/min, 3.48 to 6.54). Statistically lower BMI (− 1.02 kg/m2, − 1.81 to − 0.23) and resting heart rate (− 3.26 beats/min − 4.93 to − 1.59) were also revealed in post-intervention analysis. Subgroup analyses revealed the greatest improvements in overweight/obese participants, and more outcomes improved when interventions were supervised, aerobic in nature, or of a shorter duration. Based on limited data, we found no differences for any outcome between the effects of exercise and diet combined, and diet alone. It was not possible to compare exercise vs diet or exercise and diet combined vs diet. Statistically beneficial effects of exercise were found for a range of metabolic, anthropometric, and cardiorespiratory fitness-related outcomes. However, caution should be adopted when interpreting these findings since many outcomes present modest effects and wide CIs, and statistical effects in many analyses are sensitive to the addition/removal of individual trials. Future work should focus on rigorously designed, well-reported trials that make comparisons involving both exercise and diet. This systematic review was prospectively registered on the Prospero International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ( CRD42017062576 )

Background Public health guidelines suggest that physical activity can be accumulated in multiple short bouts dispersed through the day. A synthesis of the evidence for this approach is lacking. Objective Our objective was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine if exercise interventions consisting of a single bout of exercise compared with interventions comprising the same total duration, mode, and intensity of exercise accumulated over the course of the day have different effects on health outcomes in adults. Methods Six electronic databases were searched (Jan 1970–29 August 2018). Two authors identified studies that evaluated the effects of a single bout of exercise compared with the same intensity, total duration, and mode of exercise accumulated in multiple bouts over the course of a day, in community-dwelling adults. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Pooled effects were reported as standardised mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random effects model. Results A total of 19 studies involving 1080 participants met the inclusion criteria. There were no differences between accumulated and continuous groups for any cardiorespiratory fitness or blood pressure outcomes. A difference was found in body mass changes from baseline to post-intervention in favour of accumulated exercise compared with continuous (MD − 0.92 kg, 95% CI − 1.59 to − 0.25, I² = 0%; five studies, 211 participants). In subgroup analyses, accumulating > 150 min of weekly exercise in multiple bouts per day resulted in small effects on body fat percentage (combined post-intervention and change from baseline values: MD − 0.87%, 95% CI − 1.71 to − 0.04, I² = 0%; three studies, 166 participants) compared with 150 min of exercise amassed via single continuous bouts per day. There was a decrease in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with accumulated versus continuous exercise (MD − 0.39 mmol/l, 95% CI − 0.73 to − 0.06, I² = 23%; two studies, 41 participants). No differences were observed for any other blood biomarker (total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting blood glucose, and fasting insulin). Conclusions There is no difference between continuous and accumulated patterns of exercise in terms of effects on fitness, blood pressure, lipids, insulin and glucose. There is some evidence from a small number of studies that changes in body mass and LDL cholesterol are more favourable following the accumulated condition. Collectively our findings suggest that adults are likely to accrue similar health benefits from exercising in a single bout or accumulating activity from shorter bouts throughout the day. This review will inform public health guidelines for physical activity at the global and national levels (PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016044122).