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 Relevant published and unpublished studies were identified in September 2012 via PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, reference checking and personal communications.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.

Multiple exercise interventions have shown beneficial effects on fatigue and quality of life (QoL) in cancer patients, but various psychosocial interventions as well. It is unclear to what extent the observed effects of exercise interventions are based on physical adaptations or rather on psychosocial factors associated with supervised, group‐based programs. It needs to be determined which aspects of exercise programs are truly effective. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether resistance exercise during chemotherapy provides benefits on fatigue and QoL beyond potential psychosocial effects of group‐based interventions. One‐hundred‐one breast cancer patients starting chemotherapy were randomly assigned to resistance exercise (EX) or a relaxation control (RC) group. Both interventions were supervised, group‐based, 2/week over 12 weeks. The primary endpoint fatigue was assessed with a 20‐item multidimensional questionnaire, QoL with the EORTC QLQ‐C30/BR23. Analyses of covariance for individual changes from baseline to Week 13 were calculated. In RC, total and physical fatigue worsened during chemotherapy, whereas EX showed no such impairments (between‐group p = 0.098 and 0.052 overall, and p = 0.038 and 0.034 among patients without severe baseline depression). Differences regarding affective or cognitive fatigue were not significant. Benefits of EX were also seen to affect role and social function. Effect sizes were between 0.43 and 0.48. Explorative analyses indicated significant effect modification by thyroxin use (p‐interaction = 0.044). In conclusion, resistance exercise appeared to mitigate physical fatigue and maintain QoL during chemotherapy beyond psychosocial effects inherent to supervised group‐based settings. Thus, resistance exercise could be an integral part of supportive care for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Before, during, and after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), patients experience considerable physical and psychologic distress. Besides graft-versus-host disease and infections, reduced physical performance and high levels of fatigue affect patients9 quality of life. This multicenter randomized controlled trial examined the effects of a partly self-administered exercise intervention before, during, and after allo-HSCT on these side effects. After randomization to an exercise and a social contact control group 105 patients trained in a home-based setting before hospital admission, during inpatient treatment and a 6- to 8-week period after discharge. Fatigue, physical performance, quality of life, and physical/psychologic distress were measured by standardized instruments at baseline, admission to, and discharge from hospital and 6 to 8 weeks after discharge. The exercise group showed significantly improvement in fatigue scores (up to 15% improvement in exercise group vs up to 28% deterioration in control; P < .01-.03), physical fitness/functioning (P = .02-.03) and global distress (P = .03). All effects were at least detectable at one assessment time point after hospitalization or repeatedly. Physical fitness correlated significantly with all reported symptoms/variables. In conclusion, this partly supervised exercise intervention is beneficial for patients undergoing allo-HSCT. Because of low personnel requirements, it might be valuable to integrate such a program into standard medical care.

Current evidence suggests many health benefits from physical activity during and after cancer treatment. However, the optimal exercise program for cancer survivors has not yet been established. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize evidence for the efficacy of resistance training (RT) interventions to improve muscle strength and body composition among adult cancer survivors. We also investigate potential dose–response relationships between intensity, duration, and frequency of RT and assessed outcomes. A systematic literature review of the Clinical Trial Register, Cochrane Trial Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE literature databases was undertaken. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing RT with an exercise or nonexercise control group in cancer survivors during and after treatment. Thirteen articles from 11 RCT met our inclusion criteria. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to determine weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals using the Cochrane Review Manager 5.0.25. A random-effects metaregression model was performed to examine dose–response relationships between RT variables and assessed outcomes. Quantitative evidence shows a large effect of RT on lower-limb and upper-limb muscle strength (WMD: +14.57 kg, P = 0.0005 and +6.90 kg, P < 0.00001, respectively) and moderate effects on lean body mass and percentage of body fat (WMD: +1.07 kg, P < 0.0001 and −2.08%, P = 0.003, respectively). A small positive effect of RT was noted on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Fatigue (P = 0.05). Upper-limb muscle strength and percentage of body fat improved to a greater extent when RT interventions were of low to moderate intensity (≤75% one-repetition maximum, P = 0.042). RT was shown to be associated with clinically important positive effects on muscular function and body composition in patients during treatment or in long-term follow-up.

Background: Muscle dysfunction and sarcopenia have been associated with poor performance status, an increased mortality risk, and greater side effects in oncologic patients. However, little is known about how performance is affected by cancer therapy. We investigated muscle strength in breast cancer patients in different adjuvant treatment settings and also compared it with data from healthy individuals.Methods: Breast cancer patients (N = 255) from two randomized controlled exercise trials, staged 0–III and aged 54.4 ± 9.4 years, were categorized into four groups according to their treatment status. In a cross‐sectional design, muscle function was assessed bilaterally by isokinetic dynamometry (0°, 60°, 180°/s) as maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and maximal isokinetic peak torque (MIPT) in shoulder rotators and knee flexors and extensors. Additionally, muscular fatigue index (FI%) and shoulder flexibility were evaluated. Healthy women (N = 26), aged 53.3 ± 9.8 years, were tested using the same method. Analysis of covariance was used to estimate the impact of different cancer treatments on skeletal muscle function with adjustment for various clinical and socio‐demographic factors.Results: Consistently, lower muscle strength was measured in shoulder and knee strength in patients after chemotherapy. On average, patients had up to 25% lower strength in lower extremities and 12–16% in upper extremities in MVIC and MIPT during cancer treatment compared with healthy women. No substantial difference between patient groups in shoulder strength, but significantly lower shoulder flexibility in patients with radical mastectomy was measured. Chemotherapy‐treated patients had consistently higher FI%. No serious adverse events were reported.Conclusions: Breast cancer patients showed markedly impaired muscle strength and joint dysfunctions before and after anticancer treatment. The significant differences between patients and healthy individuals underline the need of exercise therapy as early as possible in order to prevent or counteract the loss of muscle function after curative surgery as well as the consequences of neo‐/adjuvant chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Exercise has been underutilized in people with advanced or incurable cancer despite the potential to improve physical function and reduce psychosocial morbidity, especially for people with bone metastases because of concerns over skeletal complications. The International Bone Metastases Exercise Working Group (IBMEWG) was formed to develop best practice recommendations for exercise programming for people with bone metastases on the basis of published research, clinical experience, and expert opinion. METHODS: The IBMEWG undertook sequential steps to inform the recommendations: (1) modified Delphi survey, (2) systematic review, (3) cross-sectional survey to physicians and nurse practitioners, (4) in-person meeting of IBMEWG to review evidence from steps 1-3 to develop draft recommendations, and (5) stakeholder engagement. RESULTS: Recommendations emerged from the contributing evidence and IBMEWG discussion for pre-exercise screening, exercise testing, exercise prescription, and monitoring of exercise response. Identification of individuals who are potentially at higher risk of exercise-related skeletal complication is a complex interplay of these factors: (1) lesion-related, (2) cancer and cancer treatment–related, and (3) the person-related. Exercise assessment and prescription requires consideration of the location and presentation of bone lesion(s) and should be delivered by qualified exercise professionals with oncology education and exercise prescription experience. Emphasis on postural alignment, controlled movement, and proper technique is essential. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, the perceived risk of skeletal complications should be weighed against potential health benefits on the basis of consultation between the person, health care team, and exercise professionals. These recommendations provide an initial framework to improve the integration of exercise programming into clinical care for people with bone metastases.