Next Article in Journal
Longitudinal Assessment of FT3 to FT4 Conversion Ratio in Predicting the Efficacy of First-Line Pembrolizumab-Based Therapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis of Data from the National Drug Monitoring Agency
Next Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Nordic Walking Training on the Serum Levels of Sirtuins, FOXO3a, and Vitamin D Metabolites in Patients with Multiple Myeloma
Previous Article in Journal
Personalized Ultra-Fractionated Stereotactic Adaptive Radiotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Varian Ethos Therapy System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Current Oncology
Volume 31
Issue 12
10.3390/curroncol31120563
curroncol-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Potential Benefits from Physical Exercise in Advanced Cancer Patients Undergoing Systemic Therapy? A Narrative Review of the Randomized Clinical Trials

by
Federico Bozzetti
Freelance Surgeon Oncologist, Residenza Querce, Milanodue, 20054 Segrate, Italy
Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31(12), 7631-7646; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31120563
Submission received: 4 September 2024 / Revised: 18 November 2024 / Accepted: 24 November 2024 / Published: 1 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diet and Physical Activity Management during Cancer)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Design. The purpose of this review is the analysis of the literature concerning the effects of physical exercise in cancer patients undergoing medical oncologic treatment. Papers were retrieved from the scrutiny of 15 reviews/meta-analyses published in the last 2 years, which, however, pooled different populations of patients (surgical and medical patients, receiving or not an oncologic therapy, harboring a cancer, or being survivors). Results. We reviewed the data of 35 RCTs on the use of physical exercise in cancer patients, distinguishing well-nourished from malnourished patients. The conclusions of our study are the following: No major difference between well-nourished and malnourished patients as regards compliance/adherence with physical exercise and outcomes. Compliance with physical exercise was reported in about 70% of the studies. Compared with a control group receiving the usual care, in patients who practiced physical exercise, a benefit in some parameters of physical function and quality of life and lean body mass (LBM) was reported in 61%, 47%, and 12%, respectively, of the studies in non-malnourished patients, and in 50%, 100%, and 36%, respectively, of the studies in malnourished patients. The benefit in LBM was more frequently reported in weight-losing patients. There was no strict association among the results of different outcomes (muscle function vs. quality of life vs. LBM). There are still some ill-defined issues, including the optimal physical regimen (with some authors favoring high-intensity interval training and resistance) and the place of exercising (patients usually preferring home exercises, which, however, have been proved less efficacious).

1. Introduction

Depletion of the muscle mass is prevalent in patients with cancer and is more frequent when cancer is in the upper GI tract, pancreas, lung, head and neck, and in the advanced stages of disease [1,2,3,4,5]. Low muscle mass has been consistently associated with adverse clinical outcomes, such as higher morbidity and mortality, dose-limiting toxicity, poor compliance with oncologic therapy, and length of hospitalization [6,7]. Quality of life (QoL) is also affected following cancer diagnosis and is positively associated with muscle mass [8,9,10,11,12,13].
Physical exercise is a globally recognized way of increasing muscle mass in healthy people as well as in elderly sarcopenic ones; however, its potential role in hypoanabolic procatabolic cancer patients is still poorly appreciated in the scientific oncologic community. The current question is whether physical activity is able to support muscle mass and muscle function in advanced cancer patients undergoing an oncologic therapy and whether this might translate into a clinical benefit.
Although several reviews [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] dealing with the effects of the physical exercise in patients with advanced cancer have been published in the years 2022–2023, it is still difficult to reach an unambiguous conclusion for a variety of reasons. Some reviews simply pool in their analysis the RCTs, unpublished controlled trials, prospective or retrospective comparative studies, or single-arm studies, most include both tumor-bearing patients and survivors, patients undergoing surgery and receiving an oncologic therapy, patients receiving chemotherapy for an advanced tumor and those receiving adjuvant therapy, hence potentially including tumor-free patients. Finally, most of the studies focused on the feasibility of the physical activity as a primary endpoint of the research, and one systematic review and meta-analysis [26] only focused on adverse events, health-care utilization, and treatment tolerability.
The aim of this review is the analysis of RCTs comparing physical exercise versus usual care in patients with an advanced cancer receiving chemotherapy, with a special focus on change in the fat-free mass (FFM) or in the muscle function and their potential correlation with QoL.

2. Methods

The above-mentioned recent reviews [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] were used to retrieve the pertinent selected literature. In addition, a search of the recent papers published in the first 4 months of 2024 was performed through PUBMED. The inclusion criteria were the same for both the papers retrieved from previous recent reviews and the papers published in the early months of 2024.
We only considered full papers of RCTs in adult cancer patients with an advanced disease, receiving chemotherapy, where the experimental arm underwent a planned program of physical exercises, and the control group was kept under its usual practice. The papers dealing with surgical patients undergoing a preoperative prehabilitation or receiving adjuvant chemotherapy after a successful curative surgery (who can virtually be considered tumor-free) or practicing an exclusive selective physical therapy aimed to potentiate the ventilatory function or the pelvic muscle function in lung cancer or urogenital tumor patients were not considered. Both abstracts and papers not published in English were excluded. Finally, the papers were divided into two large series depending on the baseline nutritional status. Patients were considered malnourished if they had lost weight, or the BMI was below 19.5, or NRS2002 was >3, or the ECOG score was ≥3, or they were receiving tube feeding. The comparison of the effects of physical exercise was always inter-group (and not intra-group), hence the symbol “↑” does not necessarily mean an absolute benefit but also a lower deterioration inthe experimental group as compared with the control group.

3. Results

We collected 35 RCTs (1874 patients) [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65] and divided them into two groups, one dealing with non-malnourished patients (25 RCTs, 1266 patients) (Table 1 and Table 2), and the other with malnourished patients (10 RCTs, 608 patients) (Table 1 and Table 2).
On average, exercise programs had a mean of 3.5 sessions per week, each aerobic session usually included 10–15 min of warm-up, followed by 30 min of training with a wide range of heart rate goals, while in contrast, resistance training often required 10–20 min. Aerobic training aimed at improving VO2 max (or its surrogates), while the goal of resistance training was to increase the muscle mass. Common resistance training included resistance bands and free weights, where participants could perform sets of repetitions in one or more muscle groups with the goal of achieving a pre-specified rating of perceived exertion [30], as described by Borg et al. [66].
Most experiences were in non-malnourished cancer patients and the data of 25 RCTs are reported in Table 1 and Table 2. Lung and GI accounted for the most prevalent primary cancers and median and mean compliance with the planned program of physical exercise were 70% and 70% (r. 37–100), respectively. Most primary endpoints referred to muscle function/physical performance or QoL parameters but at least eight focused on feasibility [35,38,45,46,48,49,51,53]. Median and mean age of patients were 63 and 57.6 (r. 32–66) years, respectively. Patients performed physical exercises for a median period of 3 months, mean 9.3 (r. 2.2–24) weeks. Out of 25 studies, 18 reported the effect of the physical exercises on muscle function and 11 (61.1%) [29,31,32,33,35,42,45,46,47,52,58] showed some benefit, and in 4 of them (36.3%) [31,32,33,52,60] patients also improved their QoL. However, QoL improved also in two studies [30,43] despite no benefit of muscle function. Globally, QoL was evaluated in 19 studies and some items of QoL improved in 9 of them (47.3%). Lean body mass (LBM) change was reported in eight studies and only in one (12.5%) [65] was improved. Finally, four studies evaluated both LBM and QoL: there were no benefits in LBM but only one benefit [65] in QoL.
Ten studies included malnourished patients (Table 1 and Table 2) and the vast majority were patients with GI tumors, especially pancreatic. Four of them focused on feasibility [40,41,56,61] and median and mean compliance were reported in 69% and 68% (r. 59–90) of patients, respectively. The median and mean age of the patients were 61 and 63.2 (r. 57–78) years. Patients performed physical exercises for a median and mean period of 10 weeks and 13 weeks (r. 4–24), respectively. Six studies evaluated the muscle function, and a benefit was observed in three (50%) [44,50,63] and all these three (100%) reported an improvement of QoL. QoL was improved in three [37,57,61] out eight studies (37.5%) and, similarly, LBM changes were reported in eight studies and improved in three (37.5%) [44,50,63] concurrently with a benefit in muscle function. It is noteworthy, however, QoL improved also in one study [37] which did not exhibit any benefit in muscle function.
We attempted to explore whether the number of weeks of exercise and dietary supplementation were related with some outcomes and the findings are reported in Table 3 and Table 4.
However, we were not able to find any data indicating that the duration of the exercise as well as administration of a nutritional supplementation could affect the results. Especially as regards the duration of the exercise, both positive and negative results were achieved in quite similar time frames. The different methodology of exercise and the impact of different regimens of chemotherapy can account for the difficulty of assessing the more advantageous approach.

4. Discussion

The aim of this review was to define the potential of physical exercise in advanced cancer patients on chemotherapy and mainly relies on the RCTs quoted in the systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the last two years. Although several scientific societies [66,67,68,69,70] recommend engaging in at least 90 min of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, in addition to muscle strengthening activities twice weekly, exercise is only performed regularly by a minority of patients diagnosed with cancer [71,72].The conclusion of a recent Cochrane review [73] including only four studies, stating that it was not known if exercise is helpful or safe for people with cancer who experience loss of appetite and weight loss, may have argued, among the oncologists, against a wider use of physical activity.
Our analysis shows that compliance with the physical exercise was about 68–70%, even if estimates of physical activity based on self-report are generally higher than estimates derived from objective measures [74,75,76] and, hence, self-reported adherence must be interpreted with caution. Our findings agree with other meta-analyses [77,78] that show a low incidence of adverse events from participation in exercise oncology clinical trials during treatment and that engaging in exercise during treatment through aerobic exercise interventions and strength training is usually well tolerated without adverse events.
Since we hypothesized that feasibility, compliance, and possibly some outcomes might be different in patients malnourished or not, we separately examined these two series of studies. However, data show that adherence to the program of physical exercise was almost identical, 70% versus 68–69% in non-malnourished and malnourished patients, respectively. There was some benefit as regards the muscle function in 61% versus 50%, the QoL in 47.3% versus 100%, and LBM in 12.5% versus 37.5% of studies on non-malnourished and malnourished patients, respectively. The better response of the physical exercise on LBM in malnourished patients might be due to the combination of the physical exercises with a supervised nutritional support in six of ten of these studies, might simply reflect a major hindrance in increasing LBM in subjects who do not have a baseline muscle mass depletion.
Due to the impossibility of considering all variables (type of tumor, oncologic treatment and response, duration, and characteristics of the exercise regimen etc.) affecting the response to the exercise in the different studies, a formal statistical analysis was not performed; however, it appears that the duration and combination with a nutritional supplement did not affect the outcome (Table 3 and Table 4).
The most intriguing observation was the frequent dissociation of the response of the different endpoints. For instance, in one study [50], muscle function and LMB improved but QoL did not, and on the contrary, QoL improved in a study [37] without any positive response of the muscle function. However, in three studies [44,50,63] where LBM improved, there was a concurrent benefit in muscle function. Overall, these data should warn the clinicians to not consider muscle function and LBM as a surrogate of QoL.
The analysis of the literature shows that there are two major issues which remain unresolved, and these certainly represent a limitation of our analysis.
The first concerns the option of home versus supervised exercise. Comparing with home exercise programs, supervised sessions appear to generate higher adherence and social support and improve both role and emotional functioning [79], likely through interactions with supervising personnel and peers in the exercise setting. This would also provide a number of additional benefits to participants with a poor prognosis and symptomatology [80,81]. Kuehr et al. [82] showed a 95% adherence rate in a hospital-based exercise program and 77% adherence rate in a home-based program, while Quist et al. [83] reported a rate of 73.3% and 8.7% in supervised group training and home-based training, respectively. Consequently, supervised exercise programs (especially resistance training) appear more effective than non-supervised ones [44,61,84]. Notably, most patients prefer home-based exercises [85], even if accessibility of the location would appear to be more important than the type of location [51,86]. Since at-home exercise programs may be related to self-efficacy at baseline, they might be a better option for patients with high self-efficacy and motivation [87]. To improve the adherence to the exercises the use of step trackers or of accelerometers or recalls by phone have been proposed [88].
The second issue which warrants further deep exploration in future studies is the modality of the exercises. Most of the RCTs reported in this review, as well as the guidelines by American College of Sports Medicine, propose a combination of both resistance and endurance training in cancer patients, since concurrent training can induce wide-ranging physical adaptations promoting both aerobic (VO2 max and resistance to fatigue) and anaerobic (muscle strength and function) components simultaneously, without any adverse effect in cancer patients. This is in keeping with both the guidelines of the American College of Sports Medicine as well as with other studies not considered in this report [89,90,91,92]. However, some patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer [93] would prefer resistance exercise training since resistance exercise training has a higher potential for individualization. While general recommendations include primarily aerobic exercise of moderate intensity, the definitive superiority of one exercise modality over another is still uncertain, especially in advanced-stage lung cancer patients [67]. This review shows that several regimens of physical exercise were applied in the different studies because the optimal training program is still ill-defined. Reljic et al., [53] following the observation that the fatigue was a common reason for the participant reporting difficulty performing their prehabilitation schedule, favored the incorporation of low-high-intensity interval training into exercise programs and/or to implement it as an initial preparatory training modality before higher-volume exercise regimes. Toohey et al. [94] showed that low-volume high-intensity training was associated with greater improvements in cardio-respiratory fitness, lower body strength and waist circumference compared with traditional continuous low- to moderate-intensity exercise training, even if in a previous study, the same authors [95] reported that the low-volume high-intensity program was well tolerated by the participants and hence was probably the preferred modality to improve fitness. Three recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses [95,96,97] reported that high-intensity interval training was superior compared to usual care in improving physical fitness, peak oxygen consumption, and health-related outcomes across all stages of therapy and aftercare. Currently, there is no evidence for the benefits of high-intensity interval training compared to aerobic training of moderate intensity for changes in cardiorespiratory fitness, LBM, and patient-reported outcomes [21]. Recent studies [98,99,100] have shown no significant differences between high-intensity interval training and control groups in terms of body composition, but high-intensity interval training prevented body weight increase in breast cancer patients compared to the usual care control group. More recently, the use of whole-body electro-myostimulation has been proposed as a way of potentiating the biomechanical function of muscle [101].
Further limitations of this paper concern the heterogeneity of patients included in different RCTs as well as in the same study, which precludes a more precise analysis by type of primary.
However, there are some points of force, as follows: a good compliance and adherence to the physical exercise program was commonly reported, some primary endpoints were achieved (muscle function and QoL in half or more of the studies and LBM in a lower rate), and the presence of malnutrition was not a major hindrance to the programs as regards both the compliance/adherence and the outcomes. Additional randomized and controlled studies are needed to determine the optimal intensity and quantity of training programs to achieve possible positive effects. More important, patients and their formal and informal caregivers should be alerted that exercise is safe and feasible, can be tailored to individual needs and levels of functioning, and can be performed both at home without supervision and in a supervised setting. Finally, an important topic which was beyond the scope of this review but is of utmost importance, is the possibility to achieve, through the physical exercise, a better response to the oncologic treatment as recently shown by randomized [102] and non-randomized studies [65].

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to BF for the invaluable help in retrieving the literature and ordering it in the tables.

Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest; no funding supported this study.

References

  1. Brown, J.C.; Caan, B.J.; Feliciano, E.M.C.; Xiao, J.; Weltzien, E.; Prado, C.M.; Kroenke, C.H.; Castillo, A.; Kwan, M.L.; Meyerhardt, J.A. Weight stability masks changes in body composition in colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 113, 1482–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Meyer, H.J.; Wienke, A.; Surov, A. CT-defined low-skeletal muscle mass as a prognostic marker for survival in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol. Oncol. Semin. Orig. Investig. 2021, 40, 103.e9–103.e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Prado, C.M.; Lieffers, J.R.; McCargar, L.J.; Reiman, T.; Sawyer, M.B.; Martin, L.; Baracos, V.E. Prevalence and clinical implications of sarcopenic obesity in patients with solid tumours of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts: A population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2008, 9, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Rinninella, E.; Cintoni, M.; Raoul, P.; Pozzo, C.; Strippoli, A.; Bria, E.; Tortora, G.; Gasbarrini, A.; Mele, M.C. Muscle mass, assessed at diagnosis by L3-CT scan as a prognostic marker of clinical outcomes in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 39, 2045–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Xiao, J.; Caan, B.J.; Cespedes Feliciano, E.M.; Meyerhardt, J.A.; Kroenke, C.H.; Baracos, V.E.; Weltzien, E.; Kwan, M.L.; Alexeeff, S.E.; Castillo, A.L.; et al. The association of medical and demographic characteristics with sarcopenia and low muscle radiodensity in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 109, 626–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hammerlid, E.; Rd, E.S.; Hörnestam, L.; Sullivan, M. Health-related quality of life three years after diagnosis of head and neck cancer—A longitudinal study. J. Sci. Spec. Head Neck 2001, 23, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bye, A.; Sjøblom, B.; Wentzel-Larsen, T.; Grønberg, B.H.; Baracos, V.E.; Hjermstad, M.J.; Aass, N.; Bremnes, R.M.; Fløtten, Ø.; Jordhøy, M. Muscle mass and association to quality of life in non-small cell lung cancer patients. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017, 8, 759–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Montazeri, A.; Vahdaninia, M.; Harirchi, I.; Ebrahimi, M.; Khaleghi, F.; Jarvandi, S. Quality of life in patients with breast cancer before and after diagnosis: An eighteen-month follow-up study. BMC Cancer 2008, 8, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nickel, B.; Tan, T.; Cvejic, E.; Baade, P.; McLeod, D.S.A.; Pandeya, N.; Youl, P.; McCaffery, K.; Jordan, S. Health-related quality of life after diagnosis and treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer and association with type of surgical treatment. JAMA Otolaryngol.—Head Neck Surg. 2019, 145, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Nipp, R.D.; Fuchs, G.; El-Jawahri, A.; Mario, J.; Troschel, F.M.; Greer, J.A.; Gallagher, E.R.; Jackson, V.A.; Kambadakone, A.; Hong, T.S.; et al. Sarcopenia is associated with quality of life and depression in patients with advanced cancer. Oncologist 2018, 23, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Prado, C.M.; Purcell, S.A.; Alish, C.; Pereira, S.L.; Deutz, N.E.; Heyland, D.K.; Goodpaster, B.H.; Tappenden, K.A.; Heymsfield, S.B. Implications of low muscle mass across the continuum of care: A narrative review. Ann. Med. 2018, 50, 675–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ryan, A.M.; Sullivan, E.S. Impact of musculoskeletal degradation on cancer outcomes and strategies for management in clinical practice. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2021, 80, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Surov, A.; Pech, M.; Gessner, D.; Mikusko, M.; Fischer, T.; Alter, M.; Wienke, A. Low skeletal muscle mass is a predictor of treatment related toxicity in oncologic patients. A meta-analysis. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 40, 5298–5310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Barrera-Garcimartín, A.; Sánchez-Polán, M.; López-Martín, A.; Echarri-González, M.J.; Marquina, M.; Barakat, R.; Cordente-Martínez, C.; Refoyo, I. Effects of Physical Activity Interventions on Self-Perceived Health Status among Lung Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2023, 15, 5610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  15. Amin, A.M.; Khlidj, Y.; Abuelazm, M.; Ibrahim, A.A.; Tanashat, M.; Imran, M.; Nazir, A.; Shaikhkhalil, H.; Abdelazeem, B. The efficacy and safety of exercise regimens to mitigate chemotherapy cardiotoxicity: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiooncology 2024, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  16. Chen, X.; Shi, X.; Yu, Z.; Ma, X. High-intensity interval training in breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med. 2023, 12, 17692–17705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  17. Cheung, C.; Boocock, E.; Grande, A.J.; Maddocks, M. Exercise-based interventions for cancer cachexia: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Asia Pac. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2023, 10 (Suppl. S1), 100335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gupta, P.; Hodgman, C.F.; Schadler, K.L.; LaVoy, E.C. Effect of exercise on pancreatic cancer patients during treatment: A scoping review of the literature. Support. Care Cancer 2022, 30, 5669–5690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ikeda, T.; Toyama, S.; Harada, T.; Noma, K.; Hamada, M.; Kitagawa, T. Effectiveness of prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer: A systematic review. Esophagus 2024, 21, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Meneses-Echavez, J.F.; Loaiza-Betancur, A.F.; Díaz-López, V.; Echavarría-Rodríguez, A.M.; Triana-Reina, H.R. Prehabilitation programs for individuals with cancer: A systematic review of randomized-controlled trials. Syst. Rev. 2023, 12, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  21. Neuendorf, T.; Haase, R.; Schroeder, S.; Schumann, M.; Nitzsche, N. Effects of high-intensity interval training on functional performance and maximal oxygen uptake in comparison with moderate intensity continuous training in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Support. Care Cancer 2023, 31, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  22. Nguyen, T.; Tracy, K.; Ullah, A.; Karim, N.A. Effect of Exercise Training on Quality of Life, Symptoms, and Functional Status in Advanced-Stage Lung Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review. Clin. Pract. 2023, 13, 715–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  23. Peng, Y.; Zhang, K.; Wang, L.; Peng, Y.; Liu, Z.; Liu, L.; Luo, Y.; Gu, C. Effect of a telehealth-based exercise intervention on the physical activity of patients with breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asia Pac. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2022, 9, 100117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  24. Rosebrock, K.; Sinn, M.; Uzunoglu, F.G.; Bokemeyer, C.; Jensen, W.; Salchow, J. Effects of Exercise Training on Patient-Specific Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review. Cancers 2023, 15, 5899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Saggu, R.K.; Barlow, P.; Butler, J.; Ghaem-Maghami, S.; Hughes, C.; Lagergren, P.; McGregor, A.H.; Shaw, C.; Wells, M. Considerations for multimodal prehabilitation in women with gynaecological cancers: A scoping review using realist principles. BMC Women’s Health 2022, 22, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  26. Thomsen, S.N.; Lahart, I.M.; Thomsen, L.M.; Fridh, M.K.; Larsen, A.; Mau-Sørensen, M.; Bolam, K.A.; Fairman, C.M.; Christensen, J.F.; Simonsen, C. Harms of exercise training in patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished controlled trials. EClinicalMedicine 2023, 59, 101937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tsitkanou, S.; Murach, K.A.; Washington, T.A.; Greene, N.P. Exercise Counteracts the Deleterious Effects of Cancer Cachexia. Cancers 2022, 14, 2512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Wade-Mcbane, K.; King, A.; Urch, C.; Jeyasingh-Jacob, J.; Milne, A.; Le Boutillier, C. Prehabilitation in the lung cancer pathway: A scoping review. BMC Cancer 2023, 23, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  29. Alibhai, S.; Durbano, S.; Breunis, H.; Brandwein, J.; Timilshina, N.; Tomlinson, G.; Oh, P.; Culos-Reed, S. A phase II exercise randomized controlled trial for patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing induction chemotherapy. Leuk. Res. 2015, 39, 1178–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Allen, S.K.; Brown, V.; White, D.; King, D.; Hunt, J.; Wainwright, J.; Emery, A.; Hodge, E.; Kehinde, A.; Prabhu, P.; et al. Multimodal Prehabilitation During Neoadjuvant Therapy Prior to Esophagogastric Cancer Resection: Effect on Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test Performance, Muscle Mass and Quality of Life-A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2022, 29, 1839–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bade, B.C.; Gan, G.; Li, F.; Lu, L.; Tanoue, L.; Silvestri, G.A.; Irwin, M.L. Randomized trial of physical activity on quality of life and lung cancer biomarkers in patients with advanced stage lung cancer: A pilot study. BMC Cancer 2021, 21, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  32. Baumann, F.T.; Kraut, L.; Schüle, K.; Bloch, W.; Fauser, A.A. A controlled randomized study examining the effects of exercise therapy on patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010, 45, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Baumann, F.T.; Zopf, E.M.; Nykamp, E.; Kraut, L.; Schüle, K.; Elter, T.; Fauser, A.A.; Bloch, W. Physical activity for patients undergoing an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: Benefits of a moderate exercise intervention. Eur. J. Haematol. 2011, 87, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Capozzi, L.C.; McNeely, M.L.; Lau, H.Y.; Reimer, R.A.; Giese-Davis, J.; Fung, T.S.; Culos-Reed, S.N. Patient-reported outcomes, body composition, and nutrition status in patients with head and neck cancer: Results from an exploratory randomized controlled exercise trial. Cancer 2016, 122, 1185–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Christensen, J.F.; Simonsen, C.; Banck-Petersen, A.; Thorsen-Streit, S.; Herrstedt, A.; Djurhuus, S.S.; Egeland, C.; Mortensen, C.E.; Kofoed, S.C.; Kristensen, T.S.; et al. Safety and feasibility of preoperative exercise training during neoadjuvant treatment before surgery for adenocarcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction. BJS Open 2018, 3, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  36. Dhillon, H.M.; Bell, M.L.; van der Ploeg, H.P.; Turner, J.D.; Kabourakis, M.; Spencer, L.; Lewis, C.; Hui, R.; Blinman, P.; Clarke, S.J.; et al. Impact of physical activity on fatigue and quality of life in people with advanced lung cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, 1889–1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Edbrooke, L.; Aranda, S.; Granger, C.L.; McDonald, C.F.; Krishnasamy, M.; Mileshkin, L.; Clark, R.A.; Gordon, I.; Irving, L.; Denehy, L.; et al. Multidisciplinary home-based rehabilitation in inoperable lung cancer: A randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2019, 74, 787–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Egegaard, T.; Rohold, J.; Lillelund, C.; Persson, G.; Quist, M. Pre-radiotherapy daily exercise training in non-small cell lung cancer: A feasibility study. Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother. 2019, 24, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  39. Forget, F.; Frusch, N.; Trokay, L.; Archen, C.; Courtois, A.C. A randomized trial comparing best supportive care (BSC) versus multimodality approach (MA) to fight against cachexia in patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32 (Suppl. Sl), e20655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Grote, M.; Maihöfer, C.; Weigl, M.; Davies-Knorr, P.; Belka, C. Progressive resistance training in cachectic head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy: A randomized controlled pilot feasibility trial. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 13, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hall, C.C.; Skipworth, R.J.; Blackwood, H.; Brown, D.; Cook, J.; Diernberger, K.; Dixon, E.; Gibson, V.; Graham, C.; Hall, P.; et al. A randomized, feasibility trial of an exercise and nutrition-based rehabilitation programme (ENeRgy) in people with cancer. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2021, 12, 2034–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  42. Hornsby, W.E.; Douglas, P.S.; West, M.J.; Kenjale, A.A.; Lane, A.R.; Schwitzer, E.R.; Ray, K.A.; Herndon, J.E., 2nd; Coan, A.; Gutierrez, A.; et al. Safety and efficacy of aerobic training in operable breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A phase II randomized trial. Acta Oncol. 2014, 53, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hwang, C.-L.; Yu, C.-J.; Shih, J.-Y.; Yang, P.-C.; Wu, Y.-T. Effects of exercise training on exercise capacity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving targeted therapy. Support. Care Cancer 2012, 20, 3169–3177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kamel, F.H.; Basha, M.A.; Alsharidah, A.S.; Salama, A.B. Resistance Training Impact on Mobility, Muscle Strength and Lean Mass in Pancreatic Cancer Cachexia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2020, 34, 1391–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lee, K.; Kang, I.; Mack, W.J.; Mortimer, J.; Sattler, F.; Salem, G.; Dieli-Conwright, C.M. Feasibility of high intensity interval training in patients with breast Cancer undergoing anthracycline chemotherapy: A randomized pilot trial. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  46. Lee, K.; Norris, M.K.; Wang, E.; Dieli-Conwright, C.M. Effect of high-intensity interval training on patient-reported outcomes and physical function in women with breast cancer receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Support. Care Cancer 2021, 29, 6863–6870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Li, L.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Li, S. Clinical Study of Preoperative Prehabilitation Synchronized Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer Patients. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2024, 2024, 9494994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moug, S.J.; Mutrie, N.; Barry, S.J.E.; Mackay, G.; Steele, R.J.C.; Boachie, C.; Buchan, C.; Anderson, A.S. Prehabilitation is feasible in patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and may minimize physical deterioration: Results from the REx trial. Colorectal Dis. 2019, 21, 548–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Moug, S.J.; Barry, S.J.E.; Maguire, S.; Johns, N.; Dolan, D.; Steele, R.J.C.; Buchan, C.; Mackay, G.; Anderson, A.S.; Mutrie, N. Does prehabilitation modify muscle mass in patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy? A subanalysis from the REx randomised controlled trial. Tech. Coloproctol. 2020, 24, 959–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  50. Ngo-Huang, A.T.D.; Parker, N.H.; Xiao, L.-C.; Schadler, K.L.; Petzel, M.Q.B.; Prakash, L.R.; Kim, M.P.; Tzeng, C.-W.D.; Lee, J.E.; Ikoma, N.; et al. Effects of a Pragmatic Home-based Exercise Program Concurrent with Neoadjuvant Therapy on Physical Function of Patients With Pancreatic Cancer: The PancFit Randomized Clinical Trial. Ann. Surg. 2023, 278, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  51. Piraux, E.; Reychler, G.; Vancraeynest, D.; Geets, X.; Léonard, D.; Caty, G. High-intensity aerobic interval training and resistance training are feasible in rectal cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy: A feasibility randomized controlled study. Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother. 2022, 27, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  52. Quist, M.; Langer, S.W.; Lillelund, C.; Winther, L.; Laursen, J.H.; Christensen, K.B.; Rørth, M.; Adamsen, L. Effects of an exercise intervention for patients with advanced inoperable lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy: A randomized clinical trial. Lung Cancer 2020, 145, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Reljic, D.; Herrmann, H.J.; Jakobs, B.; Dieterich, W.; Mougiakakos, D.; Neurath, M.F.; Zopf, Y. Feasibility, Safety, and Preliminary Efficacy of Very Low-Volume Interval Training in Advanced Cancer Patients. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2022, 54, 1817–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  54. Rutkowska, A.; Jastrzebski, D.; Rutkowski, S.; Żebrowska, A.; Stanula, A.; Szczegielniak, J.; Ziora, D.; Casaburi, R. Exercise Training in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer During In-Hospital Chemotherapy Treatment: A randomized controlled trial. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. Prev. 2019, 39, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  55. Rutkowska, A.; Rutkowski, S.; Wrzeciono, A.; Czech, O.; Szczegielniak, J.; Jastrzębski, D. Short-Term Changes in Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer during In-Hospital Exercise Training and Chemotherapy Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  56. Solheim, T.S.; Laird, B.J.; Balstad, T.R.; Stene, G.B.; Bye, A.; Johns, N.; Pettersen, C.H.; Fallon, M.; Fayers, P.; Fearon, K.; et al. A randomized phase II feasibility trial of a multimodal intervention for the management of cachexia in lung and pancreatic cancer. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017, 8, 778–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Steindorf, K.; Clauss, D.; Tjaden, C.; Hackert, T.; Herbolsheimer, F.; Bruckner, T.; Schneider, L.; Ulrich, C.M.; Wiskemann, J. Quality of Life, Fatigue, and Sleep Problems in Pancreatic Cancer Patients—A Randomized Trial on the Effects of Exercise. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2019, 116, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Storck, L.J.; Ruehlin, M.; Gaeumann, S.; Gisi, D.; Schmocker, M.; Meffert, P.J.; Imoberdorf, R.; Pless, M.; Ballmer, P.E. Effect of a leucine-rich supplement in combination with nutrition and physical exercise in advanced cancer patients: A randomized controlled intervention trial. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 39, 3637–3644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Uster, A.; Ruehlin, M.; Mey, S.; Gisi, D.; Knols, R.; Imoberdorf, R.; Pless, M.; Ballmer, P.E. Effects of nutrition and physical exercise intervention in palliative cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 37, 1202–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vanderbyl, B.L.; Mayer, M.J.; Nash, C.; Tran, A.T.; Windholz, T.; Swanson, T.; Kasymjanova, G.; Jagoe, R.T. A comparison of the effects of medical Qigong and standard exercise therapy on symptoms and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. Support. Care Cancer 2017, 25, 1749–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Wiskemann, J.; Clauss, D.; Tjaden, C.; Hackert, T.; Schneider, L.; Ulrich, C.M.; Steindorf, K. Progressive Resistance Training to Impact Physical Fitness and Body Weight in Pancreatic Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pancreas 2019, 48, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wochner, R.; Clauss, D.; Nattenmüller, J.; Tjaden, C.; Bruckner, T.; Kauczor, H.-U.; Hackert, T.; Wiskemann, J.; Steindorf, K. Impact of progressive resistance training on CT quantified muscle and adipose tissue compartments in pancreatic cancer patients. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0242785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  63. Xu, Y.-J.; Cheng, J.C.-H.; Lee, J.-M.; Huang, P.-M.; Huang, G.-H.; Chen, C.C.-H. A Walk-and-Eat Intervention Improves Outcomes for Patients With Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy. Oncologist 2015, 20, 1216–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  64. Zhang, L.-L.; Wang, S.-Z.; Chen, H.-L.; Yuan, A.-Z. Tai Chi Exercise for Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients with Lung Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Pain. Symptom Manag. 2016, 51, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Zylstra, J.; Whyte, G.P.; Beckmann, K.; Pate, J.; Santaolalla, A.; Gervais-Andre, L.; Russell, B.; Maisey, N.; Waters, J.; Tham, G.; et al. Exercise prehabilitation during neoadjuvant chemotherapy may enhance tumour regression in oesophageal cancer: Results from a prospective non-randomised trial. Br. J. Sports Med. 2022, 56, 402–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Borg, G.A. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1982, 14, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Campbell, K.L.; Winters-Stone, K.M.; Wiskemann, J.; May, A.M.; Schwartz, A.L.; Courneya, K.S.; Zucker, D.S.; Matthews, C.E.; Ligibel, J.A.; Gerber, L.H.; et al. Exercise guidelines for cancer survivors: Consensus statement from international multidisciplinary roundtable. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019, 51, 2375–2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ligibel, J.A.; Bohlke, K.; May, A.M.; Clinton, S.K.; Demark-Wahnefried, W.; Gilchrist, S.C.; Irwin, M.L.; Late, M.; Mansfield, S.; Marshall, T.F.; et al. Exercise, diet, and weight management during cancer treatment: ASCO guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 40, 2491–2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Piercy, K.L.; Troiano, R.P.; Ballard, R.M.; Carlson, S.A.; Fulton, J.E.; Galuska, D.A.; George, S.M.; Olson, R.D. The physical activity guidelines for americans. JAMA 2018, 320, 2020–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schmitz, K.H.; Courneya, K.S.; Matthews, C.; Demark-Wahnefried, W.; Galvão, D.A.; Pinto, B.M.; Irwin, M.L.; Wolin, K.Y.; Segal, R.J.; Lucia, A.; et al. American College of Sports Medicine roundtable on exercise guidelines for cancer survivors. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2020, 42, 1409–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Schmidt, M.E.; Wiskemann, J.; Ulrich, C.M.; Schneeweiss, A.; Steindorf, K. Self-reported physical activity behavior of breast cancer survivors during and after adjuvant therapy: 12 months follow up of two randomized exercise intervention trials. Acta Oncol. 2017, 56, 618–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Fassier, P.; Zelek, L.; Bachmann, P.; Touillaud, M.; Druesne-Pecollo, N.; Partula, V.; Hercberg, S.; Galan, P.; Cohen, P.; Hoarau, H.; et al. Sociodemographic and economic factors are associated with weight gain between before and after cancer diagnosis: Results from the prospective population-based NutriNet-Santé cohort. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 54640–54653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  73. Grande, A.J.; Silva, V.; Neto, L.S.; Basmage, J.P.T.; Peccin, M.S.; Maddocks, M. Exercise for cancer cachexia in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2021, 3, CD010804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Garriguet, D.; Tremblay, S.; Colley, R.C. Comparison of Physical Activity Adult Questionnaire results with accelerometer data. Health Rep. 2015, 26, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  75. Fukuoka, Y.; Haskell, W.; Vittinghoff, E. New insights into discrepancies between self-reported and accelerometer-measured moderate to vigorous physical activity among women—The mPED trial. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Prince, S.A.; Adamo, K.B.; Hamel, M.E.; Hardt, J.; Gorber, S.C.; Tremblay, M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2008, 5, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  77. Schmitz, K.H.; Holtzman, J.; Courneya, K.S.; Mâsse, L.C.; Duval, S.; Kane, R. Controlled physical activity trials in cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2005, 14, 1588–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Speck, R.M.; Courneya, K.S.; Mâsse, L.C.; Duval, S.; Schmitz, K.H. An update of controlled physical activity trials in cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Cancer Surviv. 2010, 4, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. McAuley, E.; Blissmer, B.; Katula, J.; Duncan, T.E.; Mihalko, S.L. Physical activity, self-esteem, and self-efficacy relationships in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Ann. Behav. Med. 2010, 22, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Adamsen, L.; Stage, M.; Laursen, J.; Rørth, M.; Quist, M. Exercise and Relaxation Intervention for Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer: A Qualitative Feasibility Study. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2012, 22, 804–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Buffart, L.M.; Kalter, J.; Sweegers, M.G.; Courneya, K.S.; Newton, R.U.; Aaronson, N.K.; Jacobsen, P.B.; May, A.M.; Galvão, D.A.; Chinapaw, M.J.; et al. Effects and Moderators of Exercise on Quality of Life and Physical Function in Patients with Cancer: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 34 RCTs. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2017, 52, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Kuehr, L.; Wiskemann, J.; Abel, U.; Ulrich, C.M.; Hummler, S.; Thomas, M. Exercise in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2014, 46, 656–663.23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Quist, M.; Rørth, M.; Langer, S.; Jones, L.W.; Laursen, J.H.; Pappot, H.; Adamsen, L. Safety and feasibility of a combined exercise intervention for inoperable lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: A pilot study. Lung Cancer 2012, 75, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sweegers, M.G.; Altenburg, T.M.; Chinapaw, M.J.; Kalter, J.; Verdonck-de Leeuw, I.M.; Courneya, K.S.; Buffart, L.M. Which exercise prescriptions improve quality of life and physical function in patients with cancer during and following treatment? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Wong, J.N.; McAuley, E.; Trinh, L. Physical activity programming and counselling preferences among cancer survivors: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Amireault, S.; Baier, J.M.; Spencer, J.R. Physical activity preferences among older adults: A systematic review. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2018, 27, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Pinto, B.M.; Rabin, C.; Dunsiger, S. Home-based exercise among cancer survivors: Adherence and its predictors. Psychooncology 2009, 18, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  88. Arrieta, H.; Astrugue, C.; Regueme, S.; Durrieu, J.; Maillard, A.; Rieger, A.; Terrebonne, E.; Laurent, C.; Maget, B.; Servent, V.; et al. Effects of a physical activity programme to prevent physical performance decline in onco-geriatric patients: A randomized multicentre trial. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2019, 10, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  89. Wolin, K.Y.; Schwartz, A.L.; Matthews, C.E.; Courneya, K.S.; Schmitz, K.H. Implementing the exercise guidelines for cancer survivors. J. Support. Oncol. 2012, 10, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Samuel, S.R.; Maiya, G.A.; Babu, A.S.; Vidyasagar, M. Effect of exercise training on functional capacity & quality of life in head & neck cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy. Indian J. Med. Res. 2013, 137, 515–520. [Google Scholar]
  91. Adamsen, L.; Quist, M.; Andersen, C.; Møller, T.; Herrstedt, J.; Kronborg, D.; Rørth, M. Effect of a multimodal high intensity exercise intervention in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: Randomised controlled trial. Bmj 2009, 339, b3410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Henke, C.C.; Cabri, J.; Fricke, L.; Pankow, W.; Kandilakis, G.; Feyer, P.C.; de Wit, M. Strength and endurance training in the treatment of lung cancer patients in stages IIIA/IIIB/IV. Support. Care Cancer 2014, 22, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Jensen, W.; Baumann, F.T.; Stein, A.; Bloch, W.; Bokemeyer, C.; de Wit, M.; Oechsle, K. Exercise training in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer undergoing palliative chemotherapy: A pilot study. Support. Care Cancer 2014, 22, 1797–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Toohey, K.; Pumpa, K.; McKune, A.; Cooke, J.; DuBose, K.D.; Yip, D.; Craft, P.; Semple, S. Does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors? World J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Toohey, K.; Pumpa, K.L.; Arnolda, L.; Cooke, J.; Yip, D.; Craft, P.S.; Semple, S. A pilot study examining the effects of low-volume high-intensity interval training and continuous low to moderate intensity training on quality of life, functional capacity and cardiovascular risk factors in cancer survivors. PeerJ 2016, 4, e2613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  96. Mugele, H.; Freitag, N.; Wilhelmi, J.; Yang, Y.; Cheng, S.; Bloch, W.; Schumann, M. High-intensity interval training in the therapy and aftercare of cancer patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J. Cancer Surviv. 2019, 13, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Palma, S.; Hasenoehrl, T.; Jordakieva, G.; Ramazanova, D.; Crevenna, R. High-intensity interval training in the prehabilitation of cancer patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support. Care Cancer 2021, 29, 1781–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  98. Mijwel, S.; Backman, M.; Bolam, K.A.; Jervaeus, A.; Sundberg, C.J.; Margolin, S.; Browall, M.; Rundqvist, H.; Wengström, Y. Adding high-intensity interval training to conventional training modalities: Optimizing health-related outcomes during chemotherapy for breast cancer: The OptiTrain randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2018, 168, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Moghadam, B.H.; Golestani, F.; Bagheri, R.; Cheraghloo, N.; Eskandari, M.; Wong, A.; Nordvall, M.; Suzuki, K.; Pournemati, P. The Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training vs. Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training on Inflammatory Markers, Body Composition, and Physical Fitness in Overweight/Obese Survivors of Breast Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Cancers 2021, 13, 4386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Weiss, M.D.; Wasdell, M.B.; Bomben, M.M.; Rea, K.J.; Freeman, R.D. Effects of high-intensity interval training on cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, and quality of life in overweight and obese survivors of breast cancer. Rehabil. Oncol. 2021, 39, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Haug, M.; Schwappacher, R.; Pollmann, C.; Ritter, P.; Michael, M.; Hermann, H.J.; Grützmann, R.; Mittelstädt, A.; Neurath, M.F.; Zopf, Y.; et al. Effects of Adjuvant Exercise and Nutrition Therapy on Muscle Fibre Biomechanics in Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients. Cancers 2024, 16, 1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  102. Sanft, T.; Harrigan, M.; McGowan, C.; Cartmel, B.; Zupa, M.; Li, F.-Y.; Ferrucci, L.M.; Puklin, L.; Cao, A.; Nguyen, T.H.; et al. Randomized Trial of Exercise and Nutrition on Chemotherapy Completion and Pathologic Complete Response in Women With Breast Cancer: The Lifestyle, Exercise, and Nutrition Early After Diagnosis Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 41, 5285–5295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
Table 1. (a) Details of the RCTs in non-malnourished cancer patients. (b) Details of the RCTs in malnourished cancer patients.
Table 1. (a) Details of the RCTs in non-malnourished cancer patients. (b) Details of the RCTs in malnourished cancer patients.
(a)
AuthorPrimary
Endpoint		Patient
Population		Ns/Nrs/PsW
K		Exercise
Intervention		Measured Outcomes
Baumann [32] (2010)ET, strength, QoLN 64; m/f 1.3; 44 yrs.; pts undergoing HSCTBMI 24; PS 903AT 20 min/dEORTC QLQ-C30, ET watts and time
Baumann [33] (2011)ET, strength, lung function, QoLN 33; m/f 0.9; 32 yrs.; leukemia/lymphoid tumorsBMI 242.2ET 20–30 min/d., Borg intensity ‘slightly strenuous’/‘strenuous’.Strength Digimax2000—load cell; forced vital capacity; EORTC-QLQ C30
Hwang [43] (2012)Exercise capacityN 24; m/f 1; 60 yrs.; lungBMI 228HIIT (80% VO2 peak, ≥3 session/wk. and RE ≥2 sessions/wk. (30–40 min/d)VO2 peak, EORTC QLQC30, muscle strength, endurance
Hornsby [42] (2014)Safety, efficacyN 20; f 49 yrs.; breastBMI 2912AT (60–100% of VO2 peak) 3 sessions/wk.CPET, FACT-B
Alibhai [29] (2015)QoL, fatigue, fitnessN 81; m/f 1.2; 58 yrs.; leukemiaBMI 27; ECOG 0–15mod-intensity (5 d/wk., 30–60 min/session)Global QoL, FACT-F, 6MWT distance
Capozzi [34] * (2016)Optimal timing for initiation of the 12-wk. interventionN 60; m/f 4.4; 56 yrs.; head neckBMI 27; LBM 57 kg
PG-SGA 6.3		12–24short, mod intensity warm-up followed by 2 sets of 8 reps, 8 to 10 RM for 10 exercisesHGST, 6 min walk, 30 s to stand, sit, and reach, flexibility, FAACT, FENSI-22, DEXA
Dhillon [36] (2017)FatigueN 111; m/f 1,2; 64 yrs. lungBMI 26,2; ECOG ≤28Sessions ≈1 h:45 min PA; 15 min behavior support. PA was predominantly aerobic.FACT-F, EORTC-QLQ-C30, physical or functional status scores
Uster [59] (2017)Physical performance, NS, QoL.N 58; m/f 2.2; 63 yrs.; lung and GIBMI 25.8; BW 72.3 kg.; PS ≤ 2; QoL 61.6
NRS ≤ 2 in 70% pts		1260 min session, 2/wk.; strength training (60–80% 1-RM) in 2 sets of 10 rep.; balance trainingEORTC QoLQ-3.0, PS,
HGST, 6 min walk test, TSTS,
1-RM leg press,
3 d dietary record, BW, BIA
Vanderbyl [60] (2017)Anxiety, depression, QoL.N 24; m/f 1.4; 64 yrs. GI, lungPS 0–11245 min walking sessions vs. ET and strength at 60–70% max heart rate or 2–4 METs.HADS score, Fact-G, 6MWT
Zhang [64] (2017)FatigueN 91; m/f 3, 63 yrs., lungECOG most 0–112Tai-Chi exerciseMFSI-SF
Christensen [35] (2019)Safety and feasibilityN 50, m/f 9; 65 yrs.; esophagusBMI 28975 min HIIT, 2/wk.HGST, BIA, CT scan, DEXA, FACT-E
Egegaard [38] (2019)FeasibilityN 15; m/f 2; 64 yrs.; lungBMI 24720 min mod/HIIT aerobic ×5/wk.VO2 peak, 6MWD, FEV1, FACT-L, HADS
Lee [45,46] (2019/2020)FeasibilityN 30, 47 yrs., breastBMI 32820 min HIIT, 3/wk.VO2 max, FACT-B, MFI-20, FFMQ-15, TUG, TSTS), SCT, 6MWT
Rutkowska [55] (2019)Impact of exercise trainingN 30; m/f 9; 60 yrs.; lungBMI 25; ECOG 1–24cycle ergometer (20–30 min at 30–80% of peak work rate), treadmill (40–70% of the 1-RM, Nordic walking (45 min)Up and go, chair stand, arm curl
Moug [48,49] (2019/2020)FeasibilityN 48; m/f 2.6; 66 yrs.; rectumBMI 20–30 in 77% pts14daily step count by 3000 above their baseline valueStep count, BDI-II, FACT-C, PANAS, EORTC-QLQ CR29/C30
Quist [52] (2020)VO2 peakN 218; m/f 0.9; 64 yrs.; lungBMI 24; ECOG 0–1 in 90% pts122/wk. warm-up (10 min, 60–80% HRmax), strength training (3 sets of 5–8 rep. 70–90% of 1 RM)VO2 peak, muscle function, 6 min walk
Storck [58] (2020)Physical functionN 52; m/f 1.3; 63 yrs.; various tumorsBMI 25.8; PS 1–2; NRS 1–2 in >80%12AT, RE, coordination training, intensity Borg 4–6, ×3/wk.EORTC QLQ-C30, BFI, HGST, 60 s sit-to-stand, timed up and go, SPPB
Wochner [62] (2020)Muscle and adipose tissue compartmentsN 53; m/f1.6; 62 yrs.; pancreasBMI 23.9 248 sessions (2–3 sets/8–12 rep (14–16 Borg scale)CT scan, isokinetic dynamometer
Bade [31] (2021)PA, QoL, depression
Scores, biomarkers		N 40; m/f 3; 65 yrs.; lungECOG 0–112<150 min/wk. of mod. or 75 min/wk. of vig. intensity PAFitbit® Flex2, EORTCQLQ-C30; MAQ
Rutkowska [54] (2021)QoLN 26; m/f 13; 61 yrs.; lungBMI 23; ECOG 0–1230 min on cycle ergometer/treadmill at 30% to 80% of peak work, weighted exercise eat 40% to 70% of the 1-RM),Nordic walking (45 min)SF-36, FACT-L
Allen [30] (2022)Anaerobic threshold at cardiopulmonary exercise testingN 54; m/f 5.7; 64 yrs.; esophagogastric BMI 27.915AT (2 sessions/wk.; 60 min/d; mod intensity), RE ×3/wk.; 60 min/d; mod intensity)VO2 peak, HGST, skeletal muscle mass, EORTC QLQ-C30
Piraux [51] (2022)FeasibilityN 18; m/f 2.6; 62 yrs.; rectumBMI 235HIIT ≥ 85% of max HR (220—age) vs. RE (1–3 sets of 8–12 rep of 8 ex at 4–6 (mod. Borg scale) vs. UCfatigue, health-related QoL
Reljic [53] (2022)Feasibility, safety, efficacyN 24, m/f 1.1; 55 yrs., variousBMI 24; KI 7312HIIT (80–95% HR peak): 2/wk. for 12 wk., vs. light mobilization exFACIT, EORTC QLQ-C30, KI
Zylstra [65] (2022)Chemotherapy responseN 42: m/f 6; 65 yrs.; esophagusBMI 268combined AT and strength training, mod intensity (4–5 of a 0–10 perceived exertion scale)CT scan
Li [47] (2024)Functional ability and nutritional statusN 121; m/f 2.1; 86% < 65 yrs; stomach21% BMI ≥ 247–9AT 30 min moderate
intensity (12–13 of Borg score ranging 6 to 20) × 3 d/wk.; RE 3 sets of 8–12 rep for 8 muscle groups (5–6 on a 10-point scale)		6MWD
(b)
AuthorPrimary
Endpoint		Patient
Population		NS/NRS/PSWkExercise
Intervention		Outcome Measures
Forget [39] (2014)Cachexia managementN 54; various T; pts at high risk for cachexia BMI 24; WL ≥ 5% in the prior 6 mos.; PS: 0–212Daily physical exerciseBW; HGST; MAMC; QLQ C-30; PG-SGA
Xu [63] (2015)Walking capacity, NSN 56, m/f 7; 60 yrs. esophagusdysphagic4–53 times/wk., 20 min, at maximal HR formula: ([220-age] × desired intensity of 60%).6MWT, HGST, BIA, BW
Solheim [56] (2017)Feasibility, safetyN 46; m/f 1.5; 61 yrs.; lung, pancreasWL 5.6% in 6 mos.6Combined home-based AT and REL3 CT scan, HGST, 6MWT, PG-SGA, FSS
Grote [40] (2018)FeasibilityN 20; m/f 3; 61 yrs.; head neckWL 7.1% 83 (30 min) sessions/wk., 8–12 rep. last set at submaximal one-rep BIA, MFI; FAACT; 6MWT
Edbrooke [37] (2019)Change in functional exercise capacity (6MWD)N 92; m/f 1.2; 64 yrs.; lungCachexia 36%, ± frailty 90%8AT (at 4 of Borg Scale), RE (8–10 rep., 2–3 sets,
mod intensity), 2–3 sessions/wk.		BREQ-2; FACT-L; HRQoL; PA; PAAI.
Wiskemann [61] (2019)Feasibility, effectivity on muscle strengthN 25; m/f 1.2; 67 yrs.; pancreasBMI 23.4, 44.4% pts with WL ≥ 10% in 6 mos.24At week 5, ex increased till 8 per session (60 min): 3 sets with 8–12 rep (mod-vig intensity (60–80% 1-RM).Isokinetic and handheld
dynamometer, CPET, 6MWD
Steindorf [57] (2019)Physical function at 6 mos.N 47; m/f 1.2; 60 yrs.; pancreasBMI 23.7; 53.1% pts with WL ≥ 10% in 6 mos.24Till 8 ex/session 2–3 sets with 8–12 rep. (60–80% 1-RM), 14–16 (Borg Scale)EORTC QLQ-C30,
EORTC-PAN26, MFI
Kamel [44]
(2020)		Mobility, muscle
strength, LBM		N 40; m/f 1.8; 52 yrs.; pancreasBMI 21.1; WL > 5% in 6 mos. or >2% if BMI < 20 12At wk. 5, 8 ex/session (3 sets with 8 to 12 rep and mod-high frequency (60–80% 1-RM).Chair rise time: 400-m walk performance; maximum isokinetic peak torque; DEXA
Hall [41] (2021)Feasibility of exercise, nutrition programN 45; m/f 1.4; 78 yrs.; various tumorsBMI 26; WL 5% in 6 mos.8AT and RE; 60 min ex/wk., mod intensity (Borg scale 3–4)2-min walk test, timed up and go, daily step count
Life space assessment, EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, BW
Ngo-Huang [50] (2023)Physical functionN 151; m/f 1.5; 66 yrs.; pancreasNRS 7; sarcopenia 51%22≥30 min mod AT ≥ 3/wk. plus ≥2 RE/wk.6MWD, 5× tSTS, arm curl test, HGST, GSLTPAQ, PROMIS, FACT-Hep, CT scan
AT: aerobic training; BDI-II: Becks Depression Inventory; BIA: bioelectrical impedance analysis; BIF: brief fatigue inventory; BW: body weight; CFR: cancer-related fatigue; CPET: cardiopulmonary exercise testing; d:day; DEXA: dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; EORTC-PAN26: pancreas-specific module; ET: endurance training; ex: exercise; FAACT: Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy; FACT-B: functional assessment of cancer therapy–breast; FACT-E: functional assessment of cancer therapy–esophagus; FACT-Hep: functional assessment of cancer therapy–hepatobiliary; FACT-L: functional assessment of cancer therapy–lung; FEV1: pulmonary function; FFMQ-15: Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire; FSS: fatigue severity scale; HADS: anxiety and depression; HGST: hand grip strength; HIIT: high intensity interval training; HR: heart rate; KI: Karnofsky index; LBM: lean body mass; MAMC: mid-upper muscle circumference; MFI: Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; mos.: months; med: median; MAQ: Modifiable Activity Questionnaire; Mod.: moderate; NRS: nutritional risk score 2002; NS: nutritional status; PA: physical activity; PANAS: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PG-SGA: patient-generated Subjective Global Assessment; PMW: predicted maximal workload; PS: performance status; QoL: quality of life; RE: resistance exercise; Rep: repetitions; RM: maximum repetition; rep: repetitions; SCT: stair climb test; SMD; skeletal muscle density; SMI: skeletal muscle index; SPPB: short physical performance battery; T: tumors; TUG: timed up and go; TSTS: timed sit-to-stand test; UC: usual care; Vig: vigorous; WK.: weeks; WL: weight loss; VO2 peak: peak oxygen consumption; 6MWT: 6-Minute Walk Test. * Patients randomized for exercise intervention during or after radiation therapy. BREQ-2: Behavioral Regulation of Exercise Questionnaire; ∆: statistical difference; GSLTPAQ: Godin–Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire; HRQoL: functional assessment of cancer therapy–lung; one RM: one-repetition maximum; PAAI: Physical Activity Assessment Inventory; PROMIS: patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System.
Table 2. (a) Results of the RCTs in non-malnourished cancer patients. (b) Results of the RCTS in malnourished cancer patients.
Table 2. (a) Results of the RCTs in non-malnourished cancer patients. (b) Results of the RCTS in malnourished cancer patients.
(a)
AuthorOncol TherapyNutr.
Supp		Muscle FunctionQoLNutr
Status		LBM
Baumann [32] (2010)CTnr↑ ET↑ Global QoL, physical functioningnrnr
Baumann [33] (2011)CTnr↑ ETQoL no ∆BW no ∆nr
Hwang [43] (2012)TAnrNo ∆↑ fatiguenrnr
Hornsby [42] (2014)CTnr↑ VO2 peakFACT-B no ∆nrnr
Alibhai [29] (2015)Induction CTnr↑ MS, time chair standQoL, fatigue no ∆nrnr
Capozzi [34] (2016)RT ± surgery ± CTnrnrfitness, QoL no ∆PG-SGA no ∆No ∆
Dhillon [36] (2017)CT or TABoth armsNo ∆No ∆No ∆nr
Uster [59] (2017)yes9–10 g prot, 150–200 kcal 2/wk.No ∆QoL no ∆Nutritional status no ∆PA no ∆
Vanderbyl [60] (2017)CTnr↑ ET, 6MWT↑ weakness nrnr
Zhang [64] (2017)CTnrnr↑ MFSI-SF general, physical, vigor scoresnrnr
Christensen [35] (2019)CT neo-adj.nr↑ peak power, ↑ muscle strengthnrnrNo ∆
Egegaard [38] (2019)CTnrNo ∆No ∆nrnr
Lee (46,47) (2019/2020)CTnr↑ VO2 max, SCT, 6MWTNo ∆nrnr
Rutkowska [55] (2019)CTnr↑ up and gonrnrnr
Moug [48,49] (2019/2020)RT, CT neo-adj.nrNo ∆No ∆nrNo ∆
Quist [52] (2020)CTnrmuscle function↑ FACT social well-being, anxiety, depressionnrnr
Storck [58] (2020)CTLeucine suppl.
Prot 1.2 g/kg		↑ HGSTfatigue no ∆No ∆No ∆
Wochner [62] (2020)CT ± surgerynrnrnrB compartment no ∆No ∆
Bade [31] (2021)CT, IMnr↑ PAc↑ EORTC functional domainnrnr
Rutkowska [54] (2021)CTnrnr↑ physical well-beingnrnr
Allen [30] (2022)CT neo-adj.yesNo ∆↑ EORTC QLQ-C30nrnr
Piraux [51] (2022)CT RT neo-adj.nrnr↑ RES vs. HIITNo ∆nr
Reljic [53] (2022)anticancer treatments25–30 kcal and >1.0 g prot/kg/dnrnrno ∆no ∆
Zylstra [65] (2022)CT neo-adj.nrnrnrnr↑
Li [47] (2024)CT neo-adj.whey protein (1.2–1.5 g/kg ideal BW) and ONS (400–900 Kcal)↑ 6MWDnrnrnr
(b)
Forget [39] (2014)RT + CTmirtazapine 30 mg/dweekly dietician advicenrHGST, EORTC QLQ-30, no ∆PG-SGA, BMI no ∆No ∆
Xu [63] (2015)RT + CTnrweekly dietician advice↑ walk distance, HGSnr↑ BW↑
Solheim [56] (2017)PolyCTCelecoxib 300 mg/d, EPA 2 g/dONS: 559 Kcal, 29 g AA/dNo ∆Fatigue no ∆PG-SGA, BW no ∆No ∆
Grote [40] (2018)RT ± CTnrTF 55% of ptsnrFatigue no ∆nrNo ∆
Edbrooke [37] (2019)CT, RT, TTnrnrNo ∆↑ HRQoL symptom level nrnr
Wiskemann [61] (2019)CTnrnrnr↑ Physical functionBW no ∆No ∆
Steindorf [57] (2019)CT adj/neoadj.nrnrnr↑ QoL, ↑ Physical functionnrnr
Kamel [44] (2020)CTnrnr↑ mobility: ↑ 400 m walk; performance; ↑ chair rise; ↑ MS; ↑ peak torquenrnr↑
Hall [41] (2021)Incurable ptsnr660 kcal, 29 g prot./daystep count, Timed up and go test, 2 min walk test no ∆aPG-SGA score, AveS score no ∆BW no ∆nr
Ngo-Huang [50] (2023)Neoadj. ther.nr15–25 g prot. within 1 h after strengthening ex.↑ strength trainingFACT-Hep, PROMIS no ∆nr↑
↑: increase; ACT: anticachectic drugs; B: body; BW: body weight; CT: chemotherapy; CT adj.: chemotherapy adjuvant; CT neoadj.: chemotherapy neoadjuvant; ∆: difference; d: day; ET: endurance training; HGS: handgrip strength; HIIT: high intensity interval training; IM: immunotherapy; LBM: lean body mass; MS: muscle strength; nr: not reported; nsa: no statistical analysis; NUTR STATUS: nutritional status; NUTR SUPP: nutritional support; PA: phase angle; Pac: physical activity; PG-SGA: Patient-Generated-Subjective Global Assessment (0–≥9); prot: protein; QoL: quality of life; RES: resistance training; RT: radiotherapy; SCT: stair climb test; TA: targeted agents; TF: tube feeding; VO2 peak: peak oxygen consumption; 6MWT: 6-Minute Walk Test; HGST: handgrip strength test; HRQoL: health-related quality of life; TT: targeted therapy.
Table 3. Outcomes by weeks of exercise.
Table 3. Outcomes by weeks of exercise.
OutcomeWeeks, n
Muscle function ↑8.9
no ∆9.8
Quality of life ↑11.6
no ∆10.1
Lean body mass ↑10.2
no ∆11.6
↑: positive response; ∆: difference.
Table 4. Dietary supplementation and outcomes.
Table 4. Dietary supplementation and outcomes.
SupplementationMuscle FunctionQuality Of LifeLean Body Mass
yes↑ 2/4 (50%)↑ 0/5 (0)↑ 0/3 (0)
nono ∆ 2/4 (50%)↑ 3/3 (100%)↑ 1/5 (20%)
↑: positive response; ∆: difference.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bozzetti, F. Potential Benefits from Physical Exercise in Advanced Cancer Patients Undergoing Systemic Therapy? A Narrative Review of the Randomized Clinical Trials. Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31, 7631-7646. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31120563

AMA Style

Bozzetti F. Potential Benefits from Physical Exercise in Advanced Cancer Patients Undergoing Systemic Therapy? A Narrative Review of the Randomized Clinical Trials. Current Oncology. 2024; 31(12):7631-7646. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31120563

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bozzetti, Federico. 2024. "Potential Benefits from Physical Exercise in Advanced Cancer Patients Undergoing Systemic Therapy? A Narrative Review of the Randomized Clinical Trials" Current Oncology 31, no. 12: 7631-7646. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31120563

APA Style

Bozzetti, F. (2024). Potential Benefits from Physical Exercise in Advanced Cancer Patients Undergoing Systemic Therapy? A Narrative Review of the Randomized Clinical Trials. Current Oncology, 31(12), 7631-7646. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31120563

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop