4.6 Review

Weight loss intervention trials in women with breast cancer: a systematic review

Journal

OBESITY REVIEWS
Volume 15, Issue 9, Pages 749-768

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/obr.12190

Keywords

Breast cancer survivors; lifestyle intervention; obesity

Funding

  1. National Breast Cancer Foundation [ECF-13-09]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1024739]
  3. National Breast Cancer Foundation [ECF-13-09] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Obesity has been associated with poor health outcomes in breast cancer survivors. Thus, weight loss is recommended for overweight and obese survivors. We systematically reviewed studies (published up to July 2013) that evaluated behaviourally based, weight loss interventions in women with breast cancer exclusively. Completed randomized trials, single-arm trials and ongoing trials were reviewed. Within-group and between-group differences for weight loss were extracted, as was data on secondary outcomes, i.e. clinical biomarkers, patient-reported outcomes, adverse events. Ten completed randomized trials, four single-arm trials and five ongoing trials were identified. Statistically significant within-group weight loss was observed over periods of 2 to 18 months in 13 of the 14 trials, with six randomized and two single-arm trials observing mean weight loss >= 5%. Clinical biomarkers, psychosocial and patient-reported outcomes were measured in a small number of studies. No serious adverse events were reported. Only two trials assessed maintenance of intervention effects after the end-of-intervention and none reported on cost-effectiveness. The studies included in this review suggest that weight loss is feasible to achieve and is safe in women following treatment for breast cancer. Future studies should assess (and be powered for) a range of biomarker and patient-reported outcomes, and be designed to inform translation into practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available