4.7 Review

Psychological effect of exercise in women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant therapy: what is the optimal dose needed?

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 291-300

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds342

Keywords

anxiety; breast cancer; depression; exercise; fatigue; quality of life

Categories

Funding

  1. French Herault Committee of Cancer League (Ligue contre le cancer)
  2. French South-West Canceropole (Canceropole GSO)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several meta-analyses have examined the role of exercise interventions in improving psychological outcomes in cancer survivors but most did not focus on adjuvant therapy period and did not investigate the optimal dose of exercise needed. The present meta-analysis examines the impact of exercise interventions delivered at this particular period on fatigue, anxiety, depression, and quality of life (QoL) as well as dose-response relationships between volume of prescribed exercise and these psychological outcomes. Randomized, controlled trials that proposed an exercise intervention to patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were systematically identified and coded. Psychological outcomes effect sizes were calculated and analyzed for trends using linear and quadratic regressions. Pooled effects of the 17 included studies revealed improvement for all outcomes, significant for fatigue, depression, and QoL with pooled estimates ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 favoring intervention. Significant inverse associations of the volume of prescribed exercise with fatigue and QoL were observed. Exercise intervention improved fatigue, depression, and QoL in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant therapy. Prescription of relatively low doses of exercise (< 12 MET h/week) consisting in similar to 90-120 min of weekly moderate physical exercise seems more efficacious in improving fatigue and QoL than higher doses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available