4.4 Article

The Effect of Physical Exercise on Cancer-related Fatigue during Cancer Treatment: a Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Journal

CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 208-221

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2009.12.005

Keywords

Exercise therapy; fatigue; neoplasm; randomised controlled trials

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of different exercise prescription parameters during cancer treatment on cancer-related fatigue (CRF). We also aimed to gain insight into the safety and feasibility of exercise during adjuvant cancer treatment. A systematic search of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Scopus and PEDro was carried out. Randomised controlled trials studying the effects of exercise during cancer treatment on CRF were included. In total, 18 studies (12 in breast, four in prostate and two in other cancer patients) met all the inclusion criteria. During breast cancer treatment, home-based exercise lead to a small, non-significant reduction (standardised mean difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval -0.25 to 0.45), whereas supervised aerobic exercise showed a medium, significant reduction in CRF (standardised mean difference 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.51) compared with no exercise. A subgroup analysis of home-based (n = 65) and supervised aerobic (n = 98) and resistance exercise programmes (n = 208) in prostate cancer patients showed no significant reduction in CRF in favour of the exercise group. Adherence ranged from 39% of the patients who visited at least 70% of the supervised exercise sessions to 100% completion of a home-based walking programme. In more than half the studies (12 of 18; 67%) adverse events were reported. Eight events in total (0.72%) occurred in these studies. (C) 2010 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available