BACKGROUND: Although people with haematological malignancies have to endure long phases of therapy and immobility, which is known to diminish their physical performance level, the advice to rest and avoid intensive exercises is still common practice. This recommendation is partly due to the severe anaemia and thrombocytopenia from which many patients suffer. The inability to perform activities of daily living restricts them, diminishes their quality of life and can influence medical therapy.
OBJECTIVES: In this update of the original review (published in 2014) our main objective was to re-evaluate the efficacy, safety and feasibility of aerobic physical exercise for adults suffering from haematological malignancies considering the current state of knowledge.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 7) and MEDLINE (1950 to July 2018) trials registries (ISRCTN, EU clinical trials register and clinicaltrials.gov) and conference proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions. Two review authors independently screened search results, disagreements were solved by discussion.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an aerobic physical exercise intervention, intending to improve the oxygen system, in addition to standard care with standard care only for adults suffering from haematological malignancies. We also included studies that evaluated aerobic exercise in addition to strength training. We excluded studies that investigated the effect of training programmes that were composed of yoga, tai chi chuan, qigong or similar types of exercise. We also excluded studies exploring the influence of strength training without additive aerobic exercise as well as studies assessing outcomes without any clinical impact.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We used risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events, mortality and 100-day survival, standardised mean differences (SMD) for quality of life (QoL), fatigue, and physical performance, and mean differences (MD) for anthropometric measurements.
MAIN RESULTS: In this update, nine trials could be added to the nine trials of the first version of the review, thus we included eighteen RCTs involving 1892 participants. Two of these studies (65 participants) did not provide data for our key outcomes (they analysed laboratory values only) and one study (40 patients) could not be included in the meta-analyses, as results were presented as changes scores only and not as endpoint scores. One trial (17 patients) did not report standard errors and could also not be included in meta-analyses. The overall potential risk of bias in the included trials is unclear, due to poor reporting.The majority of participants suffered from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), malignant lymphoma and multiple myeloma, and eight trials randomised people receiving stem cell transplantation. Mostly, the exercise intervention consisted of various walking intervention programmes with different duration and intensity levels.Our primary endpoint overall survival (OS) was only reported in one of these studies. The study authors found no evidence for a difference between both arms (RR = 0.67; P = 0.112). Six trials (one trial with four arms, analysed as two sub-studies) reported numbers of deceased participants during the course of the study or during the first 100 to 180 days. For the outcome mortality, there is no evidence for a difference between participants exercising and those in the control group (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.52; P = 0.59; 1172 participants, low-certainty evidence).For the following outcomes, higher numbers indicate better outcomes, with 1 being the best result for the standardised mean differences. Eight studies analysed the influence of exercise intervention on QoL. It remains unclear, whether physical exercise improves QoL (SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.24; 1259 participants, low-certainty evidence). There is also no evidence for a difference for the subscales physical functioning (SMD 0.15; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.32; 8 trials, 1329 participants, low-certainty evidence) and anxiety (SMD 0.03; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.36; 6 trials, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Depression might slightly be improved by exercising (SMD 0.19; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.38; 6 trials, 445 participants, low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence that exercise probably improves fatigue (SMD 0.31; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.48; 9 trials, 826 patients).Six trials (435 participants) investigated serious adverse events. We are very uncertain, whether additional exercise leads to more serious adverse events (RR 1.39; 95% CI 0.94 to 2.06), based on very low-certainty evidence.In addition, we are aware of four ongoing trials. However, none of these trials stated, how many patients they will recruit and when the studies will be completed, thus, potential influence of these trials for the current analyses remains unclear.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Eighteen, mostly small RCTs did not identify evidence for a difference in terms of mortality. Physical exercise added to standard care might improve fatigue and depression. Currently, there is inconclusive evidence regarding QoL, physical functioning, anxiety and SAEs .We need further trials with more participants and longer follow-up periods to evaluate the effects of exercise intervention for people suffering from haematological malignancies. To enhance comparability of study data, development and implementation of core sets of measuring devices would be helpful.
BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Liibrary 2013, Issue 9. Despite good evidence for the health benefits of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer, understanding how to promote sustainable exercise behaviour change in sedentary cancer survivors, particularly over the long term, is not as well understood. A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet current exercise recommendations. Hence, reviewing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important for understanding the most effective strategies to ensure benefit in the patient population and identify research gaps.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following secondary questions: Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance? Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers? Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term (12 months or longer) exercise behaviour? What frequency of contact with exercise professionals and/or healthcare professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour? What theoretical basis is most often associated with better behavioural outcomes? What behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour? What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions?
SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We updated our 2013 Cochrane systematic review by updating the searches of the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, PsycLIT/PsycINFO, SportDiscus and PEDro up to May 2018. We also searched the grey literature, trial registries, wrote to leading experts in the field and searched reference lists of included studies and other related recent systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an exercise intervention with usual care or 'waiting list' control in sedentary people over the age of 18 with a homogenous primary cancer diagnosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In the update, review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify studies that might meet the inclusion criteria, or that could not be safely excluded without assessment of the full text (e.g. when no abstract is available). We extracted data from all eligible papers with at least two members of the author team working independently (RT, LS and RG). We coded BCTs according to the CALO-RE taxonomy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. When possible, and if appropriate, we performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis of study outcomes. If statistical heterogeneity was noted, a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. For continuous outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness), we extracted the final value, the standard deviation (SD) of the outcome of interest and the number of participants assessed at follow-up in each treatment arm, to estimate the standardised mean difference (SMD) between treatment arms. SMD was used, as investigators used heterogeneous methods to assess individual outcomes. If a meta-analysis was not possible or was not appropriate, we narratively synthesised studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach with the GRADE profiler.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies in this review, involving a total of 1372 participants (an addition of 10 studies, 724 participants from the original review); 227 full texts were screened in the update and 377 full texts were screened in the original review leaving 35 publications from a total of 23 unique studies included in the review. We planned to include all cancers, but only studies involving breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies incorporated a target level of exercise that could meet current recommendations for moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (i.e.150 minutes per week); or resistance exercise (i.e. strength training exercises at least two days per week).Adherence to exercise interventions, which is crucial for understanding treatment dose, is still reported inconsistently. Eight studies reported intervention adherence of 75% or greater to an exercise prescription that met current guidelines. These studies all included a component of supervision: in our analysis of BCTs we designated these studies as 'Tier 1 trials'. Six studies reported intervention adherence of 75% or greater to an aerobic exercise goal that was less than the current guideline recommendations: in our analysis of BCTs we designated these studies as 'Tier 2 trials.' A hierarchy of BCTs was developed for Tier 1 and Tier 2 trials, with programme goal setting, setting of graded tasks and instruction of how to perform behaviour being amongst the most frequent BCTs. Despite the uncertainty surrounding adherence in some of the included studies, interventions resulted in improvements in aerobic exercise tolerance at eight to 12 weeks (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70; 604 participants, 10 studies; low-quality evidence) versus usual care. At six months, aerobic exercise tolerance was also improved (SMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.72; 591 participants; 7 studies; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, none of the new relevant studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions. We have found some improved understanding of how to encourage previously inactive cancer survivors to achieve international physical activity guidelines. Goal setting, setting of graded tasks and instruction of how to perform behaviour, feature in interventions that meet recommendations targets and report adherence of 75% or more. However, long-term follow-up data are still limited, and the majority of studies are in white women with breast cancer. There are still a considerable number of published studies with numerous and varied issues related to high risk of bias and poor reporting standards. Additionally, the meta-analyses were often graded as consisting of low- to very low-certainty evidence. A very small number of serious adverse effects were reported amongst the studies, providing reassurance exercise is safe for this population.
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the cancer most frequently diagnosed in women worldwide. Even though survival rates are continually increasing, breast cancer is often associated with long-term psychological distress, chronic pain, fatigue and impaired quality of life. Yoga comprises advice for an ethical lifestyle, spiritual practice, physical activity, breathing exercises and meditation. It is a complementary therapy that is commonly recommended for breast cancer-related impairments and has been shown to improve physical and mental health in people with different cancer types.
OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of yoga on health-related quality of life, mental health and cancer-related symptoms among women with a diagnosis of breast cancer who are receiving active treatment or have completed treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), Indexing of Indian Medical Journals (IndMED), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal and Clinicaltrials.gov on 29 January 2016. We also searched reference lists of identified relevant trials or reviews, as well as conference proceedings of the International Congress on Complementary Medicine Research (ICCMR), the European Congress for Integrative Medicine (ECIM) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials were eligible when they (1) compared yoga interventions versus no therapy or versus any other active therapy in women with a diagnosis of non-metastatic or metastatic breast cancer, and (2) assessed at least one of the primary outcomes on patient-reported instruments, including health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, fatigue or sleep disturbances.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently collected data on methods and results. We expressed outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and conducted random-effects model meta-analyses. We assessed potential risk of publication bias through visual analysis of funnel plot symmetry and heterogeneity between studies by using the Chi2 test and the I2 statistic. We conducted subgroup analyses for current treatment status, time since diagnosis, stage of cancer and type of yoga intervention.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies with a total of 2166 participants, 23 of which provided data for meta-analysis. Thirteen studies had low risk of selection bias, five studies reported adequate blinding of outcome assessment and 15 studies had low risk of attrition bias.Seventeen studies that compared yoga versus no therapy provided moderate-quality evidence showing that yoga improved health-related quality of life (pooled SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.40; 10 studies, 675 participants), reduced fatigue (pooled SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.20; 11 studies, 883 participants) and reduced sleep disturbances in the short term (pooled SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; six studies, 657 participants). The funnel plot for health-related quality of life was asymmetrical, favouring no therapy, and the funnel plot for fatigue was roughly symmetrical. This hints at overall low risk of publication bias. Yoga did not appear to reduce depression (pooled SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.05; seven studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence) or anxiety (pooled SMD -0.53, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.04; six studies, 346 participants; very low-quality evidence) in the short term and had no medium-term effects on health-related quality of life (pooled SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.42; two studies, 146 participants; low-quality evidence) or fatigue (pooled SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.29; two studies, 146 participants; low-quality evidence). Investigators reported no serious adverse events.Four studies that compared yoga versus psychosocial/educational interventions provided moderate-quality evidence indicating that yoga can reduce depression (pooled SMD -2.29, 95% CI -3.97 to -0.61; four studies, 226 participants), anxiety (pooled SMD -2.21, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.52; three studies, 195 participants) and fatigue (pooled SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.50; two studies, 106 participants) in the short term. Very low-quality evidence showed no short-term effects on health-related quality of life (pooled SMD 0.81, 95% CI -0.50 to 2.12; two studies, 153 participants) or sleep disturbances (pooled SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.34; two studies, 119 participants). No trial adequately reported safety-related data.Three studies that compared yoga versus exercise presented very low-quality evidence showing no short-term effects on health-related quality of life (pooled SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.23; three studies, 233 participants) or fatigue (pooled SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.25; three studies, 233 participants); no trial provided safety-related data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence supports the recommendation of yoga as a supportive intervention for improving health-related quality of life and reducing fatigue and sleep disturbances when compared with no therapy, as well as for reducing depression, anxiety and fatigue, when compared with psychosocial/educational interventions. Very low-quality evidence suggests that yoga might be as effective as other exercise interventions and might be used as an alternative to other exercise programmes.
AIM: To determine if yoga as a complementary and alternative therapy was associated with enhanced health and treatment-related side effects in patients with breast cancer. This systematic review examines whether yoga practice provides any measurable benefit, both physically and psychologically, for women with breast cancer.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) throughout June 2013. We evaluated the quality of the included studies by the Cochrane Handbook 5.2 standards and analyzed the data using the Stata software, version 10.0. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were also performed to identify additional predictors of outcome and to assess heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs with a total of 930 participants were included. Comparing yoga groups to control groups, there was a statistically significant difference in overall health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety and gastrointestinal symptoms. Meta-regression analyses revealed that the duration of yoga practice and type of control group partly explained the heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses revealed that yoga had a positive effect on anxiety only when it had been practiced for longer than 3 months. Only the wait-list control group showed an effect of yoga on physical well-being.
CONCLUSION: The current evidence demonstrates that yoga practice could be effective in enhancing health and managing some treatment-related side effects for patients recovering from breast cancer. In future clinical studies, clinicians should consider the patient's wishes along with the current best evidence of the effects of yoga practice in their clinical decision-making.
IMPORTANCE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome adverse events experienced by patients with cancer during and after therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to establish and compare the mean weighted effect sizes (WESs) of the 4 most commonly recommended treatments for CRF-exercise, psychological, combined exercise and psychological, and pharmaceutical-and to identify independent variables associated with treatment effectiveness.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of each database to May 31, 2016.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials in adults with cancer were selected. Inclusion criteria consisted of CRF severity as an outcome and testing of exercise, psychological, exercise plus psychological, or pharmaceutical interventions.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were independently reviewed by 12 raters in 3 groups using a systematic and blinded process for reconciling disagreement. Effect sizes (Cohen d) were calculated and inversely weighted by SE.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Severity of CRF was the primary outcome. Study quality was assessed using a modified 12-item version of the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database scale (range, 0-12, with 12 indicating best quality).
RESULTS: From 17 033 references, 113 unique studies articles (11 525 unique participants; 78% female; mean age, 54 [range, 35-72] years) published from January 1, 1999, through May 31, 2016, had sufficient data. Studies were of good quality (mean Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database scale score, 8.2; range, 5-12) with no evidence of publication bias. Exercise (WES, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.25-0.36; P < .001), psychological (WES, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.21-0.33; P < .001), and exercise plus psychological interventions (WES, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.38; P < .001) improved CRF during and after primary treatment, whereas pharmaceutical interventions did not (WES, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-0.19; P = .05). Results also suggest that CRF treatment effectiveness was associated with cancer stage, baseline treatment status, experimental treatment format, experimental treatment delivery mode, psychological mode, type of control condition, use of intention-to-treat analysis, and fatigue measures (WES range, -0.91 to 0.99). Results suggest that the effectiveness of behavioral interventions, specifically exercise and psychological interventions, is not attributable to time, attention, and education, and specific intervention modes may be more effective for treating CRF at different points in the cancer treatment trajectory (WES range, 0.09-0.22).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Exercise and psychological interventions are effective for reducing CRF during and after cancer treatment, and they are significantly better than the available pharmaceutical options. Clinicians should prescribe exercise or psychological interventions as first-line treatments for CRF.
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.
PURPOSE: A combination of the relatively high prevalence among gynecologic cancers, high survival, and the myriads of factors that negatively impact the quality of life (QoL) among endometrial cancer (EC) survivors underscores the potential benefits of meeting guideline physical activity (PA) guidelines of 150 minutes per week among EC survivors. The objective of the present systematic review was to collate and critically evaluate the currently available literature on the effects of PA on QoL among EC survivors.
METHODS: Medline and Web of Science databases were searched for articles on EC, QoL, and PA. We also inspected bibliographies of relevant publications to identify related articles. Our search criteria yielded 70 studies, 7 of which met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: Of the 7 studies examined, 2 of them were intervention studies, whereas 5 were cross-sectional studies. Meeting guideline PA was significantly associated with better QoL score in 4 of the 5 cross-sectional studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from the cross-sectional studies suggest that EC survivors' inactivity is significantly correlated with poorer QoL. This correlation was worse among obese survivors compared with normal weight survivors. Endometrial cancer survivors may benefit from interventions that incorporate PA. More randomized intervention studies among EC survivors are needed to add to this body of evidence.
Journal»Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology
Several sources of evidence indicate that exercise during and after breast cancer could positively modulate the tumor microenvironment. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of exercise training on mediators of inflammation in breast cancer survivors. We searched for randomized controlled trials published from January 1990 to March 2014. An inverse variance method of meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model in the presence of statistical heterogeneity. Eight high-quality trials (n = 478) were included. Exercise improved the serum concentrations of IL6 [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.55 pg/mL; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.02 to -0.09], TNFα (WMD = -0.64 pg/mL; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.06), IL8 (MD = -0.49 pg/mL; 95% CI, -0.89 to -0.09), and IL2 (WMD = 1.03 pg/mL; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.67). No significant differences were found in the serum concentrations of C-reactive protein (WMD = -0.15; 95% CI, -0.56 to 0.25) or IL10 (WMD = 0.41; 95% CI, -0.18 to 1.02). Exercise training positively modulates chronic low-grade inflammation in women with breast cancer, which may impact upon carcinogenic mechanisms and the tumor microenvironment. These findings align with the other positive effects of exercise for breast cancer survivors, reinforcing the appropriateness of exercise prescription in this population.
BACKGROUND: Patients with head and neck cancer often face a plethora of cancer and treatment-related side effects, negatively impacting their lean body mass, physical functioning, quality of life and fatigue management. Physical activity is a potential mediator of many of these side effects. This is the first systematic review reporting on head and neck cancer and physical activity literature.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted up to January 2015. Two reviewers independently identified articles using the outlined inclusion criteria, assessing the study methodology, risk of bias and extracting the necessary data from studies evaluating the impact of full-body physical activity on patients with head and neck cancer. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement was used to guide this review.
RESULTS: We identified 16 articles published from 2003 to 2014, the majority of which were published within the past 5 years. Physical activity interventions were feasible, safe and beneficial in mediating cancer and treatment-related side effects. Specifically, patients experienced improvements in lean body mass, muscular strength, physical functioning, quality of life and fatigue management. Owing to significant study heterogeneity, data were not pooled. Reflecting the early state of the literature, included studies were found to vary greatly in design, quality and reporting characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: There is early evidence that supports the benefit of physical activity interventions for patients with head and neck cancer, both during and following treatment. Future research is necessary to determine the benefits of different physical activity interventions, and their impact on patients with different head and neck cancers.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. For early stages of the disease, lung resection surgery remains the best treatment with curative intent, but significant morbidity is associated, especially among patients with poor pulmonary function and cardiorespiratory fitness. In those cases, the implementation of a preoperative exercise-based intervention could optimize patient's functional status before surgery and improve postoperative outcomes and enhance recovery. The aim of this systematic review is to provide the current body of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of a preoperative exercise-based intervention on postoperative and functional outcomes in patients with lung cancer submitted to lung resection surgery. A systematic review of the literature using CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Pubmed, PEDro and SCOPUS was undertaken in September 2015 yielding a total of 1656 references. Two independent reviewers performed the assessment of the potentially eligible records against the inclusion criteria and finally, 21 articles were included in the review. Articles were included if they examined the effects of an exercise-based intervention on at least one of the selected outcomes: pulmonary function, (functional) exercise capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and postoperative outcomes (length of stay and postoperative complications). Fourteen studies were further selected for a meta-analysis to quantify the mean effect of the intervention and generate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Cochrane Review Manager 5.0.25. For two of the outcomes included (exercise capacity and HRQoL), studies showed large heterogeneity and thus, a meta-analysis was considered inappropriate. Pulmonary function (forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 s) was significantly enhanced after the intervention [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.38; 95% CI 0.14, 0.63 and SMD = 0.27, 95% CI 0.11, 0.42, respectively]. In comparison with the patients in the control groups, patients in the experimental groups spent less days in the hospital (mean difference = -4.83, 95% CI -5.9, -3.76) and had a significantly reduced risk for developing postoperative complications (risk ratios = 0.45; 95% CI 0.28, 0.74). In conclusion, preoperative exercise-based training improves pulmonary function before surgery and reduces in-hospital length of stay and postoperative complications after lung resection surgery for lung cancer.
Although people with haematological malignancies have to endure long phases of therapy and immobility, which is known to diminish their physical performance level, the advice to rest and avoid intensive exercises is still common practice. This recommendation is partly due to the severe anaemia and thrombocytopenia from which many patients suffer. The inability to perform activities of daily living restricts them, diminishes their quality of life and can influence medical therapy.
OBJECTIVES:
In this update of the original review (published in 2014) our main objective was to re-evaluate the efficacy, safety and feasibility of aerobic physical exercise for adults suffering from haematological malignancies considering the current state of knowledge.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 7) and MEDLINE (1950 to July 2018) trials registries (ISRCTN, EU clinical trials register and clinicaltrials.gov) and conference proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions. Two review authors independently screened search results, disagreements were solved by discussion.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an aerobic physical exercise intervention, intending to improve the oxygen system, in addition to standard care with standard care only for adults suffering from haematological malignancies. We also included studies that evaluated aerobic exercise in addition to strength training. We excluded studies that investigated the effect of training programmes that were composed of yoga, tai chi chuan, qigong or similar types of exercise. We also excluded studies exploring the influence of strength training without additive aerobic exercise as well as studies assessing outcomes without any clinical impact.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We used risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events, mortality and 100-day survival, standardised mean differences (SMD) for quality of life (QoL), fatigue, and physical performance, and mean differences (MD) for anthropometric measurements.
MAIN RESULTS:
In this update, nine trials could be added to the nine trials of the first version of the review, thus we included eighteen RCTs involving 1892 participants. Two of these studies (65 participants) did not provide data for our key outcomes (they analysed laboratory values only) and one study (40 patients) could not be included in the meta-analyses, as results were presented as changes scores only and not as endpoint scores. One trial (17 patients) did not report standard errors and could also not be included in meta-analyses. The overall potential risk of bias in the included trials is unclear, due to poor reporting.The majority of participants suffered from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), malignant lymphoma and multiple myeloma, and eight trials randomised people receiving stem cell transplantation. Mostly, the exercise intervention consisted of various walking intervention programmes with different duration and intensity levels.Our primary endpoint overall survival (OS) was only reported in one of these studies. The study authors found no evidence for a difference between both arms (RR = 0.67; P = 0.112). Six trials (one trial with four arms, analysed as two sub-studies) reported numbers of deceased participants during the course of the study or during the first 100 to 180 days. For the outcome mortality, there is no evidence for a difference between participants exercising and those in the control group (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.52; P = 0.59; 1172 participants, low-certainty evidence).For the following outcomes, higher numbers indicate better outcomes, with 1 being the best result for the standardised mean differences. Eight studies analysed the influence of exercise intervention on QoL. It remains unclear, whether physical exercise improves QoL (SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.24; 1259 participants, low-certainty evidence). There is also no evidence for a difference for the subscales physical functioning (SMD 0.15; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.32; 8 trials, 1329 participants, low-certainty evidence) and anxiety (SMD 0.03; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.36; 6 trials, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Depression might slightly be improved by exercising (SMD 0.19; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.38; 6 trials, 445 participants, low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence that exercise probably improves fatigue (SMD 0.31; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.48; 9 trials, 826 patients).Six trials (435 participants) investigated serious adverse events. We are very uncertain, whether additional exercise leads to more serious adverse events (RR 1.39; 95% CI 0.94 to 2.06), based on very low-certainty evidence.In addition, we are aware of four ongoing trials. However, none of these trials stated, how many patients they will recruit and when the studies will be completed, thus, potential influence of these trials for the current analyses remains unclear.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Eighteen, mostly small RCTs did not identify evidence for a difference in terms of mortality. Physical exercise added to standard care might improve fatigue and depression. Currently, there is inconclusive evidence regarding QoL, physical functioning, anxiety and SAEs .We need further trials with more participants and longer follow-up periods to evaluate the effects of exercise intervention for people suffering from haematological malignancies. To enhance comparability of study data, development and implementation of core sets of measuring devices would be helpful.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
