Effectiveness of Resistance Training on Fatigue in Patients Undergoing Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Berríos-Contreras, Lily; Cuevas-Cid, Rodrigo; Lorca, Luz Alejandra; Ribeiro, Ivana Leão

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9032534

International Journal of Breast Cancer

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 9032534 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9032534

Effectiveness of Resistance Training on Fatigue in Patients Undergoing Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Lily Berríos-Contreras,¹Rodrigo Cuevas-Cid,¹Luz Alejandra Lorca,²and Ivana Leão Ribeiro¹

Academic Editor: Taobo Hu

Received31 May 2022

Accepted21 Jul 2022

Published08 Aug 2022

Abstract

Objective. To assess the effectiveness of the resistance training to improve fatigue levels in people with cancer who are enrolled in adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment. Methods. MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were searched from May to December 7, 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) that evaluate the effects of resistance training on fatigue levels in people undergoing cancer treatment were included. The PEDro scale was considered to assess methodological quality of studies, and the evidence was summarized through the GRADE system. The standardized average differences, effect size, and inverse variance model for meta-analysis were calculated. Results. Fifteen RCT for qualitative synthesis and thirteen for meta-analysis were selected. A moderate to high level of evidence of resistance training was identified to improve fatigue in people undergoing cancer treatment. Meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in fatigue (, , -0.12, ) after 10 to 35 sessions of resistance training. Conclusion. The 10 to 35 sessions of resistance training are effective in reducing fatigue level in cancer patients who are undergoing cancer treatment and have a moderate level of quality evidence.

1. Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer incidence and mortality increase each year, making it the second leading cause of death in the Americas after cardiovascular diseases. Cancer treatment can be neoadjuvant (presurgery) or adjuvant (postsurgery), which can consist of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and hematopoietic call transplantation [1–3]. Cancer treatment is aimed at restoring the function of the organ affected by the malignant tumor [4] or controlling the progression of neoplasia through DNA damage and mitotic spindle inhibition of cancer cells [5, 6]. The adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment increases cancer patients’ survival; however, it can generate negative side effects such as muscle atrophy, loss of functionality, reduced mobility, and fatigue related to cancer [7].

Cancer patients can present a high degree of fatigue perception that can last 5 to 6 weeks after cancer treatment and drastically affect quality of life [8]. The mechanisms involved in fatigue have been associated with the release of proinflammatory cytokines by the malignant neoplasia and cancer treatment that alters the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis [9–11] and generates a dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system [12]. Fatigue is defined as a “sensation of tiredness or distressing, persistent, subjective exhaustion related to cancer or cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent activity and interferes with normal functioning” [13].

Resistance training in cancer patients improves quality of life and increases adherence and success of cancer treatment, in addition to contributing to the increase in lean mass and body weight, preventing muscle mass loss, reducing its side effects, and increasing survival [14–16]. There are two systematic reviews that reported the effects of exercise and physical activity on fatigue levels in cancer survivors and patients with metastasis [17, 18]; however, these studies did not include specific information regarding the dosage of resistance training and its effect during cancer treatment. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the resistance training (RT) to improve fatigue levels in people with cancer who are undergoing adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

The present systematic review of randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses was performed according to the report of elements for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) [19] and Cochrane recommendations [20]. The reference number of the International Registry of Prospective Systematic Review (PROSPERO) is CRD 42020196180.

2.2. Search Strategy and Article Selection

Studies were selected if they met the following inclusion criteria based on publication types based on the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS): (1) population: subjects over 18 years old with cancer who are undergoing cancer treatment; (2) intervention type: RT; (3) comparisons: other training type controls without intervention; (4) results: fatigue; and (5) studies: randomized clinical trials (RCT), published in English or Spanish. The articles were excluded if the sample consisted of people who were not undergoing cancer treatment.

An electronic search was performed until December 7, 2021, in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, PEDro, Cochrane, and EBSCO. The following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were included and combined for sensitive searches: “Cancer”; “radiotherapy”; “chemotherapy”; “fatigue” and “resistance exercise”. The search strategy used in the MEDLINE was as follows: ((((fatigue) AND (cancer)) AND (radiotherapy)) OR (chemotherapy)) AND (resistance exercise). The strategy was adapted according to each database and is specified in a supplementary file (available here).

The articles were initially selected for screening of the title and the abstract, ending with a full text evaluation. Two evaluators (LB, RC) evaluated each scientific article independently. In case of disagreement or discrepancy in the inclusion or exclusion of any article, it was sent to an independent reviewer (IL), who decided in this respect to agree on its selection for the complete analysis of the article. The same process was performed to evaluate both methodological quality and level of evidence of included articles.

2.3. Data Extraction and Analyses

For data extraction, standardized forms adapted from the Cochrane Collaboration model [20] were used. The following aspects were considered to describe the characteristics of the studies: population (sex, age, number of participants per group, cancer type, and cancer treatment), intervention (type, duration, and frequency), and dosage of resistance exercise (type of external load, maximum repetition percentage (%1RM), increase load, number of sets, and repetitions). To describe the results of the selected studies, the following were considered: questionnaire type used to assess fatigue, effect size, and fatigue levels pre- and post-RT (variation percentage). The results of the perception of fatigue were evaluated according to total training time. Additionally, the effect size (ES) was calculated to determine the clinical relevance of the interventions with a 95% confidence interval, considering pre- and postintervention values. A small effect of the intervention was considered <20; a moderate effect, between 21 and 0.79; and a great effect, >0.80 [21]. The negative effect size represents a “worsening of symptoms” while the positive one represents an improvement [22]. All primary studies that presented descriptive values as mean and standard deviation were considered to ES calculation.

2.4. Quality Assessment

To evaluate the methodology quality and the risk of bias of the included RCT, we used the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale [23]. The PEDro scale allows the bias rating of articles according to a cut-off score. The studies with a 10-9 score correspond to an excellent quality methodology, those with an 8-6 score correspond to a good methodology quality, those with a 4-5 score correspond to an acceptable methodology quality, and those that had a score lower than 4 correspond to a bad methodology quality [24, 25].

The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale was used to evaluate the level of evidence categorizing it into 4 levels: high, moderate, low, and very low [26]. GRADE considers 5 criteria: limitations in study design, indirectness of evidence, heterogeneity, imprecision of results, and publication bias. Each criterion is evaluated as follows: not serious, serious, and very serious considering a consensus between two raters [21]. The high characterization reflects that there is a high confidence in the coincidence between the real and the estimated effect; the moderate quality level corresponds to a moderate confidence in the estimate effect; that is, there is a possibility that the real effect is far from the estimated effect. On the contrary, a low and very low quality of evidence reflects that there is uncertainty regarding the intervention effects [26, 27].

2.5. Statistical Methods

A descriptive synthesis was performed considering the mean, standard deviation, distribution by frequency, and percentage of the results of the primary studies. In addition, the meta-analysis was calculated to determine the effects of resistance training on fatigue levels. The analysis was performed using means and standard deviations from each selected clinical trial. Results of some questionnaires indicated an increase in fatigue levels while others indicated a decrease, according to the direction of questions. The mean values of a group of studies were multiplied by -1 to ensure that all instruments point in the same direction [20]. The difference in standardized means and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an inverse variance model of random effects for the meta-analysis, considering postintervention data. Heterogeneity data between studies was evaluated using the statistic, and value was set at 0.01. The statistical analysis was performed with five revisions of RevMan management software (version 5.3).

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

The electronic search identified a total of 523 studies across 8 scientific databases, and 15 randomized clinical trials were included. Details on the selection of studies are in Figure 1.

3.2. Study Characteristics

The characteristics of the fifteen studies selected are shown in Table 1. The sample studied in general included 1439 adults with an age range from 18 years to 78 years old. Regarding cancer type, 6 articles were found on subjects with stage 0-III breast cancer [28–33], two on subjects with head-neck cancer [34, 35], four on subjects of prostate cancer [36–39], two articles on subjects with hematological neoplasms (leukemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and myelodysplastic syndrome) [40, 41], and one article on subjects of germ cell cancer [42]. According to the type of cancer treatment, in five articles, subjects were undergoing chemotherapy [28–31, 41]; in seven clinical trials, the sample received radiotherapy [28, 32, 33, 37, 38]; in two articles, the subjects were undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [40, 41]; and in two studies, the subjects underwent androgen deprivation therapy [36, 39].

Regarding the intervention group, the duration of the RT was seven [34], six [40, 41], eight [38], nine [42], twelve [28–31, 35, 36], and twenty-four weeks [37, 39]. Regarding the RT characteristics, in five studies, a RT with resistance bands [35, 38–41] was performed and nine articles performed a progressive RT [29–34 36, 37, 42]. With regard to the progressive training load, 60%-70% of 1RM [28–30, 36, 37], 60%-80% 1RM [31–33], and 15-12% RM [42] were used; Grote et al.’s study did not specify the percentage of 1RM [34]. Only the study by Cheng et al. uses traditional strength training using 60% 1RM [28] (Table 1).

The control group in 12 studies did not receive any type of intervention, and the subjects continued their daily activities and medical care as usual [28–30, 33–38, 40–42]. In two articles, the control group subjects received an intervention corresponding to progressive muscular relaxation according to Jacobson [31]. Only in one study did the control group perform aerobic training [39] (Table 1).

3.3. Quality Assessment

Regarding the methodological quality of the primary studies, 86.6% presented a good methodological quality and 13.3% acceptable methodological quality. According to critical criteria, the sample was randomly assigned in all the selected studies, the allocation was concealed in 66.6%, and in 33.3% of the articles, it was not concealed; the groups were similar at the baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators in all studies. Regarding the criteria for blinding the therapist and subjects, these were not met in all the selected articles; likewise and in relation to the blinded evaluators, only two study met this criterion [36, 42]. Details of the methodological quality of the studies are presented in a supplementary file.

The effect of the intervention on fatigue levels is described in detail in Table 2. Three articles reported lower fatigue levels in the group that underwent progressive resistance training compared to a control group [36, 37, 42] and compared to the group that underwent muscle relaxation [33]. In addition, only tree studies that used a resistance training with resistance bands showed to be effective to reduce the fatigue compared to the control group [28, 38, 41]. On the other hand, nine clinical trials that used RT as an intervention did not report significant changes in fatigue levels of the intervened subjects [29–32, 34, 35, 39, 40].

3.4. Results of Individual Studies

Thirteen out of the fifteen selected studies presented the mean and standard deviation to calculate the ES of the intervention [28–31, 33–42]. The articles that demonstrated positive effects for fatigue levels have an ES between -0.47 and 1.17, with CI values of the studies ranging from -1.01 to 2.09 [31, 33, 36–38, 41, 42]. The effectiveness of resistance training to reduce fatigue levels based on the GRADE approach is presented in Tables 3 and 4.

3.5. Meta-Analysis

Eight studies reported data that allowed quantifying the effects of resistance training lasting from 10 to 35 sessions [31–35, 38, 40–42]. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) showed a significant reduction in fatigue levels after resistance training in people with cancer compared to the control group (; and -0.12; ), without significant heterogeneity (; ) (Figure 2).

Five studies reported data that allowed quantifying the effects of resistance training that lasted more than 35 sessions [29, 30, 36, 37, 39]. The pooled SMD estimated did not show significant changes in postexercise fatigue levels in people with cancer compared to the control group (; to 1.31; ), with significantly high heterogeneity (; ) (Figure 3).

3.6. Publication Bias

Publication bias was estimated for eight studies that performed an intervention of 10 to 35 sessions. According to the funnel plot, there is no evident asymmetry, therefore indicating an absence of publication bias in this meta-analysis (Figure 4). On the other hand, five studies that carried out an intervention of more than 35 sessions have a publication bias, since all the studies are the outside area in the funnel plot (Figure 5).

3.7. Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was performed to test the effect of studies with fair methodological quality and studies with smaller sample sizes. As for the influence of studies with regular methodological quality [41], the results did not change in favor of resistance training compared to the control groups and the SMD was reduced from -0.31 to -0.28, without significant heterogeneity (; ). Likewise, regarding studies with a small sample size [34, 35, 41], these do not influence the results reported in the meta-analysis; the SMD changes from -0.31 to -0.32 without significant heterogeneity (; ).

4. Discussion

The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of resistance training to better the fatigue levels in cancer patients that are undergoing adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment.

In relation to the quantitative analysis, the results of the meta-analysis show that resistance training with 10 to 35 sessions using elastic bands and/or an external load between 60% and 80% of the 1RM generates significant changes to reduce fatigue levels compared to a control group. On the other hand, the group intervened with resistance training with a number equal to or greater than 35 sessions did not generate significant changes in fatigue levels compared to the control group.

The findings reported in this systematic review are like those obtained in two published meta-analyses [17, 18]. The study by Hilfiker et al. [17] reported that any type of exercise significantly reduces fatigue levels in subjects who are receiving adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy or after cancer treatment. Likewise, the study by Kessels et al. [18] reported the positives effects of aerobic exercises and combined exercises in reducing fatigue. Even though both meta-analyses [17, 18] support exercises to reduce fatigue, they lack an analysis regarding the specificity of resistance exercise, dosage, and the level of scientific evidence. However, despite the lack of specificity in terms of dosage, exercise and physical activity have been shown to significantly reduce fatigue related to any type of cancer [43].

The etiology of fatigue related to cancer and cancer treatment is still not completely clear; however, there are multiple causal mechanisms that have been postulated, such as emotional and cognitive factors, genetic variants, proinflammatory mechanisms, immune response, and molecular mechanisms involved in cachexia that generates neuromuscular complications and that could further exacerbate fatigue [44]. Regarding proinflammatory mechanisms, it has been hypothesized that the beneficial effects of exercise are related to the release of IL-6 myokine from the muscle, which generates negative feedback on the production of proinflammatory cytokines IL1-β and TNF-α [45]. Only one study [32] included in this systematic review reported that resistance exercise reduces proinflammatory makers associated with a reduction in physical fatigue in subjects with breast cancer. However, no specific data were reported on fatigue levels. Likewise, a pervious study [46] reported an inverse correlation between improved strength/muscle mass with reduced inflammation and decreased fatigue levels in survivors of breast cancer subjects trained with resistance exercise. Therefore, resistance exercise through its benefits in reducing proinflammatory markers could reduce fatigue levels in cancer patients. However, there is a lack of more randomized clinical trials that provide more specific and categorical estimates of mechanisms involved in reducing fatigue.

Resistance exercise can play an important role in cancer patients, since through the reduction in inflammation previously mentioned, the decrease in catabolism, and the increase in satellite cells in type II muscle fibers, it allows reducing muscle atrophy related to cachexia in cancer [47, 48]. According to the above, adequate function and muscle mass generate significant improvements in fatigue symptoms, reduce the side effects of cancer treatment, reduce depression, improves the quality of life, and increases survival in patients undergoing resistance training [49, 50].

The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis reported an update of the kinesiology clinical practice, with a synthesis at moderate to high level of evidence according to GRADE on the effectiveness of resistance training of 10 to 35 sessions to reduce fatigue levels in cancer with a moderate to strong magnitude of the effect. Likewise, the synthesis of the evidence according to GRADE is high on the effectiveness of resistance training greater than or equal to 36 sessions to reduce fatigue levels in cancer with minimal to moderate effect magnitude.

The clinical guidelines have established that resistance exercise is safe for cancer patients either during or after cancer treatment. It is recommended at a moderate intensity and a frequency of 2-3 times a week, involving large muscle groups; however, the lack of personalization of the exercise regimes is a limitation [51]. Future clinical trials should consider for targeted planning of each patient and a more specific evaluation that considers critical variables such as physical fitness, lifestyle habits such as a sedentary lifestyle and smoking, comorbidities present in the patient, cancer type, and treatment regimens as well as possible side effects of cancer treatment. In addition, they should consider the chronic effects of resistance exercise on fatigue levels, with long-term follow-up.

The limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis are mainly related to the following: (1) different volumes of training and exercise protocols were used in the primary studies; (2) few studies greater than or equal to 36 sessions were incorporated into the meta-analysis; (3) moderate heterogeneity and publication bias of studies greater than or equal to 36 sessions may indicate variability in the estimation of the effect; (4) three included studies had a small sample size which could influence a possible overestimation; (5) two studies did not show descriptive data for the main variable; (6) different types of questionnaires were used for evaluating fatigue; (7) different cancer treatments were employed in the sample; and (8) the sample presents different types of cancer.

5. Conclusions

Based on the limitations of the current evidence mentioned above, we recommend for future research to conduct randomized clinical trials with larger sample size and duration of resistance training greater than 36 sessions in people with cancer during oncology treatment.

Despite the above limitations, it can conclude that resistance training of 10 to 35 sessions is effective in reducing fatigue levels in cancer subjects who are undergoing cancer treatment with a moderate quality level of evidence.

Data Availability

All data are presented in Results and supported by the supplemental file.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

LB Contreras was responsible for the conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, resources, validation, visualization, original draft preparation, and review and editing of the paper. CR Cid was responsible for the data curation, formal analysis, methodology, resources, and original draft preparation. LA Lorca was responsible for the formal analysis, validation, visualization, original draft preparation, and review and editing of the paper. IL Ribeiro was responsible for the conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, original draft preparation, and review and editing of the paper.

Supplementary Materials

Search strategy. Form for data collection of studies. Supplementary Table 1: identification of included studies in the review ranked according to the PEDro scale. (Supplementary Materials)

References

R. Baskar and K. Itahana, “Radiation therapy and cancer control in developing countries: can we save more lives,” International Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 13–17, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Canter, “Chemotherapy: does neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy improve outcomes?” Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 861–872, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Allan, V. Collins, M. Frydenberg, R. McLachlan, and K. Matthiesson, “Androgen deprivation therapy complications,” Endocrine-Related Cancer, vol. 21, pp. 119–129, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Govindan and D. Morgensztern, Principios y práctica quirúrgica en el tratamiento oncológico in Manual Washington de Oncología, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (United States: Philadelphia), 3rd edition edition, 2016.
N. Sundahl, F. Duprez, P. Ost, W. De Neve, and M. Mareel, “Effects of radiation on the metastatic process,” Molecular Medicine, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 16, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Pinedo and G. Giaccone, “Chemotherapy,” Lancet, vol. 349, Supplement 2, pp. SII7–SII9, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Baracos, V. Mazurak, and A. Bhullar, “Cancer cachexia is defined by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass,” Annals of Palliative Medicine, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 3–12, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Yang, S. Chu, Y. Gao et al., “A narrative review of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and its possible pathogenesis,” Cell, vol. 8, no. 7, p. 738, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. O’Higgins, B. Brady, B. O’Connor, D. Walsh, and R. Reilly, “The pathophysiology of cancer-related fatigue: current controversies,” Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 3353–3364, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Bower, “The role of neuro-immune interactions in cancer-related fatigue: biobehavioral risk factors and mechanisms,” Cancer, vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 353–364, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Cuneo, A. Schrepf, G. Slavich et al., “Diurnal cortisol rhythms, fatigue and psychosocial factors in five-year survivors of ovarian cancer,” Psychoneuroendocrinology, vol. 84, pp. 139–142, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Simó, X. Navarro, V. Yuste, and J. Bruna, “Autonomic nervous system and cancer,” Clinical Autonomic Research, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 301–314, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Berger, L. Gerber, and D. Mayer, “Cancer-related fatigue,” Cancer, vol. 118, no. S8, pp. 2261–2269, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Pin, M. Couch, and A. Bonetto, “Preservation of muscle mass as a strategy to reduce the toxic effects of cancer chemotherapy on body composition,” Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 420–426, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Padilha, P. Marinello, D. Galvão et al., “Evaluation of resistance training to improve muscular strength and body composition in cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Cancer Survivorship, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 339–349, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Meneses, E. González, and R. Ramírez, “Supervised exercise reduces cancer-related fatigue: a systematic review,” Journal of Physiotherapy, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 3–9, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Hilfiker, A. Meichtry, M. Eicher et al., “Exercise and other non-pharmaceutical interventions for cancer-related fatigue in patients during or after cancer treatment: a systematic review incorporating an indirect-comparisons meta-analysis,” British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 651–658, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Kessels, O. Husson, and C. van der Feltz-Cornelis, “The effect of exercise on cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, vol. 14, pp. 479–494, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Page, J. McKenzie, P. Bossuyt et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” International Journal of Surgery, vol. 88, p. 105906, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, and T. Li, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site
S. Dominguez, “Effect size, a quick guide,” Educación Medica, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 251–254, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Durlak, “How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes,” Journal of Pediatric Psychology, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 917–928, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Pedro, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, The Center for Evidence-Based Physiotherapy, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2018, http://www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au/.
G. Maher, C. Sherrington, R. Herbert, A. Moseley, and M. Elkins, “Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials,” Physical Therapy, vol. 83, no. 8, pp. 713–721, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Verhagen, H. De Vet, R. De Bie et al., “The delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by delphi consensus,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 1235–1241, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Aguayo, B. Flores, and V. Soria, “GRADE system: classification of quality of evidence and strength of recommendation,” Cirugía Española, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 82–88, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Neumann, T. Pantoja, B. Peñaloza, L. Cifuentes, and G. Rada, “The GRADE system: a change in the way of assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations,” Revista Médica de Chile, vol. 142, no. 5, pp. 630–635, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Cheng, X. Wang, J. Hu et al., “Effect of tai chi and resistance training on cancer-related fatigue and quality of life in middle-aged and elderly cancer patients,” Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 265–272, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Courneya, R. Segal, J. Mackey et al., “Effects of aerobic and resistance exercise in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 25, no. 28, pp. 4396–4404, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Courneya, R. Segal, K. Gelmon et al., “Six-month follow-up of patient-rated outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of exercise training during breast cancer chemotherapy,” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 2572–2578, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Schmidt, J. Wiskemann, P. Armbrust, A. Schneeweiss, C. Ulrich, and K. Steindorf, “Effects of resistance exercise on fatigue and quality of life in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy: a randomized controlled trial,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 137, no. 2, pp. 471–480, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Schmidt, A. Meynköhn, N. Habermann et al., “Resistance exercise and inflammation in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant radiation therapy: mediation analysis from a randomized, controlled intervention trial,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 329–337, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Steindorf, M. Schmidt, O. Klassen et al., “Randomized, controlled trial of resistance training in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy: results on cancer-related fatigue and quality of life,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 2237–2243, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Grote, C. Maihöfer, M. Weigl, P. Davies-Knorr, and C. Belka, “Progressive resistance training in cachectic head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy: a randomized controlled pilot feasibility trial,” Radiation Oncology, vol. 13, pp. 1–10, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Rogers, P. Anton, A. Fogleman et al., “Pilot, randomized trial of resistance exercise during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer,” Head and Neck, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1178–1188, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Segal, R. Reid, K. Courneya et al., “Resistance exercise in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1653–1659, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Segal, R. Reid, K. Courneya et al., “Randomized controlled trial of resistance or aerobic exercise in men receiving radiation therapy for prostate cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 344–351, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Piraux, G. Caty, L. Renard et al., “Effects of high-intensity interval training compared with resistance training in prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy: a randomized controlled trial,” Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 156–165, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Santa Mina, S. Alibhai, A. Matthew et al., “A randomized trial of aerobic versus resistance exercise in prostate cancer survivors,” In Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 455–478, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Hacker, E. Collins, C. Park, T. Peters, P. Patel, and D. Rondelli, “Strength training to enhance early recovery after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation,” Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 659–669, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Hacker, J. Larson, A. Kujath, D. Peace, D. Rondelli, and L. Gaston, “Strength training following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation,” Cancer Nursing, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 238–249, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Christensen, A. Tolver, J. Andersen, M. Rørth, G. Daugaard, and P. Hojman, “Resistance training does not protect against increases in plasma cytokine levels among germ cell cancer patients during and after chemotherapy,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 99, no. 8, pp. 2967–2976, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Ebede, Y. Jang, and C. Escalante, “Cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivorship,” Medical Clinics of North America, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 1085–1097, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Twomey, S. Aboodarda, R. Kruger, S. Culos-Reed, J. Temesi, and G. Millet, “La fatigue neuromusculaire au cours de l'exercice: considerations methodologiques, etiologie et role potentiel dans la fatigue chronique,” Neurophysiologie Clinique, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 95–110, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Wood, L. Nail, K. Winters, L. Wood, and L. Nail, “Does muscle-derived interleukin-6 mediate some of the beneficial effects of exercise on cancer treatment-related fatigue,” Oncology Nursing Forum, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 519–524, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Hagstrom, P. Marshall, C. Lonsdale et al., “The effect of resistance training on markers of immune function and inflammation in previously sedentary women recovering from breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 155, no. 3, pp. 471–482, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Alves de Lima, A. Teixeira, L. Biondo et al., “Exercise reduces the resumption of tumor growth and proteolytic pathways in the skeletal muscle of mice following chemotherapy,” Cancers (Basel), vol. 12, no. 11, p. 3466, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Møller, S. Lønbro, J. Farup et al., “Molecular and cellular adaptations to exercise training in skeletal muscle from cancer patients treated with chemotherapy,” Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, vol. 145, no. 6, pp. 1449–1460, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Christensen, C. Simonsen, and P. Hojman, “Exercise training in cancer control and treatment,” Comprehensive Physiology, vol. 9, pp. 165–205, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Henshall, L. Allin, and H. Aveyard, “A systematic review and narrative synthesis to explore the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions in improving fatigue, dyspnea, and depression in lung cancer survivors,” Cancer Nursing, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 295–306, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Segal, C. Zwaal, E. Green et al., “Exercise for people with cancer: a clinical practice guideline,” Current Oncology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 40–46, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Lily Berríos-Contreras et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1254

Downloads

1037

Citations