Exercise during cancer treatment improves cancer‐related fatigue (CRF), but the importance of exercise intensity for CRF is unclear. We compared the effects of high‐ vs low‐to‐moderate‐intensity exercise with or without additional behavior change support (BCS) on CRF in patients undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant cancer treatment. This was a multicenter, 2x2 factorial design randomized controlled trial (Clinical Trials NCT02473003) in Sweden. Participants recently diagnosed with breast (n = 457), prostate (n = 97) or colorectal (n = 23) cancer undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant treatment were randomized to high intensity (n = 144), low‐to‐moderate intensity (n = 144), high intensity with BCS (n = 144) or low‐to‐moderate intensity with BCS (n = 145). The 6‐month exercise intervention included supervised resistance training and home‐based endurance training. CRF was assessed by Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI, five subscales score range 4‐20), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy‐Fatigue scale (FACIT‐F, score range 0‐52). Multiple linear regression for main factorial effects was performed according to intention‐to‐treat, with post‐intervention CRF as primary endpoint. Overall, 577 participants (mean age 58.7 years) were randomized. Participants randomized to high‐ vs low‐to‐moderate‐intensity exercise had lower physical fatigue (MFI Physical Fatigue subscale; mean difference −1.05 [95% CI: −1.85, −0.25]), but the difference was not clinically important (ie <2). We found no differences in other CRF dimensions and no effect of additional BCS. There were few minor adverse events. For CRF, patients undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant treatment for breast, prostate or colorectal cancer can safely exercise at high‐ or low‐to‐moderate intensity, according to their own preferences. Additional BCS does not provide extra benefit for CRF in supervised, well‐controlled exercise interventions.

No abstract

Exercise training has been hypothesized to lower the inflammatory burden for patients with cancer, but the role of exercise intensity is unknown. To this end, we compared the effects of high-intensity (HI) and low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise on markers of inflammation in patients with curable breast, prostate and colorectal cancer undergoing primary adjuvant cancer treatment in a secondary analysis of the Phys-Can randomized trial (NCT02473003). Sub-group analyses focused on patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Patients performed six months of combined aerobic and resistance exercise on either HI or LMI during and after primary adjuvant cancer treatment. Plasma taken at baseline, immediately post-treatment and post-intervention was analyzed for levels of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and C-reactive protein (CRP). Intention-to-treat analyses of 394 participants revealed no significant between-group differences. Regardless of exercise intensity, significant increases of IL-6, IL-8, IL-10 and TNF-α post-treatment followed by significant declines, except for IL-8, until post-intervention were observed with no difference for CRP or IL-1β. Subgroup analyses of 154 patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy revealed that CRP (Estimated Mean Difference (95% CI): 0.59 (0.33; 1.06); p = 0.101) and TNF-α (EMD (95% CI): 0.88 (0.77; 1) ; p = 0.053) increased less with HI exercise post-treatment compared to LMI. Exploratory cytokine co-regulation analysis revealed no difference between the groups. In patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy, HI exercise resulted in a lesser increase of CRP and TNF-α immediately post-treatment compared to LMI, potentially protecting against chemotherapy related inflammation.

No abstract

Introduction: (Neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer has a deleterious impact on muscle tissue resulting in reduced cardiorespiratory fitness, skeletal muscle mass and function. Physical exercise during treatment may counteract some of these negative effects. However, the effects of resistance training (RT) alone have never been explored. The present study aims to investigate if heavy-load RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy counteracts deleterious effects on skeletal muscle in women diagnosed with breast cancer. We hypothesize that (neo-)adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy will reduce muscle fiber size, impair mitochondrial function, and increase indicators of cellular stress and that RT during treatment will counteract these negative effects. We also hypothesize that RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will increase muscle and blood levels of potential antitumor myokines and reduce treatment-related side effects on muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness. Methods: Fifty women recently diagnosed with breast cancer scheduled to start (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to either randomized to either intervention group or to control group. The intervention group will perform supervised heavy-load RT twice a week over the course of chemotherapy (approximately 16-weeks) whereas the control group will be encouraged to continue with their usual activities. Muscle biopsies from m. vastus lateralis will be collected before the first cycle of chemotherapy (T0), after chemotherapy (T1), and 6 months later (T2) for assessment of muscle cellular outcomes. The primary outcome for this study is muscle fiber size. Secondary outcomes are: regulators of muscle fiber size and function, indicators of cellular stress and mitochondrial function, myokines with potential antitumor effects, muscle strength, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden (Dnr:2016/230/2). Results will be disseminated through presentations at scientific meetings, publications in peer-reviewed journals, social media, and patient organizations. Trial registration number: NCT04586517.

Background: Adjuvant therapy may cause multiple sideeffects on long term health, including reduced cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in patients with breast cancer (1, 2). However, there is currently limited knowledge regarding the effect of different types of adjuvant cancer treatment on CRF in other cancer populations. The primary objective of the present study was to assess whether previously known correlates (age, diagnosis, initial CRF, physical activity level), type of adjuvant treatment and cancer-related fatigue were associated with changes iṅ VO 2 max in patients with breast, prostate or colorectal cancer. Methods: Prospective study with two time points of assessment, 85 patients scheduled for adjuvant cancer treatment were included. Cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed by˙VO 2 max during a maximal incremental exercise test on a treadmill before start of adjuvant therapy and again six months later. Physical activity level was recorded with a physical activity monitor (Sense Wear™ Mini) at baseline as average minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) per day. Physical fatigue at baseline was reported using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 questionaire. Results: In multivariate linear regression analysis, 30 min higher daily MVPA at baseline was associated with a 5% higherVO 2 max at six months follow up when adjusted for adjuvant treatment (P = 0.010). Patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy had a mean decline inVO 2 max of 10% (− 19, − 1; 95% confidence interval) compared to patients receiving adjuvant endocrine treatment (P = 0.028). Adjuvant radiotherapy, fatigue, age and diagnosis were not significantly associated with changes inVO 2 max.

No abstract

Introduction: Supervised exercise may improve physical function and quality of life during oncological treatment. Providing supervised exercise to all patients at hospitals may be impractical, with community-based settings (e.g. public gyms) as a possible alternative. To facilitate implementation, knowledge about the experiences of professionals who deliver exercise programs in community-based settings is crucial. Objective: To explore how physical therapists and personal trainers experience supervising exercise in a community-based setting for persons undergoing curative oncological treatment. Methods: Nine physical therapists and two personal trainers (coaches) were interviewed individually. The semi-structured interviews lasted 33-67 minutes and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Two main themes emerged: "A meaningful task" and "A challenging task," with nine sub-themes. The coaches experienced supervising exercise for persons undergoing treatment as meaningful, as they became a link between oncology care and health promotion. They grew more confident in the role and ascertained that exercising during treatment was feasible. Challenges included managing side effects of treatment and contradictory information from oncology care staff at hospitals, advising patients not to exercise. Conclusion: Supervising exercise for persons undergoing oncological treatment in a communitybased setting may be highly rewarding for professionals who deliver exercise programs, which is promising for implementation. However, patients receive contradictory information about exercise, which may prevent physical activity. Also, supervising exercise for persons undergoing oncological treatment requires skills training; this is suggested for inclusion in educational programs for physical therapists and others. Future research should focus on strategies for cooperation between oncology care and health promotion.