Background Evidence supports the benefits of exercise for cancer patients, however, specific guidance for clinical decision making regarding exercise timing, frequency, duration and intensity is lacking. Efforts are needed to optimize clinical recommendations for exercise in the cancer population. Objectives To aggregate information regarding the benefit of exercise through a systematic review of existing systematic reviews in the cancer exercise literature. Data Sources PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE. Study Eligibility Criteria Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the impact of movement-based exercise on the adult cancer population. Methods Two author teams reviewed 302 abstracts for inclusion with 93 selected for full text review. 53 studies were analyzed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR©) was used as a quality measure of the reviews. Information was extracted using the PICO format (participants, intervention, comparison, outcomes). Descriptive findings are reported. Results Mean AMSTAR© score = 7.66 / 11 (±2.04) suggests moderate quality of the systematic reviews. Exercise is beneficial before, during, and after cancer treatment, across all cancer types, and for a variety of cancer-related impairments. Moderate to vigorous exercise is the best level of exercise intensity to improve physical function and mitigate cancer-related impairments. Therapeutic exercises are beneficial to manage treatment side effects, may enhance tolerance to cancer treatments, and improve functional outcomes. Supervised exercise yielded superior benefits versus unsupervised. Serious adverse events were not common. Limitations Movement-based exercise intervention outcomes are reported. No analysis of pooled effects was calculated across reviews due to significant heterogeneity within the systematic reviews. Findings do not consider exercise in advanced cancers or pediatric populations. Conclusions Exercise promotes significant improvements in clinical, functional, and in some populations, survival outcomes and can be recommended regardless of the type of cancer. Although generally safe, patients should be screened and appropriate precautions taken. Efforts to strengthen uniformity in clinical trial reporting, develop clinical practice guidelines, and integrate exercise and rehabilitation services into the cancer delivery system are needed.

This statement summarizes the information available on specific exercise test protocols and outcome parameters used in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and provides expert consensus recommendations for protocol and performance of exercise tests and basic interpretation of results for clinicians. The conclusions were reached employing consensus meetings and a wide-band Delphi process. Although data on utility are currently limited, standardized exercise testing provides detailed information on physiological health, allows screening for exercise-related adverse reactions and enables exercise counselling. The Godfrey Cycle Ergometer Protocol with monitoring of oxygen saturation and ventilatory gas exchange is recommended for exercise testing in people 10 years and older. Cycle ergometry only with pulse oximetry using the Godfrey protocol or treadmill exercise with pulse oximetry - preferably with measurement of gas exchange - are second best options. Peak oxygen uptake, if assessed, and maximal work rate should be reported as the primary measure of exercise capacity. The final statement was reviewed by the European Cystic Fibrosis society and revised based on the comments received. The document was endorsed by the European Respiratory Society.

Purpose Regular exercise and healthy eating are routinely recommended for breast cancer survivors, and past studies show benefits in quality of life and decreased inflammation. However, this has not been testing specifically in triple-negative breast cancer survivors. Increasing physical activity and losing body fat are thought to positively affect inflammatory biomarkers that have been associated with breast cancer. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to determine if participation in an exercise and dietary counseling program can improve body fat, physical function, and quality of life in survivors of this aggressive breast cancer. Secondarily, we sought to determine if participation in the program had beneficial effects on obesity-related markers of the adipokine profile. Methods Sixty-six survivors of triple-negative breast cancer with BMI >25 were invited to participate. Twenty-eight enrolled and 23 completed the randomized, controlled trial (13 intervention, 10 control). Moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (150 min per week, for 12 weeks) and diet counseling were compared to usual care, education only. The primary outcome of interest was weight loss (body mass, BMI, % fat), and secondary outcomes included physical function (exercise capacity), quality of life (Function After Cancer Therapy—Breast (FACT-B)), cytokines (C-reactive protein (CRP), TNF-α, IL-6), and adipokine profile (leptin, adiponectin, insulin). Results Participants in the program lost more body fat (2.4 % loss vs. 0.4 % gain, p<0.05) than the control group. The intervention group also improved quality of life (FACT-B total score +14 pts) and decreased sedentary time but did not improve peak exercise capacity. The intervention had no effect on serum cytokines and adipokines after 12 weeks in the program. However, serum leptin and adiponectin and their ratio were significantly correlated with BMI in the intervention group (p<0.05). Conclusions Exercise and dietary counseling led to loss of body fat and improved quality of life in survivors of triple-negative breast cancer. BMI was associated with favorable changes in leptin and adiponectin which may reflect a change in adiposity with intervention. Exercise and healthy eating may be equally effective in this high-risk population as in other breast cancer survivors and should be encouraged as a part of a cancer survivorship program.

No abstract

Our current position is that activity monitors such as SenseWear or ActiGraph offer informed choices to facilitate a comprehensive assessment of physical activity, and should as a minimum report on dimensions of physical activity including energy expenditure, step count and time spent in different intensities and sedentary time. The DigiWalker pedometer offers an informed choice of a comparatively inexpensive method of obtaining some measurement of physical activity. The HAES represents an informed choice of questionnaire to assess physical activity. There is insufficient data to recommend the use of one diary over another. Future research should focus on providing additional evidence of clinimetric properties of these and new physical activity assessment tools, as well as further exploring the added value of physical activity assessment in CF.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract