ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the prevalence of depression in cancer patients assessed by diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments, and to study differences in prevalence between type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase.MethodsA literature search was conducted in four databases to select studies on the prevalence of depression among adult cancer patients during or after treatment. A total of 211 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled mean prevalence of depression was calculated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.ResultsHospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—depression subscale (HADS-D) ≥ 8, HADS-D ≥11, Center for Epidemiologic Studies ≥ 16, and (semi-)structured diagnostic interviews were used to define depression in 66, 53, 35 and 49 studies, respectively. Respective mean prevalence of depression was 17% (95% CI = 16–19%), 8% (95% CI = 7–9%), 24% (95% CI = 21–26%), and 13% (95% CI = 11–15%) (p < 0.001). Prevalence of depression ranged from 3% in patients with lung cancer to 31% in patients with cancer of the digestive tract, on the basis of diagnostic interviews. Prevalence of depression was highest during treatment 14% (95% CI = 11–17%), measured by diagnostic interviews, and 27% (95% CI = 25–30%), measured by self-report instruments. In the first year after diagnosis, prevalence of depression measured with diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments were 9% (95% CI = 7–11%) and 21% (95% CI = 19–24%), respectively, and they were 8% (95% CI = 5–12%) and 15% (95% CI = 13–17%) ≥ 1 year after diagnosis.ConclusionsPooled mean prevalence of depression in cancer patients ranged from 8% to 24% and differed by the type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase. Future prospective studies should disentangle whether differences in prevalence of depression are caused by differences in the type of instrument, type of cancer or treatment phase.

A supervised, moderate- to high-intensity, combined resistance and aerobic exercise program is most effective for patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. A home-based, low-intensity physical activity program represents a viable alternative for women who are unable or unwilling to follow the higher intensity program.

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 (β=0.13, 95%CI=0.03;0.22) and PF (β=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.

BackgroundThis study aimed to systematically review the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to conduct a meta-analysis of the effects of yoga on physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer patients and survivors.MethodsA systematic literature search in ten databases was conducted in November 2011. Studies were included if they had an RCT design, focused on cancer patients or survivors, included physical postures in the yoga program, compared yoga with a non-exercise or waitlist control group, and evaluated physical and/or psychosocial outcomes. Two researchers independently rated the quality of the included RCTs, and high quality was defined as >50% of the total possible score. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated for outcomes studied in more than three studies among patients with breast cancer using means and standard deviations of post-test scores of the intervention and control groups.ResultsSixteen publications of 13 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, of which one included patients with lymphomas and the others focused on patients with breast cancer. The median quality score was 67% (range: 22–89%). The included studies evaluated 23 physical and 20 psychosocial outcomes. Of the outcomes studied in more than three studies among patients with breast cancer, we found large reductions in distress, anxiety, and depression (d = −0.69 to −0.75), moderate reductions in fatigue (d = −0.51), moderate increases in general quality of life, emotional function and social function (d = 0.33 to 0.49), and a small increase in functional well-being (d = 0.31). Effects on physical function and sleep were small and not significant.ConclusionYoga appeared to be a feasible intervention and beneficial effects on several physical and psychosocial symptoms were reported. In patients with breast cancer, effect size on functional well-being was small, and they were moderate to large for psychosocial outcomes.

No abstract

BackgroundInternational evidence-based guidelines recommend physical exercise to form part of standard care for all cancer survivors. However, at present, the optimum exercise intensity is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a high intensity (HI) and low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) resistance and endurance exercise program compared with a wait list control (WLC) group on physical fitness and fatigue in a mixed group of cancer survivors who completed primary cancer treatment, including chemotherapy.MethodsOverall, 277 cancer survivors were randomized to 12 weeks of HI exercise (n = 91), LMI exercise (n = 95), or WLC (n = 91). Both interventions were identical with respect to exercise type, duration and frequency, and only differed in intensity. Measurements were performed at baseline (4–6 weeks after primary treatment) and post-intervention. The primary outcomes were cardiorespiratory fitness (peakVO2), muscle strength (grip strength and 30-second chair-stand test), and self-reported fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; MFI). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, physical activity, daily functioning, body composition, mood, and sleep disturbances. Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed to estimate intervention effects using an intention-to-treat principle.ResultsIn the HI and LMI groups, 74 % and 70 % of the participants attended more than 80 % of the prescribed exercise sessions, respectively (P = 0.53). HI (β = 2.2; 95 % CI, 1.2–3.1) and LMI (β = 1.3; 95 % CI, 0.3–2.3) exercise showed significantly larger improvements in peakVO2 compared to WLC. Improvements in peakVO2 were larger for HI than LMI exercise (β = 0.9; 95 % CI, −0.1 to 1.9), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). No intervention effects were found for grip strength and the 30-second chair-stand test. HI and LMI exercise significantly reduced general and physical fatigue and reduced activity (MFI subscales) compared to WLC, with no significant differences between both interventions. Finally, compared to WLC, we found benefits in global quality of life and anxiety after HI exercise, improved physical functioning after HI and LMI exercise, and less problems at work after LMI exercise.ConclusionsShortly after completion of cancer treatment, both HI and LMI exercise were safe and effective. There may be a dose–response relationship between exercise intensity and peakVO2, favoring HI exercise. HI and LMI exercise were equally effective in reducing general and physical fatigue.Trial registrationThis study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register [NTR2153] on the 5th of January 2010.

For an exercise intervention to be successful, it is important that cancer survivors adhere to the prescribed program. To be able to improve adherence and to preserve achieved beneficial effects, insights into the relevant and modifiable determinants is important. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review determinants of exercise adherence and maintenance in cancer survivors using a socio-ecological approach.Studies were identified in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus up to July 2013. We included full-text articles that: 1) were conducted among adult cancer survivors; 2) quantitatively assessed factors associated with intervention adherence and maintenance, and 3) were published in English. The methodological quality of the selected studies was examined. A best evidence synthesis was applied.Eighteen studies were included. Median methodological quality was 53% and ranged from 21-78% of maximum score. Twelve studies focused on determinants of exercise adherence and evaluated 71 potential determinants: 29 demographic and clinical, 27 psychological, ten physical, four social factors, and one environmental factor. Six studies focused on determinants of exercise maintenance after completion of an intervention, and investigated 63 factors: 22 demographic and clinical, 28 psychosocial, nine physical, three social and one environmental factor. We found moderate evidence for a positive association between exercise history and exercise adherence. Inconsistent findings were found for age, gender and education as well as for psychological factors such as stage of change, perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, extraversion, attitude, intention, fatigue, and quality of life, and physical factors including cardiovascular fitness, body mass index, and baseline physical activity.Exercise history is positively associated with exercise adherence. Future trials should further study the influence of social and environmental determinants on exercise adherence and maintenance in addition to demographic, psychological and physical determinants.

BackgroundThis single blind, multicenter randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a supervised high intensity exercise program on physical fitness and fatigue in patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma recently treated with autologous stem cell transplantation.Methods109 patients were randomly assigned to the 18-week exercise intervention or the usual care control group. The primary outcomes included physical fitness (VO2peak and Wpeak determined using a cardiopulmonary exercise test; grip strength and the 30s chair stand test) and fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory) and were assessed prior to randomization and after completion of the intervention or at similar time points for the control group. Multivariable multilevel linear regression analyses were performed to assess intervention effects.ResultsPatients in the intervention group attended 86% of the prescribed exercise sessions. Of the patients in the control group, 47% reported ≥10 physiotherapy sessions, which most likely included supervised exercise, suggesting a high rate of contamination. Median improvements in physical fitness ranged between 16 and 25% in the intervention group and between 12 and 19% in the control group. Fatigue decreased in both groups. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control group.ConclusionWe found no significant beneficial effects of the supervised high intensity exercise program on physical fitness and fatigue when compared to usual care. We hypothesized that the lack of significant intervention effects may relate to suboptimal timing of intervention delivery, contamination in the control group and/or suboptimal compliance to the prescribed exercise intervention.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register—NTR2341.