Does exercise intensity matter for fatigue during (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment?: The phys-can randomized clinical trial
Demmelmaier, Ingrid; Brooke, Hannah L.; Henriksson, Anna; Mazzoni, Anne-Sophie; Bjørke, Ann Christin Helgesen; Igelström, Helena; Ax, Anna-Karin; Sjövall, Katarina; Hellbom, Maria; Pingel, Ronnie; Lindman, Henrik; Johansson, Silvia; Velikova, Galina; Raastad, Truls; Buffart, Laurien M.; Åsenlöf, Pernilla; Aaronson, Neil K.; Glimelius, Bengt; Nygren, Peter; Johansson, Birgitta; Börjeson, Sussanne; Berntsen, Sveinung; Nordin, Karin
Peer reviewed, Journal article
MetadataVis full innførsel
OriginalversjonScandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2021, 31(5), 1144-1159. 10.1111/sms.13930
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.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.