High-intensity interval training and hyperoxia during chemotherapy: A case report about the feasibility, safety and physical functioning in a colorectal cancer patient

Rates of compliance and adherence to high-intensity interval training: a systematic review and Meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

To determine rates of compliance (i.e., supervised intervention attendance) and adherence (i.e., unsupervised physical activity completion) to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) among insufficiently active adults and adults with a medical condition, and determine whether compliance and adherence rates were different between HIIT and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT).

METHODS

Articles on adults in a HIIT intervention and who were either insufficiently active or had a medical condition were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched. Article screening and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 or ROBINS-I. Meta-analyses were conducted to discern differences in compliance and adherence between HIIT vs. MICT. Sensitivity analyses, publication bias, sub-group analyses, and quality appraisal were conducted for each meta-analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-eight unique studies were included (n = 8928 participants). Compliance to HIIT interventions averaged 89.4% (SD:11.8%), while adherence to HIIT averaged 63% (SD: 21.1%). Compliance and adherence to MICT averaged 92.5% (SD:10.6%) and 68.2% (SD:16.2%), respectively. Based on 65 studies included in the meta-analysis, compliance rates were not different between supervised HIIT and MICT interventions [Hedge's g = 0.015 (95%CI: - 0.088-0.118), p = .78]. Results were robust and low risk of publication bias was detected. No differences were detected based on sub-group analyses comparing medical conditions or risk of bias of studies. Quality of the evidence was rated as moderate over concerns in the directness of the evidence. Based on 10 studies, adherence rates were not different between unsupervised HIIT and MICT interventions [Hedge's g = - 0.313 (95%CI: - 0.681-0.056), p = .096]. Sub-group analysis points to differences in adherence rates dependent on the method of outcome measurement. Adherence results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance to HIIT and MICT was high among insufficiently active adults and adults with a medical condition. Adherence to HIIT and MICT was relatively moderate, although there was high heterogeneity and very low quality of evidence. Further research should take into consideration exercise protocols employed, methods of outcome measurement, and measurement timepoints.

REGISTRATION

This review was registered in the PROSPERO database and given the identifier CRD42019103313.

Evolution of Physical Status From Diagnosis to the End of First-Line Treatment in Breast, Lung, and Colorectal Cancer Patients: The PROTECT-01 Cohort Study Protocol

Background: Cancer cachexia and exacerbated fatigue represent two hallmarks in cancer patients, negatively impacting their exercise tolerance and ultimately their quality of life. However, the characterization of patients' physical status and exercise tolerance and, most importantly, their evolution throughout cancer treatment may represent the first step in efficiently counteracting their development with prescribed and tailored exercise training. In this context, the aim of the PROTECT-01 study will be to investigate the evolution of physical status, from diagnosis to the end of first-line treatment, of patients with one of the three most common cancers (i.e., lung, breast, and colorectal).

Methods: The PROTECT-01 cohort study will include 300 patients equally divided between lung, breast and colorectal cancer. Patients will perform a series of assessments at three visits throughout the treatment: (1) between the date of diagnosis and the start of treatment, (2) 8 weeks after the start of treatment, and (3) after the completion of first-line treatment or at the 6-months mark, whichever occurs first. For each of the three visits, subjective and objective fatigue, maximal voluntary force, body composition, cachexia, physical activity level, quality of life, respiratory function, overall physical performance, and exercise tolerance will be assessed.

Discussion: The present study is aimed at identifying the nature and severity of maladaptation related to exercise intolerance in the three most common cancers. Therefore, our results should contribute to the delineation of the needs of each group of patients and to the determination of the most valuable exercise interventions in order to counteract these maladaptations. This descriptive and comprehensive approach is a prerequisite in order to elaborate, through future interventional research projects, tailored exercise strategies to counteract specific symptoms that are potentially cancer type-dependent and, in fine, to improve the health and quality of life of cancer patients. Moreover, our concomitant focus on fatigue and cachexia will provide insightful information about two factors that may have substantial interaction but require further investigation.

Trial registration: This prospective study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03956641), May, 2019.

Oncology and Cardiac Rehabilitation: An Underrated Relationship

Cancer and cardiovascular diseases are globally the leading causes of mortality and morbidity. These conditions are closely related, beyond that of sharing many risk factors. The term bidirectional relationship indicates that cardiovascular diseases increase the likelihood of getting cancer and vice versa. The biological and biochemical pathways underlying this close relationship will be analyzed. In this new overlapping scenario, physical activity and exercise are proven protective behaviors against both cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Many observational studies link an increase in physical activity to a reduction in either the development or progression of cancer, as well as to a reduction in risk in cardiovascular diseases, a non-negligible cause of death for long-term cancer survivors. Exercise is an effective tool for improving cardio-respiratory fitness, quality of life, psychological wellbeing, reducing fatigue, anxiety and depression. Finally, it can counteract the toxic effects of cancer therapy. The protection obtained from physical activity and exercise will be discussed in the various stages of the cancer continuum, from diagnosis, to adjuvant therapy, and from the metastatic phase to long-term effects. Particular attention will be paid to the shelter against chemotherapy, radiotherapy, cardiovascular risk factors or new onset cardiovascular diseases. Cardio-Oncology Rehabilitation is an exercise-based multi-component intervention, starting from the model of Cardiac Rehabilitation, with few modifications, to improve care and the prognosis of a patient's cancer. The network of professionals dedicated to Cardiac Rehabilitation is a ready-to-use resource, for implementing Cardio-Oncology Rehabilitation.

Physical activity interventions for disease-related physical and mental health during and following treatment in people with non-advanced colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. A diagnosis of colorectal cancer and subsequent treatment can adversely affect an individuals physical and mental health. Benefits of physical activity interventions in alleviating treatment side effects have been demonstrated in other cancer populations. Given that regular physical activity can decrease the risk of colorectal cancer, and cardiovascular fitness is a strong predictor of all-cause and cancer mortality risk, physical activity interventions may have a role to play in the colorectal cancer control continuum. Evidence of the efficacy of physical activity interventions in this population remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of physical activity interventions on the disease-related physical and mental health of individuals diagnosed with non-advanced colorectal cancer, staged as T1-4 N0-2 M0, treated surgically or with neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy (i.e. chemotherapy, radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy), or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 6), along with OVID MEDLINE, six other databases and four trial registries with no language or date restrictions. We screened reference lists of relevant publications and handsearched meeting abstracts and conference proceedings of relevant organisations for additional relevant studies. All searches were completed between 6 June and 14 June 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised control trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs comparing physical activity interventions, to usual care or no physical activity intervention in adults with non-advanced colorectal cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, performed the data extraction, assessed the risk of bias and rated the quality of the studies using GRADE criteria. We pooled data for meta-analyses by length of follow-up, reported as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects wherever possible, or the fixed-effect model, where appropriate. If a meta-analysis was not possible, we synthesised studies narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 16 RCTs, involving 992 participants; 524 were allocated to a physical activity intervention group and 468 to a usual care control group. The mean age of participants ranged between 51 and 69 years. Ten studies included participants who had finished active treatment, two studies included participants who were receiving active treatment, two studies included both those receiving and finished active treatment. It was unclear whether participants were receiving or finished treatment in two studies. Type, setting and duration of physical activity intervention varied between trials. Three studies opted for supervised interventions, five for home-based self-directed interventions and seven studies opted for a combination of supervised and self-directed programmes. One study did not report the intervention setting. The most common intervention duration was 12 weeks (7 studies). Type of physical activity included walking, cycling, resistance exercise, yoga and core stabilisation exercise. Most of the uncertainty in judging study bias came from a lack of clarity around allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. Blinding of participants and personnel was not possible. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate overall. We did not pool physical function results at immediate-term follow-up due to considerable variation in results and inconsistency of direction of effect. We are uncertain whether physical activity interventions improve physical function compared with usual care. We found no evidence of effect of physical activity interventions compared to usual care on disease-related mental health (anxiety: SMD -0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to 0.18; 4 studies, 198 participants; I2 = 0%; and depression: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.08; 4 studies, 198 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) at short- or medium-term follow-up. Seven studies reported on adverse events. We did not pool adverse events due to inconsistency in reporting and measurement. We found no evidence of serious adverse events in the intervention or usual care groups. Minor adverse events, such as neck, back and muscle pain were most commonly reported. No studies reported on overall survival or recurrence-free survival and no studies assessed outcomes at long-term follow-up We found evidence of positive effects of physical activity interventions on the aerobic fitness component of physical fitness (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.29; 7 studies, 295; I2 = 68%; low-quality evidence), cancer-related fatigue (MD 2.16, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.15; 6 studies, 230 participants; I2 = 18%; low-quality evidence) and health-related quality of life (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62; 6 studies, 230 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) at immediate-term follow-up. These positive effects were also observed at short-term follow-up but not medium-term follow-up. Only three studies reported medium-term follow-up for cancer-related fatigue and health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of studies included and the quality of the evidence. We are uncertain whether physical activity interventions improve physical function. Physical activity interventions may have no effect on disease-related mental health. Physical activity interventions may be beneficial for aerobic fitness, cancer-related fatigue and health-related quality of life up to six months follow-up. Where reported, adverse events were generally minor. Adequately powered RCTs of high methodological quality with longer-term follow-up are required to assess the effect of physical activity interventions on the disease-related physical and mental health and on survival of people with non-advanced colorectal cancer. Adverse events should be adequately reported.