Abstract PD2-6: Exercise dose and type effects in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: A randomized trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Aerobic and resistance exercise, either separately or in combination, have been shown to improve physical functioning and manage some symptoms in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Few exercise trials, however, have compared different doses or types of exercise in breast cancer patients to identify the optimal exercise prescription. Here, we report the primary results of the Combined Aerobic and Resistance Exercise (CARE) Trial which compared two different doses and types of exercise for improving physical functioning and symptom management in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Methods: A multicenter trial in Canada randomized 301 breast cancer patients between 2008 and 2011 to thrice weekly, supervised exercise during chemotherapy consisting of either a standard dose of 25-30 minutes of aerobic exercise (STAN; n = 96), a higher dose of 50-60 minutes of aerobic exercise (HIGH; n = 101), or a combined dose of 50-60 minutes of aerobic and resistance exercise (COMB; n = 104). The primary endpoint was patient-reported physical functioning assessed by the Medical Outcomes Survey-Short Form (SF)-36. Secondary endpoints were other physical functioning scales, symptoms, physical fitness, and chemotherapy completion. Results: Between April 2008 and September 2011, we randomized 301 of 728 (41%) eligible patients. STAN, HIGH and COMB completed 88% (43/49), 82% (40/49), and 78% (39/50) of their prescribed aerobic exercise sessions. We obtained patient-reported outcome data from questionnaires on 99% of patients at each point during and after chemotherapy. Adjusted linear mixed-model analyses showed that neither HIGH (+0.8; 95% CI [-0.8 to 2.4]; p = 0.30) nor COMB (+0.5; 95% CI [-1.1 to 2.1]; p = 0.52) were statistically superior to STAN for the primary outcome. For important secondary outcomes, HIGH was superior to STAN for the SF-36 physical component summary (p = 0.041), SF-36 bodily pain (p = 0.015), and endocrine symptoms (p = 0.019). COMB was superior to STAN for endocrine symptoms (p = 0.009) and superior to STAN (p<.001) and HIGH (p<.001) for muscular strength. HIGH was superior to COMB for the SF-36 bodily pain (p = 0.035) and aerobic fitness (p = 0.030). No differences resulted for body composition or chemotherapy completion. Relative dose intensity was 93.9% in STAN compared to 92.7% in COMB and 91.6% in HIGH (p = 0.34). No serious adverse events were related to exercise. Conclusions: A higher dose of aerobic or combined exercise compared to a standard dose of aerobic exercise did not improve patient-reported physical functioning as assessed by the SF-36 physical functioning subscale. The CARE Trial did demonstrate that higher doses of aerobic or combined exercise of up to 50-60 minutes/session are safe and feasible and do not interfere with chemotherapy completion or exacerbate any symptoms. Moreover, a higher dose of aerobic exercise was shown to provide modest improvements in aerobic fitness, patient-reported physical functioning, bodily pain, fatigue, and endocrine symptoms whereas combined exercise improved muscular fitness and endocrine symptoms. Cancer care professionals can safely recommend higher doses of exercise during breast cancer chemotherapy in appropriately supervised settings. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr PD2-6.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».