Effects of Aerobic Exercise Training in Anemic Cancer Patients Receiving Darbepoetin Alfa: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anemia in patients with solid tumors is a common problem that is associated with impaired exercise capacity, increased fatigue, and lower quality of life (QoL). Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have been shown to improve these outcomes; however, it is unknown if additional benefits can be achieved with aerobic exercise training. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 55 mild-to-moderately anemic patients with solid tumors. Patients were randomized to either darbepoetin alfa alone (DAL, n = 29) or darbepoetin alfa plus aerobic exercise training (DEX; n = 26). The DEX group performed aerobic exercise training three times per week at 60%-100% of baseline exercise capacity for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was QoL assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia scale. Secondary endpoints were fatigue, cardiorespiratory fitness (VO(2peak)), hemoglobin (Hb) response, and darbepoetin alfa dosing. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses indicated significant improvements in QoL and fatigue in both groups over time but there were no between-group differences. The DEX group had a significantly greater VO(2peak) than the DAL group (mean group difference, +3.0 ml/kg per minute; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.7; p = .001) and there were borderline significant differences in favor of the DEX group for Hb response and darbepoetin alfa dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic exercise training did not improve QoL or fatigue beyond the established benefits of DAL but it did result in favorable improvements in exercise capacity and a more rapid Hb response with lower dosing requirements. Our results may be useful to clinicians despite the more recent restrictions on the indications for ESAs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".