Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of aerobic training in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The investigation of exercise training in metastatic breast cancer has received minimal attention. This study determined the feasibility and safety of aerobic training in metastatic breast cancer. METHODS Sixty‐five women (age, 21‐80 years) with metastatic (stage IV) breast cancer (57% were receiving chemotherapy, and >40% had ≥ 2 lines of prior therapy) were allocated to an aerobic training group (n = 33) or a stretching group (n = 32). Aerobic training consisted of 36 supervised treadmill walking sessions delivered thrice weekly between 55% and 80% of peak oxygen consumption (VO 2peak ) for 12 consecutive weeks. Stretching was matched to aerobic training with respect to location, frequency, duration, and intervention length. The primary endpoint was aerobic training feasibility, which was a priori defined as the lost to follow‐up (LTF) rate (<20%) and attendance (≥70%). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective outcomes (VO 2peak and functional capacity), and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs; quality of life). RESULTS One of the 33 patients (3%) receiving aerobic training was LTF, whereas the mean attendance rate was 63% ± 30%. The rates of permanent discontinuation and dose modification were 27% and 49%, respectively. Intention‐to‐treat analyses indicated improvements in PROs, which favored the attention control group ( P values > .05). Per protocol analyses indicated that 14 of 33 patients (42%) receiving aerobic training had acceptable tolerability (relative dose intensity ≥ 70%), and this led to improvements in VO 2peak and functional capacity ( P values < .05). CONCLUSIONS Aerobic training at the dose and schedule tested is safe but not feasible for a significant proportion of patients with metastatic breast cancer. The acceptable feasibility and promising benefit for select patients warrant further evaluation in a dose‐finding phase 1/2 study. Cancer 2018;124:2552‐60. © 2018 American Cancer Society .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".