The efficacy and safety of exercise in metastatic solid cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e23107 Background: The prevalence of people living with metastatic solid cancers is increasing. Such patients can experience cancer-related fatigue, decreased physical function (PF), and poor quality of life (QoL). Exercise has been shown to improve these symptoms in the curative setting, but there is uncertainty about the efficacy and safety of exercise in patients with metastatic cancer. Methods: Studies were identified from 3 prior systematic reviews and updated using a search of PubMed. Included studies were prospective randomized controlled trials of any moderate/high intensity aerobic exercise or resistance training intervention versus control in patients with metastatic solid cancers. The mean score and standard deviation (SD) for validated outcome measures (QoL, PF, and fatigue) were extracted for intervention and control groups at baseline and post-intervention. The effect of exercise was evaluated as the pooled change between baseline and post-intervention comparing exercise and control groups. Analysis was performed using the Mann Whitney test. Results: Of 21 trials which met inclusion criteria, 7 were excluded due to incomplete data. Among patients with mean baseline scores, exercise was not associated with significant change in fatigue, PF or QoL, although improvement was noted in 6-minute walk test (6-MWT) (14.7 vs 27.4 meters). QoL scores showed non-significant improvement (0.4 vs 4.9). In those with baseline scores 2SD below mean, exercise provided clinically meaningful improvement in PF using two different subscales (0.44 vs 8.5 and -1.0 vs 5.1) and avoidance of decline in 6-MWT (-29.75 vs -0.38m), although these did not meet statistical significance. There was a statistical improvement in sit-to-stand at the mean and 2 SD below the mean (2.5 vs 6.5, p = 0.029) for both groups. Only 5 papers reported adverse events in a standardized fashion in both groups. No differences in falls, fractures, or pain were reported. Conclusions: In patients with metastatic solid cancers, exercise interventions are associated with clinically meaningful improvements in PF, and statistically improved sit-to-stand scores. The effects are seen in patients with baseline score at the mean or lower.
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 | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".