MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P4-10-15: Whole-body vibration combined with physical exercise to treat aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms in breast cancer women: Results of a pilot randomized controlled study

2022· article· en· W4220978230 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorenzo Lippi, Alessandro de Sire, Antonio Ammendolia, Carlo Cisari, Konstantinos Venetis, Elham Sajjadi, Nicola Fusco, Marco Invernizzi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerPhysical therapyWhole body vibrationRandomized controlled trialWOMACCancerAromatase inhibitorOsteoarthritisInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationTamoxifenAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) represent a cornerstone of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancers management. However, AIs-induced musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS) might be frequently reported during estrogen depletion, with a crucial impact on cancer treatment adherence [1-2]. To date, physical exercise has been proposed as a promising therapeutic intervention to improve symptoms in AIMSS breast cancer patients [3] and recently, also whole-body vibration (WBV) showed promising results in these women. WBV is an effective neuromuscular training proposed to enhance muscle function and proprioception through various frequencies of mechanical vibration inducing repetitive muscle contractions. However, at present, data about tailored and effective multimodal rehabilitative exercise protocols to treat AIMSS are still controversial [3]. Therefore, this pilot randomized controlled study aimed at assessing the safety and efficacy of WBV in breast cancer women suffering from AIMSS. METHODS: In this study we recruited adults women undergoing AIs treatment for breast cancer and suffering from AIMSS. Twentytwo patients were enrolled and subsequently randomly assigned 1:1 to two groups. Group A received physical exercise and WBV, while Group B received physical exercise combined with sham WBV. The patients were assessed at the baseline (T0) and after 4 weeks of treatment (T1). The primary endpoint was the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) for pain assessment; the secondary endpoints were the handgrip strength (HGS) test to assess appendicular muscle strength, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) to assess pain, joint stiffness, and function; 10-meter walking test (10MWT) and 6MWT to evaluate physical performance; the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) to assess function, symptoms, and global health. RESULTS: Group A (n=11; mean age: 51.73±10.73 years; body mass index (BMI): 25.56±5.17 kg/m2) showed a statistically significant improvement of pain (NPRS: 6.82±1.17 vs 5.73±1.01; p=0.031). In contrast, patients in Group B, control group, (n=11; mean age: 58.55±9.71 years; BMI: 27.31±3.84 kg/m2), did not significantly improved in terms of pain (NPRS: 6.91±2.02 vs 5.91±2.51; p=0.07). Moreover, significant differences between groups at T1 were found in terms of WOMAC physical functioning (Group A: 77.56±9.853; Group B: 65.63±14.27; p=0.044). Furthermore, a significant improvement in terms of muscle strength, physical performance and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) were reported in intragroup analysis in both groups, without significant differences between groups. We did not register dropouts or side effects in both groups. Lastly, both patients and the physical therapist reported a high level of satisfaction about the rehabilitative intervention performed. CONCLUSION: These findings showed that physical exercise and WBV combination therapy might be safe, well-tolerated and effective in patients with AIMSS. However, further studies are warranted to assess long terms effects of this combined rehabilitative treatment. REFERENCES: 1. Molehin D, Rasha F, Rahman RL, Pruitt K. Regulation of aromatase in cancer. Mol Cell Biochem. 2021. 2. Murphy CC, Bartholomew LK, Carpentier MY, Bluethmann SM, Vernon SW. Adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy among breast cancer survivors in clinical practice: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(2):459-78. 3. Roberts KE, Rickett K, Feng S, Vagenas D, Woodward NE. Exercise therapies for preventing or treating aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms in early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;1:CD012988. Citation Format: Lorenzo Lippi, Alessandro de Sire, Antonio Ammendolia, Carlo Cisari, Konstantinos Venetis, Elham Sajjadi, Nicola Fusco, Marco Invernizzi. Whole-body vibration combined with physical exercise to treat aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms in breast cancer women: Results of a pilot randomized controlled study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-15.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207