Effects of a Clinical Exercise Program on Health-Related Fitness and Quality of Life in Spanish Cancer Patients Receiving Adjuvant Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To report the feasibility and effectiveness of a newly developed clinical exercise program for improving maximal cardiorespiratory fitness in Spanish cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation. We also examined the effectiveness of the exercise program for improving maximal muscular strength, body composition, fatigue, and quality of life, and explored if the effectiveness varied based on selected patient characteristics. Design: The study was a single group implementation feasibility study using a pre-posttest design. Methods: Participants performed a 12-week, twice-weekly, supervised, multi-component exercise program during adjuvant therapy. Paired t-tests were used to assess pre-post changes, and analyses of covariance were used to compare effectiveness based on selected patient characteristics. Results: We had 100 cancer patients referred to the clinical exercise program of which 85 (85%) initiated the exercise program and 76 (89%) completed the post-intervention fitness assessment. Exercise significantly improved VO 2max by 4.8 mL/kg/minutes ( P < .001, d = 0.74). Exercise also significantly improved chest strength ( P < .001, d = 0.82), leg strength ( P < .001, d = 1.27), lean body mass ( P < .001, d = 0.11), skeletal muscle mass ( P < .001; d = 0.09), fat mass ( P < .001; d = 0.10), % body fat ( P < .001; d = 0.17), quality of life ( P = .0017; d = 0.41), and fatigue ( P = .007; d = 0.46). Treatment modality, cancer type, and age affected some exercise responses, especially related to body composition changes. Conclusions: A 12-week, supervised, multi-component exercise program was effective for improving health-related fitness and quality of life in Spanish cancer patients receiving adjuvant therapy. Our results show the benefits of incorporating clinical exercise programming into the supportive care of cancer patients receiving treatments. Registration: The study protocol is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05078216).
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".