Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Supervised versus autonomous exercise training in breast cancer patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial
Westphal T, Rinnerthaler G, Gampenrieder SP, Niebauer J, Thaler J, Pfob M, Fuchs D, Riedmann M, Mayr B, Reich B, Melchardt T, Mlineritsch B, Pleyer L, Greil R
Cancer Medicine 2018 Dec;7(12):5962-5972
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: There is a well-known correlation between obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and breast cancer incidence and outcome. The Arbeitsgemeinschaft Medikamentose Tumortherapie (AGMT) exercise study was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial and assessed the feasibility and efficacy of physical training in 50 breast cancer patients undergoing aromatase inhibitor treatment. METHODS: Postmenopausal, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients under aromatase inhibitor treatment were randomized 1:1 to counseling and unsupervised training for 48 weeks (unsupervised arm) or counseling and a sequential training (supervised arm) with a supervised phase (24 weeks) followed by unsupervised physical training (further 24 weeks). Primary endpoint was the individual maximum power output on a cycle ergometer after 24 weeks of exercise. A key secondary endpoint was the feasibility of achieving 12 METh/week (metabolic equivalent of task hours per week). RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (92%) in the unsupervised arm and 19 patients (76%) in the supervised arm with early-stage breast cancer completed the study. After 24 weeks, the supervised arm achieved a significantly higher maximum output in watt (mean 132 +/- standard deviation (SD) 34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 117 to 147) compared to baseline (107 +/- 25; 95%CI 97 to 117; p = 0.012) with a numerically higher output than the unsupervised arm (week 24 115 +/- 25; 95%CI 105 to 125; p = 0.059). Significantly higher METh/week was reported in the supervised arm compared to the unsupervised arm during the whole study period (week 1 to 24 unsupervised: 18.3 (7.6 to 58.3); supervised: 28.5 (6.7 to 40.1); p = 0.043; week 25 to 48; p = 0.041)). CONCLUSION: This trial indicates that patients in an exercise program achieve higher fitness levels during supervised than unsupervised training.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help