UNLABELLED: Our randomized controlled trial in prematurely menopausal breast cancer survivors showed that impact + resistance training prevented increases in percentage of body fat compared with controls and also improved BMD at the hip and prevented BMD loss at the spine among exercise-trained women who were menopausal for >1 year. INTRODUCTION: Cancer treatment-related menopause worsens bone health and body composition in breast cancer survivors (BCS). We investigated whether impact + resistance training could improve bone mineral density (BMD), reduce bone turnover, build muscle, and decrease fat mass in BCS with premature menopause. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 71 BCS (mean age, 46.5 years) within 5 years of treatment-related menopause. Women were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) impact + resistance training (prevent osteoporosis with impact + resistance (POWIR)) or (2) exercise placebo (FLEX) 3×/week for 1 year. Outcomes were hip and spine BMD (in grams per square centimeter) and body composition (percent body fat (%BF) and lean and fat mass (in kilograms)) by DXA and bone turnover markers (serum osteocalcin (in nanograms per milliliter) and urinary deoxypryrodinoline (in nanomoles per milliliter). RESULTS: There were no significant group × time interactions for bone outcomes when using an intent-to-treat approach on the full sample. In analyses restricted to BCS who were menopausal for ≥1 year, POWIR increased BMD at the hip and slowed BMD loss at the spine compared with FLEX (femoral neck-POWIR, 0.004 ± 0.093 g/cm(2) vs. FLEX, -0.010 ± 0.089 g/cm(2); p < 0.01; spine-POWIR, -0.003 ± 0.114 g/cm(2) vs. FLEX, -0.020 ± 0.110 g/cm(2); p = 0.03). POWIR prevented increases in %BF (POWIR, 0.01 % vs. FLEX, 1.3 %; p < 0.04). Women with attendance to POWIR at ≥64 % had better improvements in %BF than women attending less often (p < 0.03). CONCLUSION:Impact + resistance training may effectively combat bone loss and worsening body composition from premature menopause in BCS.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: Our randomized controlled trial in prematurely menopausal breast cancer survivors showed that impact + resistance training prevented increases in percentage of body fat compared with controls and also improved BMD at the hip and prevented BMD loss at the spine among exercise-trained women who were menopausal for >1 year. INTRODUCTION:Cancer treatment-related menopause worsens bone health and body composition in breast cancer survivors (BCS). We investigated whether impact + resistance training could improve bone mineral density (BMD), reduce bone turnover, build muscle, and decrease fat mass in BCS with premature menopause. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 71 BCS (mean age, 46.5 years) within 5 years of treatment-related menopause. Women were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) impact + resistance training (prevent osteoporosis with impact + resistance (POWIR)) or (2) exercise placebo (FLEX) 3×/week for 1 year. Outcomes were hip and spine BMD (in grams per square centimeter) and body composition (percent body fat (%BF) and lean and fat mass (in kilograms)) by DXA and bone turnover markers (serum osteocalcin (in nanograms per milliliter) and urinary deoxypryrodinoline (in nanomoles per milliliter). RESULTS: There were no significant group × time interactions for bone outcomes when using an intent-to-treat approach on the full sample. In analyses restricted to BCS who were menopausal for ≥1 year, POWIR increased BMD at the hip and slowed BMD loss at the spine compared with FLEX (femoral neck-POWIR, 0.004 ± 0.093 g/cm(2) vs. FLEX, -0.010 ± 0.089 g/cm(2); p < 0.01; spine-POWIR, -0.003 ± 0.114 g/cm(2) vs. FLEX, -0.020 ± 0.110 g/cm(2); p = 0.03). POWIR prevented increases in %BF (POWIR, 0.01 % vs. FLEX, 1.3 %; p < 0.04). Women with attendance to POWIR at ≥64 % had better improvements in %BF than women attending less often (p < 0.03). CONCLUSION: Impact + resistance training may effectively combat bone loss and worsening body composition from premature menopause in BCS.
Authors: Peyman Hadji; Lina Asmar; Johanna G H van Nes; Thomas Menschik; Annette Hasenburg; Joachim Kuck; Johan W R Nortier; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Stephen E Jones; May Ziller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2010-12-18 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: T Hasenoehrl; M Keilani; T Sedghi Komanadj; M Mickel; M Margreiter; M Marhold; R Crevenna Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-05-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kerri M Winters-Stone; Jessica C Dobek; Jill A Bennett; Gianni F Maddalozzo; Christopher W Ryan; Tomasz M Beer Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: S Casla; P Hojman; I Márquez-Rodas; S López-Tarruella; Y Jerez; R Barakat; M Martín Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Freerk T Baumann; Wilhelm Bloch; Anke Weissen; Marie Brockhaus; Julia Beulertz; Philipp Zimmer; Fiona Streckmann; Eva M Zopf Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Kerri M Winters-Stone; Karen S Lyons; Jessica Dobek; Nathan F Dieckmann; Jill A Bennett; Lillian Nail; Tomasz M Beer Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 4.442