| Literature DB >> 26543789 |
Stephen R Samuel1, Sundar K Veluswamy2, Arun G Maiya1, Donald J Fernandes3, Margaret L McNeely4.
Abstract
Existing literature suggests that cancer survivors present with high rates of morbidity due to various treatment and disease induced factors. Research globally has shown exercise to be beneficial in improving treatment outcomes and quality of life. India has a high prevalence of cancer and not much is known about exercise interventions for cancer survivors in India. This review was planned to review the state of exercise based interventions for cancer survivors in India. A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, PEDro, IndMed, and Shoda Ganga. The search results were screened and data extracted by two independent reviewers. All eligible studies were assessed for methodological quality rating using Downs and Black checklist. Data was extracted using a pilot tested pro forma to summarize information on site and stage of cancer, type of exercise intervention and outcome measures. The review identified 13 studies, published from 1991 to 2013, after screening 4060 articles. Exercise interventions fell into one of three categories: (1) yoga-based, (2) physiotherapy-based and (3) speech therapy based interventions; and exclusively involved either breast or head and neck cancers. Studies were generally of low to moderate quality. A broad range of outcomes were found including symptoms, speech and swallowing, and quality of life and largely supported the benefits of exercise-based interventions. At present, research involving exercise-based rehabilitation interventions in India is limited in volume, quality and scope. With the growing burden of cancer in the country, there is an immediate need for research on exercise based interventions for cancer survivors within the sociocultural context of India.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer survivors; Exercise interventions; India; Research
Year: 2015 PMID: 26543789 PMCID: PMC4628608 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-1456-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram
Methodological quality assessment scores using Downs and Black check list
| References | Component scores of Downs and Black checklist | Maximum total score (32) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reporting (11) | External validity (3) | Internal validity-bias (7) | Internal validity-confounding (6) | Power (5) | ||
| Bachher et al. ( | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Chopra et al. ( | 8 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 16 |
| Banerjee et al. ( | 7 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 14 |
| Raghavendra et al. ( | 8 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 17 |
| Vadiraja et al. ( | 9 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 19 |
| Gautam et al. ( | 7 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 16 |
| Kumar et al. ( | 7 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 17 |
| Chakrabarty et al. ( | 8 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 19 |
| Samuel et al. ( | 8 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 16 |
Characteristics of all included studies
| References | Cancer site; stage | Study design | Sample size | Cancer management | Exercise intervention | Outcomes assessed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subbarao et al. ( | HNC (larynx); NR | Retrospective study | 55 | Ablative laryngeal surgery | ST | Speech proficiency |
| Premalatha et al. ( | HNC (cricoid/hypopharynx); NR | Case series | 11 | Laryngopharyngo-esophagectomy with gastric transposition | ST | (1) Voice quality |
| Bachher et al. ( | HNC (tongue); NR | Pre-post intervention | 25 | 2/3rd partial glossectomy | ST | (1) Speech |
| Chopra et al. ( | Breast; NR | Pre-post intervention | 05 | Post-operative breast cancer survivors scheduled for APBI | PT | (1) Breath hold time |
| Banerjee et al. ( | Breast; NR | RCT | Randomised: yoga group—35; supportive therapy group—33 | RT following breast surgery | Yoga | (1) Anxiety and depression |
| Raghavendra et al. ( | Breast; stage II and III | RCT | Randomised: yoga group—49; supportive therapy group—49 | Adjuvant CT | Yoga | (1) Nausea and vomiting |
| Rao et al. ( | Breast; stage II and III | RCT | Randomised: yoga group—49; supportive therapy group—49 | Breast surgery | Yoga | (1) Duration of drain retention, postoperative stay, hospital stay, suture removal |
| Vadiraja et al. ( | Breast; stage II and III | RCT | Randomised: yoga group—44; supportive counselling group—44. | Breast surgery followed by RT | Yoga | (1) Mood and distress |
| Gautam et al. ( | Breast; stage I, II | Pre-post intervention | Enrolled—38; | Unilateral mastectomy, CRT | PT | (1) Limb circumference and volume |
| John et al. | HNC (Buccal mucosa); stage IV | Case report | One | Composite resection of Buccal mucosa treated with PMMC flap | ST | (1) Swallowing |
| Kumar et al. | Breast; stage IIb, III, IV | RCT | Randomised: intervention group—78; control group—69 | RT, CT and surgery | Yoga | (1) Blood Cortisol level |
| Kumar et al. | Bone, breast, HNC, lung; NR | Case series | 24 | Analgesics for pain management as outlined by WHO analgesic ladder | PT | (1) Pain |
| Chakrabarty et al. ( | Breast; stage I, II and III | RCT | Randomised: yoga group—80; control group—80 | Surgery, CT followed by RT | Yoga | Anti-oxidants |
| Samuel et al. ( | HNC; NR | RCT | Randomised: exercise group—24; control group—24 | CRT | PT | (1) Functional capacity |
APBI accelerated partial breast irradiation, CT chemotherapy, CRT chemoradiotherapy, HNC head and neck cancer, NR not reported, PMMC pectoralis major myocutaneous flap, PT physiotherapy, QoL quality of life, RCT randomised controlled trial, RT radiotherapy, ST speech therapy, WHO World Health Organization
Details of exercise interventions and their effect of reported outcomes
| References | Exercise intervention | Results | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Banerjee et al. ( |
|
| ||||
| Raghavendra et al. ( |
|
| Yoga group | Control group | ||
| Post CT nausea frequencyb | 3.6 ± 1.6 | 4.5 ± 0.9 | ||||
| Post CT nausea intensityb | 2.3 ± 1.2 | 3.4 ± 1.1 | ||||
| Anticipatory nausea intensityb | 0.6 ± 1.03 | 1.7 ± 1.5 | ||||
| Anticipatory vomiting intensityc | 0.3 ± 0.67 | 0.87 ± 1.3 | ||||
|
| 29.2 ± 3.8 | 37.5 ± 7.6 | ||||
|
| 6.6 ± 4.6 | 14.2 ± 6.6 | ||||
|
| 142.1 ± 10.2 | 111.7 ± 25.5 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Rao et al. |
| Yoga group | Control group | |||
| Days drain retaineda | 4.7 ± 1.6 | 6.4 ± 2.5 | ||||
| Postop duration (days) | 21.7 ± 9.4 | 24.6 ± 10.9 | ||||
| Suture removal interval (days)c | 10.3 ± 3.6 | 12.7 ± 5.2 | ||||
| Postop complicationc | 6.1 % | 22.2 % | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Rao et al. |
|
| ||||
| Vadiraja et al. |
| Yoga group | Control group | |||
|
| ||||||
| Positive affectb | 27.8 ± 7.1 | 23.3 ± 8.3 | ||||
| Negative affectb | 12.9 ± 10.39 | 21.8 ± 10.8 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Physical function | 73.2 ± 25.2 | 68.9 ± 30.1 | ||||
| Role function | 79.8 ± 34.4 | 72.8 ± 39.9 | ||||
| Emotional functionb | 75.1 ± 21.1 | 59.2 ± 23.3 | ||||
| Cognitive functionc | 90.5 ± 15.8 | 80.7 ± 24.1 | ||||
| Social function | 54.9 ± 23.9 | 49.9 ± 24.2 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Vadiraja et al. | Same as in Vadiraja et al. | Yoga group | Control group | |||
|
| ||||||
| Psychological distressb | 4.2 ± 3.3 | 7.7 ± 3.4 | ||||
| Physical distressc | 10.8 ± 8.1 | 15.0 ± 8.0 | ||||
| Activity level | 20.2 ± 5.6 | 17.7 ± 6.2 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Fatigueb | 33.2 ± 23.8 | 50.5 ± 22.3 | ||||
| Painb | 24.4 ± 28.5 | 41.3 ± 28.9 | ||||
| Dyspnea | 6.67 ± 15.2 | 9.8 ± 16.9 | ||||
| Insomniac | 24.4 ± 30.4 | 37.9 ± 31.7 | ||||
| Nausea and vomiting | 9.6 ± 19.6 | 9.9 ± 17.3 | ||||
| Appetite lossc | 17 ± 23.1 | 31.1 ± 28.1 | ||||
| Diarrhoea | 0.7 ± 4.9 | 3.8 ± 12.8 | ||||
| Constipation | 8.1 ± 23.7 | 9.1 ± 21.9 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Vadiraja et al. | Same as in Vadiraja et al. | Yoga group | Control group | |||
|
| ||||||
| 6 a.m.c | 0.22 ± 0.15 | 0.36 ± 0.24 | ||||
| 9 a.m. | 0.19 ± 0.14 | 0.24 ± 0.23 | ||||
| 9 p.m. | 0.16 ± 0.16 | 0.16 ± 0.14 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| HADS anxiety scorea | 4.8 ± 3.3 | 8.1 ± 3.8 | ||||
| HADS depression scoreb | 4.1 ± 3.4 | 6.5 ± 3.7 | ||||
| Perceive stress scalea | 15.1 ± 4.8 | 20.1 ± 5.8 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Kumar et al. |
| Yoga group | Control group | |||
| Serum cortisolb
| 341.4 ± 51.4 | 549.2 ± 69.5 | ||||
| Pain perception | ↓By three points in on 0–10 verbal scale of pain in the intervention group compared to control group | |||||
| Chakrabarty et al. ( |
| Yoga group | Control group | |||
| Protein thiolsa
| 271.2 ± 91.2 | 216.1 ± 62.8 | ||||
| Glutathione b
| 24.2; | 19.1; | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Chopra et al. ( | One supervised and two unsupervised 15–20 min sessions of inspiratory and expiratory manoeuvres and forced abdominal expiration techniques for 8–10 days | Pre training (mean) | Post training (mean) | |||
| Breath hold time (s) | 31.4 | 44.5 | ||||
| Tidal volume (ml) | 560 | 1160 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Gautam et al. ( | Warm up with active ROM exercise for shoulder, PRE for upper limb muscle groups, exercise program hand-out with logbook, and telephonic monitoring once a week | Pre-exercise | Post-exercise | |||
| SF 36—PCSc | 41.2 | 46.3 | ||||
| SF 36—MCSc | 38.5 | 48.3 | ||||
| Limb volume (ml)a | 2306.3 ± 627.8 | 2183.4 ± 597.4 | ||||
| Limb circumference (cm) | ||||||
| MCP jointsc | 19.1 ± 1.4 | 19.0 ± 1.3 | ||||
| Wrist jointa | 16.4 ± 2.9 | 16.2 ± 1.9 | ||||
| 15 cm DLEa | 22.1 ± 3.1 | 21.4 ± 2.8 | ||||
| 10 cm PLEa | 31.0 ± 4.3 | 30.0 ± 4.4 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Kumar et al. ( | Mechanism based physical therapy consisting of educational, cognitive-behavioural therapy and physical therapy approaches | Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | |||
| BPI—Cancer paina | 75.25 ± 3.77 | 40.12 ± 4.08 | ||||
| EORTCQoL C30 global health status/QoLa | 42.5 ± 9.1 | 68 ± 6.59 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Samuel et al. ( |
| Intervention group | Control group | |||
| 6MWDa
| 20; | −100.8; | ||||
| SF 36—PCS | No change | ↓18 % | ||||
| SF 36—MCS | ↑11.7 %c | ↓75.2 %b | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Subbarao et al. ( | Group I: commenced planned ST 2–3 weeks post operatively | ↑improved proficiency in esophageal speech at various levels (Belch, Monosyllable, Bisyllable and simple sentences) in group I compared to group II | ||||
| Premalatha et al. ( | 20–25 ST sessions of 30–40 min* 1–2 sessions/day | ↑Quality of voice and Speech intelligibility; better in patients using digital pressure. | ||||
| Bachher et al. ( | Supervised and home based ST to correct dyslalia and deglutition. 4 week supervised program: first 2 weeks @ 25–30 min/day; 3rd week @ 3 sessions/week; 4th week @ 2 sessions/week | Improvement in speech and deglutition | ||||
| John et al. ( | 15 sessions of 30 min duration | Improvement in swallowing, speech intelligibility, speech rate and articulation | ||||
BDI Beck’s depression inventory, BPI brief pain inventory, CINV chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, CT chemotherapy, DLE distal to lateral epicondyle, EORTCQoL C30 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer—quality of life C30, FLIC functional living index for cancer, HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, IQR inter-quartile range, MANE morrow assessment of nausea and emesis, MCP Joint metacarpophalengial joint, MCS Mental Component Score, NR not reported, NSAID non-steroidal anti inflammatory drugs, PANAS Scale Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Scale, PCS Physical Component Score, PLE proximal to lateral epicondyle, QoL quality of life, RSCL rotterdam symptom check list, RT radiotherapy, SF-36 short form (36) health survey, STAI state trait anxiety inventory, TNF tumor necrosis factor, WHO World Health Organisation, 6MWD 6 min walk distance
aSignificant at p < 0.001
bSignificant at p < 0.01
cSignificant at p < 0.05