BACKGROUND: The investigation of exercise training in metastatic breast cancer has received minimal attention. This study determined the feasibility and safety of aerobic training in metastatic breast cancer. METHODS:Sixty-five women (age, 21-80 years) with metastatic (stage IV) breast cancer (57% were receiving chemotherapy, and >40% had ≥ 2 lines of prior therapy) were allocated to an aerobic training group (n = 33) or a stretching group (n = 32). Aerobic training consisted of 36 supervised treadmill walking sessions delivered thrice weekly between 55% and 80% of peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak ) for 12 consecutive weeks. Stretching was matched to aerobic training with respect to location, frequency, duration, and intervention length. The primary endpoint was aerobic training feasibility, which was a priori defined as the lost to follow-up (LTF) rate (<20%) and attendance (≥70%). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective outcomes (VO2peak and functional capacity), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs; quality of life). RESULTS: One of the 33 patients (3%) receiving aerobic training was LTF, whereas the mean attendance rate was 63% ± 30%. The rates of permanent discontinuation and dose modification were 27% and 49%, respectively. Intention-to-treat analyses indicated improvements in PROs, which favored the attention control group (P values > .05). Per protocol analyses indicated that 14 of 33 patients (42%) receiving aerobic training had acceptable tolerability (relative dose intensity ≥ 70%), and this led to improvements in VO2peak and functional capacity (P values < .05). CONCLUSIONS:Aerobic training at the dose and schedule tested is safe but not feasible for a significant proportion of patients with metastatic breast cancer. The acceptable feasibility and promising benefit for select patients warrant further evaluation in a dose-finding phase 1/2 study. Cancer 2018;124:2552-60.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The investigation of exercise training in metastatic breast cancer has received minimal attention. This study determined the feasibility and safety of aerobic training in metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Sixty-five women (age, 21-80 years) with metastatic (stage IV) breast cancer (57% were receiving chemotherapy, and >40% had ≥ 2 lines of prior therapy) were allocated to an aerobic training group (n = 33) or a stretching group (n = 32). Aerobic training consisted of 36 supervised treadmill walking sessions delivered thrice weekly between 55% and 80% of peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak ) for 12 consecutive weeks. Stretching was matched to aerobic training with respect to location, frequency, duration, and intervention length. The primary endpoint was aerobic training feasibility, which was a priori defined as the lost to follow-up (LTF) rate (<20%) and attendance (≥70%). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective outcomes (VO2peak and functional capacity), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs; quality of life). RESULTS: One of the 33 patients (3%) receiving aerobic training was LTF, whereas the mean attendance rate was 63% ± 30%. The rates of permanent discontinuation and dose modification were 27% and 49%, respectively. Intention-to-treat analyses indicated improvements in PROs, which favored the attention control group (P values > .05). Per protocol analyses indicated that 14 of 33 patients (42%) receiving aerobic training had acceptable tolerability (relative dose intensity ≥ 70%), and this led to improvements in VO2peak and functional capacity (P values < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic training at the dose and schedule tested is safe but not feasible for a significant proportion of patients with metastatic breast cancer. The acceptable feasibility and promising benefit for select patients warrant further evaluation in a dose-finding phase 1/2 study. Cancer 2018;124:2552-60.
Authors: Robert Ross; Steven N Blair; Ross Arena; Timothy S Church; Jean-Pierre Després; Barry A Franklin; William L Haskell; Leonard A Kaminsky; Benjamin D Levine; Carl J Lavie; Jonathan Myers; Josef Niebauer; Robert Sallis; Susumu S Sawada; Xuemei Sui; Ulrik Wisløff Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jennifer A Ligibel; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Laura Shockro; Nancy Campbell; Ann H Partridge; Sara M Tolaney; Nancy U Lin; Eric P Winer Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M J Brady; D F Cella; F Mo; A E Bonomi; D S Tulsky; S R Lloyd; S Deasy; M Cobleigh; G Shiomoto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charlotte N Steins Bisschop; Kerry S Courneya; Miranda J Velthuis; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Lee W Jones; Christine Friedenreich; Elsken van der Wall; Petra H M Peeters; Anne M May Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jessica M Scott; Samantha M Thomas; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; James E Herndon; Pamela S Douglas; Michel G Khouri; Chau T Dang; Anthony F Yu; Diane Catalina; Cristi Ciolino; Catherine Capaci; Meghan G Michalski; Neil D Eves; Lee W Jones Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jessica M Scott; Emily C Zabor; Emily Schwitzer; Graeme J Koelwyn; Scott C Adams; Tormod S Nilsen; Chaya S Moskowitz; Konstantina Matsoukas; Neil M Iyengar; Chau T Dang; Lee W Jones Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patricia Sheean; Lauren Matthews; Alexis Visotcky; Anjishnu Banerjee; Andrea Moosreiner; Kimberly Kelley; Christopher R Chitambar; Paula E Papanek; Melinda Stolley Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 4.624