J A J Douma1, H M W Verheul1, L M Buffart1,2. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Abstract
Background: Physical function is important for defining treatment strategies in patients with cancer and can be estimated using patient-reported outcomes (pros). Although pros are subjective, physical activity and fitness can be tested objectively with adequate, but more labour-intensive methods that are rarely used in daily clinical practice. To determine whether pros for physical function (pro-pf) accurately predict physical function, we studied their interrelationships with objective measures of physical activity and fitness in patients with cancer who had completed cancer treatment, including adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or autologous stem-cell transplantation. Methods: Baseline data from the react (Resistance and Endurance Exercise After Chemotherapy) and exist (Exercise Intervention After Stem-Cell Transplantation) studies were evaluated. In those studies, the effects of an exercise intervention on physical fitness, fatigue, and health-related quality of life in patients with cancer shortly after completion of chemotherapy or stem-cell transplantation were studied. Interrelationships between pro-pf (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-question core Quality of Life Questionnaire), physical activity (accelerometer), and cardiorespiratory fitness (peak oxygen uptake) were assessed using univariable and multivariable multilevel linear mixed-model analyses. Results: After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, the pro-pf was significantly associated with physical activity (β = 1.75; 95% confidence interval: 1.08 to 2.42) and cardiorespiratory fitness (β = 0.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.13). Standardized coefficients were 0.28 and 0.26 respectively, indicating a weak association. Conclusions: The pro-pf is only weakly associated with objective physical activity and fitness evaluation in patients after curative treatment for cancer. The pro-pf cannot, therefore, be used in clinical practice as a substitute for objective measures of physical function.
RCT Entities:
Background: Physical function is important for defining treatment strategies in patients with cancer and can be estimated using patient-reported outcomes (pros). Although pros are subjective, physical activity and fitness can be tested objectively with adequate, but more labour-intensive methods that are rarely used in daily clinical practice. To determine whether pros for physical function (pro-pf) accurately predict physical function, we studied their interrelationships with objective measures of physical activity and fitness in patients with cancer who had completed cancer treatment, including adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or autologous stem-cell transplantation. Methods: Baseline data from the react (Resistance and Endurance Exercise After Chemotherapy) and exist (Exercise Intervention After Stem-Cell Transplantation) studies were evaluated. In those studies, the effects of an exercise intervention on physical fitness, fatigue, and health-related quality of life in patients with cancer shortly after completion of chemotherapy or stem-cell transplantation were studied. Interrelationships between pro-pf (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-question core Quality of Life Questionnaire), physical activity (accelerometer), and cardiorespiratory fitness (peak oxygen uptake) were assessed using univariable and multivariable multilevel linear mixed-model analyses. Results: After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, the pro-pf was significantly associated with physical activity (β = 1.75; 95% confidence interval: 1.08 to 2.42) and cardiorespiratory fitness (β = 0.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.13). Standardized coefficients were 0.28 and 0.26 respectively, indicating a weak association. Conclusions: The pro-pf is only weakly associated with objective physical activity and fitness evaluation in patients after curative treatment for cancer. The pro-pf cannot, therefore, be used in clinical practice as a substitute for objective measures of physical function.
Authors: Eduardo Ferriolli; Richard J E Skipworth; Paul Hendry; Angela Scott; Jacob Stensteth; Max Dahele; Lucy Wall; Carolyn Greig; Marie Fallon; Florian Strasser; Tom Preston; Kenneth C H Fearon Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Charlotte N Steins Bisschop; Miranda J Velthuis; Harriët Wittink; Kees Kuiper; Tim Takken; Wout J T M van der Meulen; Eline Lindeman; Petra H M Peeters; Anne M May Journal: Sports Med Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Hanna van Waart; Wim H van Harten; Laurien M Buffart; Gabe S Sonke; Martijn M Stuiver; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Max Dahele; Richard J E Skipworth; Lucy Wall; Anne Voss; Tom Preston; Kenneth C H Fearon Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-03-23 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Caroline S Kampshoff; Mai J M Chinapaw; Johannes Brug; Jos W R Twisk; Goof Schep; Marten R Nijziel; Willem van Mechelen; Laurien M Buffart Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Saskia Persoon; Mai J M ChinAPaw; Laurien M Buffart; Roberto D K Liu; Pierre Wijermans; Harry R Koene; Monique C Minnema; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Erik W A Marijt; Johannes Brug; Frans Nollet; Marie José Kersten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Laurien M Buffart; Maike G Sweegers; Anne M May; Mai J Chinapaw; Jonna K van Vulpen; Rob U Newton; Daniel A Galvão; Neil K Aaronson; Martijn M Stuiver; Paul B Jacobsen; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Karen Steindorf; Melinda L Irwin; Sandi Hayes; Kathleen A Griffith; Alejandro Lucia; Fernando Herrero-Roman; Ilse Mesters; Ellen van Weert; Hans Knoop; Martine M Goedendorp; Nanette Mutrie; Amanda J Daley; Alex McConnachie; Martin Bohus; Lene Thorsen; Karl-Heinz Schulz; Camille E Short; Erica L James; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Gill Arbane; Martina E Schmidt; Karin Potthoff; Marc van Beurden; Hester S Oldenburg; Gabe S Sonke; Wim H van Harten; Rachel Garrod; Kathryn H Schmitz; Kerri M Winters-Stone; Miranda J Velthuis; Dennis R Taaffe; Willem van Mechelen; Marie José Kersten; Frans Nollet; Jennifer Wenzel; Joachim Wiskemann; Johannes Brug; Kerry S Courneya Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506