PURPOSE: The feasibility of using physical activity monitors (PAMs) to measure functional status in patients with cancer is unclear. We aimed to determine the feasibility of using PAMs to longitudinally assess physical activity and performance status (PS) in patients with cancer. METHODS: Patients with cancer who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0 to 2 and were receiving systemic therapy were enrolled in a prospective pilot trial of PAM use. Feasibility was defined as patients using the PAM for > 50% of the observation period. We correlated PAM-reported measures with scores from ECOG PS and quality-of-life tools (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G], Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self-Rated 16 [QIDS-SR16], and Brief Fatigue Inventory [BFI]) using Pearson's correlation test. Patients were surveyed regarding their experience with PAMs at study completion. RESULTS: In all, 24 patients were enrolled; mean age was 54 years, 16 (67%) were women, and 19 (79%) were white. Twenty-three patients (96%) met the primary end point of feasibility. The median duration of follow-up was 69 days. Mean PAM-measured steps for ECOG PS of 0, 1, and 2 were 5,911, 1,890, and 845 steps per day, respectively ( P = .002). Minimum steps per day correlated with BFI ( r = -0.53; P < .01), FACT-G ( r = 0.45; P = .02), and QIDS-SR16 ( r = -0.57; P < .01). Eighteen patients (75%) reported a positive experience with the PAM. CONCLUSION: PAMs are a feasible tool for measuring long-term physical activity in patients with cancer who are receiving systemic therapy. PAM-derived measures correlated with clinician-assessed PS.
PURPOSE: The feasibility of using physical activity monitors (PAMs) to measure functional status in patients with cancer is unclear. We aimed to determine the feasibility of using PAMs to longitudinally assess physical activity and performance status (PS) in patients with cancer. METHODS:Patients with cancer who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0 to 2 and were receiving systemic therapy were enrolled in a prospective pilot trial of PAM use. Feasibility was defined as patients using the PAM for > 50% of the observation period. We correlated PAM-reported measures with scores from ECOG PS and quality-of-life tools (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G], Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self-Rated 16 [QIDS-SR16], and Brief Fatigue Inventory [BFI]) using Pearson's correlation test. Patients were surveyed regarding their experience with PAMs at study completion. RESULTS: In all, 24 patients were enrolled; mean age was 54 years, 16 (67%) were women, and 19 (79%) were white. Twenty-three patients (96%) met the primary end point of feasibility. The median duration of follow-up was 69 days. Mean PAM-measured steps for ECOG PS of 0, 1, and 2 were 5,911, 1,890, and 845 steps per day, respectively ( P = .002). Minimum steps per day correlated with BFI ( r = -0.53; P < .01), FACT-G ( r = 0.45; P = .02), and QIDS-SR16 ( r = -0.57; P < .01). Eighteen patients (75%) reported a positive experience with the PAM. CONCLUSION: PAMs are a feasible tool for measuring long-term physical activity in patients with cancer who are receiving systemic therapy. PAM-derived measures correlated with clinician-assessed PS.
Authors: Ethan Basch; Stephanie L Pugh; Amylou C Dueck; Sandra A Mitchell; Lawrence Berk; Shannon Fogh; Lauren J Rogak; Marcha Gatewood; Bryce B Reeve; Tito R Mendoza; Ann M O'Mara; Andrea M Denicoff; Lori M Minasian; Antonia V Bennett; Ann Setser; Deborah Schrag; Kevin Roof; Joan K Moore; Thomas Gergel; Kevin Stephans; Andreas Rimner; Albert DeNittis; Deborah Watkins Bruner Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mita Sanghavi Goel; Tiffany L Brown; Adam Williams; Romana Hasnain-Wynia; Jason A Thompson; David W Baker Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Hicham M Ibrahim; Thomas J Carmody; Bruce Arnow; Daniel N Klein; John C Markowitz; Philip T Ninan; Susan Kornstein; Rachel Manber; Michael E Thase; James H Kocsis; Martin B Keller Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Nathan A Berger; Panos Savvides; Siran M Koroukian; Eva F Kahana; Gary T Deimling; Julia H Rose; Karen F Bowman; Robert H Miller Journal: Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc Date: 2006
Authors: Jeffrey K H Vallance; Kerry S Courneya; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Yutaka Yasui; John R Mackey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Moira A Visovatti; Mi Sook Jung; Heidi Mason; Mary Beth DeRubeis; Francis P Worden; Debra L Barton Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 2.760
Authors: William H Ward; Caitlin R Meeker; Elizabeth Handorf; Maureen V Hill; Margret Einarson; R Katherine Alpaugh; Thomas L Holden; Igor Astsaturov; Crystal S Denlinger; Michael J Hall; Sanjay S Reddy; Elin R Sigurdson; Efrat Dotan; Matthew Zibelman; Joshua E Meyer; Jeffrey M Farma; Namrata Vijayvergia Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2021-01
Authors: Paul Martin Putora; Michael Baudis; Beth M Beadle; Issam El Naqa; Frank A Giordano; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Oncology Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Yvonne H Sada; Olia Poursina; He Zhou; Biruh T Workeneh; Sandhya V Maddali; Bijan Najafi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Simon Williams; Hugo Layard Horsfall; Jonathan P Funnell; John G Hanrahan; Danyal Z Khan; William Muirhead; Danail Stoyanov; Hani J Marcus Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 6.639