Hendrik Mugele1, Nils Freitag2, Jannik Wilhelmi2, Yanxiang Yang3, Sulin Cheng3,4,5, Wilhelm Bloch2, Moritz Schumann6,7,8. 1. Department of Sport Science, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 2. Department of Molecular and Cellular Sport Medicine, Institute of Cardiovascular Research and Sport Medicine, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 3. Department of Physical Education, Exercise, Health and Technology Centre, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 4. Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. 5. The Exercise Translational Medicine Centre, Shanghai Center for Systems Biomedicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China. 6. Department of Molecular and Cellular Sport Medicine, Institute of Cardiovascular Research and Sport Medicine, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany. m.schumann@dshs-koeln.de. 7. Department of Physical Education, Exercise, Health and Technology Centre, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. m.schumann@dshs-koeln.de. 8. The Exercise Translational Medicine Centre, Shanghai Center for Systems Biomedicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China. m.schumann@dshs-koeln.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared to usual care (UC) or moderate-intensity training (MIE) on physical fitness and health-related outcomes in cancer patients across all stages of therapy and aftercare. METHODS: Databases were systematically searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines until October 4th, 2018. Eligibility criteria included adult patients of various cancer types, performing HIIT vs. UC or MIE. Outcomes of interest included physical fitness (cardiorespiratory fitness [VO2peak] and functional capacity) and health-related outcomes (body composition, quality of life, cancer-related fatigue, and blood-borne biomarkers). Mean differences (MD) were calculated and pooled to generate effect sizes for VO2peak. RESULTS: The search identified 1453 studies, out of which 12 articles were included. The average duration of interventions was 6.7 ± 3.0 weeks, with 2.8 ± 0.5 sessions per week. The meta-analysis for VO2peak showed superiority of HIIT compared to UC (MD 3.73; 95% CI 2.07, 5.39; p < 0.001) but not MIE (MD 1.36; 95% CI - 1.62, 4.35; p = 0.370). Similarly, no superior effects of HIIT compared to MIE were found for quality of life or changes in lean mass, while evidence was provided for a larger reduction in fat mass. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that short-term HIIT induces similar positive effects on physical fitness and health-related outcomes as MIE but seems to be superior compared to UC. Thus, HIIT might be a time-efficient intervention for cancer patients across all stages of therapy and aftercare. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is superior compared to usucal care in improving physical fitness and health-related outcomes in cancer patients across all stages of therapy and aftercare. Currently, there is no evidence for the benefits of HIIT compared to aerobic training of moderate intensity (MIE) for changes in cardiorespiratory fitness, lean mass and patient-reported outcomes. Reductions in fat mass may be more pronounced in HIIT compared to MIE when training is performed in aftercare.
PURPOSE: This review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared to usual care (UC) or moderate-intensity training (MIE) on physical fitness and health-related outcomes in cancerpatients across all stages of therapy and aftercare. METHODS: Databases were systematically searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines until October 4th, 2018. Eligibility criteria included adult patients of various cancer types, performing HIIT vs. UC or MIE. Outcomes of interest included physical fitness (cardiorespiratory fitness [VO2peak] and functional capacity) and health-related outcomes (body composition, quality of life, cancer-related fatigue, and blood-borne biomarkers). Mean differences (MD) were calculated and pooled to generate effect sizes for VO2peak. RESULTS: The search identified 1453 studies, out of which 12 articles were included. The average duration of interventions was 6.7 ± 3.0 weeks, with 2.8 ± 0.5 sessions per week. The meta-analysis for VO2peak showed superiority of HIIT compared to UC (MD 3.73; 95% CI 2.07, 5.39; p < 0.001) but not MIE (MD 1.36; 95% CI - 1.62, 4.35; p = 0.370). Similarly, no superior effects of HIIT compared to MIE were found for quality of life or changes in lean mass, while evidence was provided for a larger reduction in fat mass. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that short-term HIIT induces similar positive effects on physical fitness and health-related outcomes as MIE but seems to be superior compared to UC. Thus, HIIT might be a time-efficient intervention for cancerpatients across all stages of therapy and aftercare. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is superior compared to usucal care in improving physical fitness and health-related outcomes in cancerpatients across all stages of therapy and aftercare. Currently, there is no evidence for the benefits of HIIT compared to aerobic training of moderate intensity (MIE) for changes in cardiorespiratory fitness, lean mass and patient-reported outcomes. Reductions in fat mass may be more pronounced in HIIT compared to MIE when training is performed in aftercare.
Authors: Romeo B Batacan; Mitch J Duncan; Vincent J Dalbo; Patrick S Tucker; Andrew S Fenning Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Kathryn A Britton; Joseph M Massaro; Joanne M Murabito; Bernard E Kreger; Udo Hoffmann; Caroline S Fox Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Sara Mijwel; Malin Backman; Kate A Bolam; Anna Jervaeus; Carl Johan Sundberg; Sara Margolin; Maria Browall; Helene Rundqvist; Yvonne Wengström Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Scott C Adams; Darren S DeLorey; Margie H Davenport; Adrian S Fairey; Scott North; Kerry S Courneya Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Brenton J Baguley; Kirsten Adlard; David Jenkins; Olivia R L Wright; Tina L Skinner Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-07 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Alejandro Heredia-Ciuró; Manuel Fernández-Sánchez; Javier Martín-Núñez; Andrés Calvache-Mateo; Janet Rodríguez-Torres; Laura López-López; Marie Carmen Valenza Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Muhammed Mustafa Atakan; Yanchun Li; Şükran Nazan Koşar; Hüseyin Hüsrev Turnagöl; Xu Yan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gráinne Sheill; Emer Guinan; Linda O'Neill; Charles Normand; Suzanne L Doyle; Sarah Moore; John Newell; Grainne McDermott; Ronan Ryan; John V Reynolds; Juliette Hussey Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 4.430