Frank C Sweeney1, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried2, Kerry S Courneya3, Nathalie Sami1, Kyuwan Lee1, Debu Tripathy4, Kimiko Yamada1, Thomas A Buchanan5, Darcy V Spicer6, Leslie Bernstein7, Joanne E Mortimer8, Christina M Dieli-Conwright9. 1. Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 3. Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 4. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California. 6. Department of Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California. 7. Division of Biomarkers of Early Detection and Prevention, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Duarte, California. 8. Division of Medical Oncology and Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope. 9. Department of Supportive Care Medicine, City of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010 (USA).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adverse upper limb musculoskeletal effects occur after surgical procedures and radiotherapy for breast cancer and can interfere with activities of daily living. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effects of a 16-week exercise intervention on shoulder function in women who are overweight or obese and have breast cancer. DESIGN: This study was a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The study was performed at the Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy at the University of Southern California. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred women with breast cancer were randomly allocated to exercise or usual-care groups. The mean (SD) age of the women was 53.5 (10.4) years, 55% were Hispanic white, and their mean (SD) body mass index was 33.5 (5.5) kg/m2. INTERVENTION: The 16-week exercise intervention consisted of supervised, progressive, moderate to vigorous aerobic and resistance exercise 3 times per week. MEASUREMENTS: Shoulder active range of motion, isometric muscular strength, and patient-reported outcome measures (including Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and the Penn Shoulder Scale) were assessed at baseline, after the intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up (exercise group only). Differences in mean changes for outcomes were evaluated using mixed-model repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS: Compared with the usual-care group, the exercise group experienced significant increases in shoulder active range of motion (the mean between-group differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were as follows: shoulder flexion = 36.6° [95% CI = 55.2-20.7°], external rotation at 0° = 23.4° [95% CI = 31.1-12.5°], and external rotation at 90° = 34.3° [95% CI = 45.9-26.2°]), improved upper extremity isometric strength, and improved Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Penn Shoulder Scale scores. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a lack of masking of assessors after the intervention, an attention control group, and statistical robustness (shoulder function was a secondary end point). CONCLUSIONS: A 16-week exercise intervention effectively improved shoulder function following breast cancer treatment in women who were overweight or obese, who were ethnically diverse, and who had breast cancer.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Adverse upper limb musculoskeletal effects occur after surgical procedures and radiotherapy for breast cancer and can interfere with activities of daily living. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effects of a 16-week exercise intervention on shoulder function in women who are overweight or obese and have breast cancer. DESIGN: This study was a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The study was performed at the Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy at the University of Southern California. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred women with breast cancer were randomly allocated to exercise or usual-care groups. The mean (SD) age of the women was 53.5 (10.4) years, 55% were Hispanic white, and their mean (SD) body mass index was 33.5 (5.5) kg/m2. INTERVENTION: The 16-week exercise intervention consisted of supervised, progressive, moderate to vigorous aerobic and resistance exercise 3 times per week. MEASUREMENTS: Shoulder active range of motion, isometric muscular strength, and patient-reported outcome measures (including Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and the Penn Shoulder Scale) were assessed at baseline, after the intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up (exercise group only). Differences in mean changes for outcomes were evaluated using mixed-model repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS: Compared with the usual-care group, the exercise group experienced significant increases in shoulder active range of motion (the mean between-group differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were as follows: shoulder flexion = 36.6° [95% CI = 55.2-20.7°], external rotation at 0° = 23.4° [95% CI = 31.1-12.5°], and external rotation at 90° = 34.3° [95% CI = 45.9-26.2°]), improved upper extremity isometric strength, and improved Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Penn Shoulder Scale scores. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a lack of masking of assessors after the intervention, an attention control group, and statistical robustness (shoulder function was a secondary end point). CONCLUSIONS: A 16-week exercise intervention effectively improved shoulder function following breast cancer treatment in women who were overweight or obese, who were ethnically diverse, and who had breast cancer.
Authors: Kathryn H Schmitz; Kerry S Courneya; Charles Matthews; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Daniel A Galvão; Bernardine M Pinto; Melinda L Irwin; Kathleen Y Wolin; Roanne J Segal; Alejandro Lucia; Carole M Schneider; Vivian E von Gruenigen; Anna L Schwartz Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: A M Kriska; W C Knowler; R E LaPorte; A L Drash; R R Wing; S N Blair; P H Bennett; L H Kuller Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1990-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Teresa S Lee; Sharon L Kilbreath; Kathryn M Refshauge; Robert D Herbert; Jane M Beith Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kerry S Courneya; Roanne J Segal; Karen Gelmon; John R Mackey; Christine M Friedenreich; Yutaka Yasui; Robert D Reid; Carolyn Proulx; Linda Trinh; Lianne B Dolan; Evyanne Wooding; James R Vallerand; Donald C McKenzie Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2014-07-06 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Carien H G Beurskens; Caro J T van Uden; Luc J A Strobbe; Rob A B Oostendorp; Theo Wobbes Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2007-08-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Dong-Woo Kang; Rebekah L Wilson; Paola Gonzalo-Encabo; Mary K Norris; Marybeth Hans; Meghan Tahbaz; Jackie Dawson; Danny Nguyen; Amber J Normann; Alexandra G Yunker; Nathalie Sami; Hajime Uno; Jennifer A Ligibel; Steven D Mittelman; Christina M Dieli-Conwright Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Paola Gonzalo-Encabo; Rebekah L Wilson; Dong-Woo Kang; Mary K Norris; Hajime Uno; Cami N Christopher; Christina Chow; Nathalie Sami; Frank S Fox; Jennifer A Ligibel; Christina M Dieli-Conwright Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Electra D Paskett; Jennifer Le-Rademacher; Jill M Oliveri; Heshan Liu; Drew K Seisler; Jeffrey A Sloan; Jane M Armer; Michelle J Naughton; Karen Hock; Michael Schwartz; Gary Unzeitig; Marianne Melnik; Lisa D Yee; Gini F Fleming; John R Taylor; Charles Loprinzi Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 6.860