PURPOSE: While general guidelines (such as CONSORT or Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template) exist to enhance the reporting of exercise interventions in the field of exercise science, there is inadequate detail facilitating the standardized reporting of resistance training adherence in the oncology setting. The purpose of this study was to apply a novel method to report resistance training dose, adherence, and tolerance in patients with cancer. METHODS: A total of 47 prostate cancer patients (70.1 ± 8.9 yr, body mass index, 28.6 ± 4.0) with bone metastatic disease completed an exercise program for 12 wk. We assessed traditional metrics of adherence (attendance and loss to follow-up), in addition to novel proposed metrics (exercise-relative dose intensity, dose modification, and exercise interruption). Total training volume in kilograms (repetitions × sets × training load (weight)) was calculated for each patient. RESULTS: Attendance assessed from traditional metrics was 79.5% ± 17.0% and four patients (9%) were lost to follow-up. The prescribed and actual cumulative total dose of resistance training was 139,886 ± 69,150 kg and 112,835 ± 83,499 kg, respectively, with a mean exercise-relative dose intensity of 77.4% ± 16.6% (range: 19.4% -99.4%). Resistance training was missed (1-2 consecutive sessions) or interrupted (missed ≥3 consecutive sessions) in 41 (87%) and 24 (51%) participants, respectively. Training dose was modified (reduction in sets, repetitions, or weight) in 40 (85%) of patients. Importantly, using attendance as a traditional metric of adherence, these sessions would have all counted as adherence to the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional reporting metrics of resistance training in exercise oncology may overestimate exercise adherence. Our proposed metrics to capture resistance training dose, adherence, and tolerance may have important applications for future studies and clinical practice.
PURPOSE: While general guidelines (such as CONSORT or Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template) exist to enhance the reporting of exercise interventions in the field of exercise science, there is inadequate detail facilitating the standardized reporting of resistance training adherence in the oncology setting. The purpose of this study was to apply a novel method to report resistance training dose, adherence, and tolerance in patients with cancer. METHODS: A total of 47 prostate cancerpatients (70.1 ± 8.9 yr, body mass index, 28.6 ± 4.0) with bone metastatic disease completed an exercise program for 12 wk. We assessed traditional metrics of adherence (attendance and loss to follow-up), in addition to novel proposed metrics (exercise-relative dose intensity, dose modification, and exercise interruption). Total training volume in kilograms (repetitions × sets × training load (weight)) was calculated for each patient. RESULTS: Attendance assessed from traditional metrics was 79.5% ± 17.0% and four patients (9%) were lost to follow-up. The prescribed and actual cumulative total dose of resistance training was 139,886 ± 69,150 kg and 112,835 ± 83,499 kg, respectively, with a mean exercise-relative dose intensity of 77.4% ± 16.6% (range: 19.4% -99.4%). Resistance training was missed (1-2 consecutive sessions) or interrupted (missed ≥3 consecutive sessions) in 41 (87%) and 24 (51%) participants, respectively. Training dose was modified (reduction in sets, repetitions, or weight) in 40 (85%) of patients. Importantly, using attendance as a traditional metric of adherence, these sessions would have all counted as adherence to the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional reporting metrics of resistance training in exercise oncology may overestimate exercise adherence. Our proposed metrics to capture resistance training dose, adherence, and tolerance may have important applications for future studies and clinical practice.
Authors: C M Fairman; O L Owens; K L Kendall; J Steele; C Latella; M T Jones; L Marcotte; C M J Peddle-McIntyre; K K McDonnell Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-05-18
Authors: Hao Luo; Daniel A Galvão; Robert U Newton; Pedro Lopez; Colin Tang; Ciaran M Fairman; Nigel Spry; Dennis R Taaffe Journal: Pancreas Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Jessica M Scott; Samantha M Thomas; James E Herndon; Pamela S Douglas; Anthony F Yu; Valerie Rusch; James Huang; Catherine Capaci; Jenna N Harrison; Kurtis J Stoeckel; Tormod Nilsen; Elisabeth Edvardsen; Meghan G Michalski; Neil D Eves; Lee W Jones Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2021-10-17 Impact factor: 12.910