| Literature DB >> 33027320 |
Scárlat da Silva Santos1, Luciane Dalcanale Moussalle2, João Paulo Heinzmann-Filho1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the effects of exercise programs during hospitalization on children and adolescents with cancer. DATA SOURCE: This is a systematic review, carried out in PubMed/ Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (BIREME), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We selected studies that included children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer (solid or hematologic) and submitted to exercise protocols during hospitalization. Studies involving patients with other pathologies or with a medical contraindication for exercise were excluded. We used the following search strategy: Neoplasm OR Leukemia OR Cancer OR Tumor OR Medical Oncology AND Hospitalization OR Inpatient Care Units OR Intrahospital AND Exercise. The methodological quality of the studies was analyzed by the PEDro scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 626 articles found, only 9 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, obtaining a regular methodological quality. The samples had 172 participants, aged 4 to 18 years. Only 6 studies presented both intervention group and control group. The intervention group received strength, aerobic, and muscle stretching exercises, and games, among others. The control group received the standard treatment. The studies varied regarding time, frequency, intensity, and type of exercise. Most studies showed an increase in muscle strength (4/5), followed by an improvement in physical fitness (2/3) and functional capacity (2/4). No adverse events were reported during the interventions. The methodological quality was considered regular.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33027320 PMCID: PMC7537404 DOI: 10.1590/1984-0462/2021/39/2019313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Paul Pediatr ISSN: 0103-0582
Figure 1Systematization of the studies selected in the review.
Identification and characteristics of the included studies.
| Authors | Country |
Age group (years) | Sample | Type of cancer | Mortality risk |
Treatment onset (months) |
| Morales et al. | Spain | 4-18 | 68 | Solid tumors and leukemia | - | - |
| Fiuza-Luces et al. | Spain | 4-18 | 9 | Extracranial solid tumor | - | - |
| Fiuza-Luces et al. | Spain | 4-16 | 24 | Extracranial solid tumor | - | - |
| Bogg et al. | Australia | 6-17 | 14 | ALL, AA, ALCL, AML, MPD | - | - |
| Perondi et al. | Brazil | 5-16 | 6 | ALL | Low or High | > 6 |
| Speyer et al. | France | 9-18 | 30 | Hematological malignancy, solid tumors, undetermined | - | - |
| Ruiz et al. | Spain | 5-16 | 7 | ALL, AML, rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma | High | - |
| Chamorro-Viña et al. | Spain | 4-7 | 7 | ALL | Intermediate | 18-24 |
| San Juan et al. | Spain | 4-7 | 7 | ALL | Intermediate | 18-24 |
ALL: acute lymphoblastic leukemia; AA: aplastic anemia; ALCL: acute large cell lymphoma; AML: acute myeloid leukemia; MPD: myeloproliferative disorder; -: not informed.
Characteristics of the studied outcomes and the tests evaluated in this review.
| Authors | Evaluated groups | Proposed evaluations | Tested outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morales et al. |
G1 G2 | Echocardiogram | Cardiac function |
| Fiuza-Luces et al. |
G1 G2 | Blood collection Triaxial accelerometer |
Immune system Physical activity level |
| Fiuza-Luces et al. |
G1 G2 |
5RM - bench press, bent-over row, and leg press Pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL) TUG - 3 m and TUDS CPET BMI and lean mass Triaxial accelerometer |
MS from UL and LL QOL Functional capacity Physical fitness Body composition Physical activity level |
| Bogg et al. | IG |
Dynamometer Pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL) 6MWT - adapted Unipedal balance on a flat surface Pediatric quality of life inventory (fatigue scale) (PedsQL) |
MS from UL and LL QOL Functional capacity Balance Fatigue |
| Perondi et al. | IG |
10RM - bench press, lat pulldown, leg extension, and leg press Pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL) |
MS from UL and LL QOL |
| Speyer et al. |
IG CG | Child health questionnaire (CHQ) | QOL |
| Ruiz et al. |
IG CG |
6RM - bench press, bent-over row, and leg press TUG - 3 and 10 m and TUDS CPET |
MS from UL and LL Functional capacity Physical fitness |
| Chamorro-Viña et al. |
IG CG | Weight, BMI, body fat, and lean mass | Body composition |
| San Juan et al. | IG |
6RM - bench press, bent-over row, and leg press Child health and illness profile (CHIP-CE / CRF) TUG - 3 and 10 m and TUDS CPET Goniometry |
MS from UL and LL QOL Functional capacity Physical fitness Ankle ROM |
IG: intervention group; CG: control group; 5RM: 5-repetition maximum test; 10RM: 10-repetition maximum test; 6RM: 6-repetition maximum test; MS: muscle strength; 6MWT: 6-minute walk test; QOL: quality of life; MR: maximum repetitions; UL: upper limbs; LL: lower limbs; BMI: body mass index; CPET: cardiopulmonary exercise testing; ROM: range of motion; PedsQL: Pediatric Quality Of Life Inventory; CHQ: Child Health Questionnaire; TUG: Timed Up and Go test; TUDS: Timed Up and Down Stairs test; CHIP-CE / CRF: Child Health and Illness Profile - Child Edition / Child Report Form.
Main results of the studies included in this review.
| Authors | Exercise program | Program description | Frequency, time, and duration | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morales et al. |
Aerobic training Strength training |
Cycle ergometer, treadmill, and arm crank 1-3 sets of 6-15 repetitions - UL, LL, and trunk | 2-3x/week / 60 to 70’/ 22 weeks | ↑ Cardiac function |
| Fiuza-Luces et al. |
Aerobic training Strength training |
Cycle ergometer, treadmill 2-3 sets of 8-15 repetitions - UL, LL, and trunk | 3x/week / 60 to 70’/ 17 weeks |
↔ Immune system ↔ Physical activity level |
| Fiuza-Luces et al. |
Aerobic training Strength training |
Cycle ergometer, treadmill 2-3 sets of 8-15 repetitions - UL, LL, and trunk | 3x/week / 60 to 70’/ 19 weeks |
↑ MS of UL and LL ↔ QOL ↔ Functional capacity ↔ Physical fitness ↔ Body composition ↔ Physical activity level |
| Bogg et al. |
Aerobic training Strength training Balance exercises Stretching |
Walking, cycle ergometer, interactive video game, etc. Squat, crunch, calf, bridge, etc. Unipedal balance and twister Stretching large muscle groups | 5x/week / 10 to 60’/ 7 weeks |
↔ MS of UL and LL ↔ QOL ↓ Functional capacity ↓ Balance ↔ Fatigue |
| Perondi et al. |
Warm-up Strength training Aerobic training Cool-down |
Treadmill - 10’ 4 sets of 6-10 repetitions - UL and LL Treadmill - 20’ Stretching large muscle groups | 2x/week / 60’/ 12 weeks |
↑ MS of UL and LL ↑ QOL |
| Speyer et al. | Adapted physical activities | Games, weight training, dance, interactive video game, among others | 3x/week / 30’/ - | ↔ QOL |
| Ruiz et al. |
Warm-up Strength training Aerobic training Cool-down |
Cycle ergometer - 15’ and stretching 1 set of 8-15 repetitions - UL, LL, and trunk Cycle ergometer - 10 to 30’; running, walking, and games Cycle ergometer and stretching of large muscle groups | 3x/week / 90 to 120’/ 16 weeks |
↑ MS of UL and LL ↑ Functional capacity ↑ Physical fitness |
| Chamorro-Viña et al. |
Warm-up Aerobic training Strength training |
UL and LL movements and stretching Cycle ergometer - 10 to 40’ 1 set of 12-15 repetitions - UL, LL, and trunk | 5x/week / 50’ / ~3 weeks |
↑ BMI ↑ Weight ↑ Body fat ↑ Lean mass |
| San Juan et al. |
Warm-up Strength training Aerobic training |
Cycle ergometer - 15’ and stretching 1 set of 8-15 repetitions - UL, LL, and trunk Cycle ergometer - 10 to 30’; running, walking, and games | 3x/week / 90 to 120’ / 16 weeks |
↑ MS of UL and LL ↔ QOL ↑ Functional capacity ↑ Physical fitness ↔ Ankle ROM |
MS: muscle strength; QOL: quality of life; UL: upper limbs; LL: lower limbs; BMI: body mass index; ROM: range of motion; ↑: increased; ↔: did not change; ↓: decreased; -: not informed; ~: approximately; twister: physical skill game.
Evaluation of the methodological quality of the selected studies.
| Criteria evaluated | Morales et al. | Fiuza-Luces et al. | Fiuza-Luces et al. | Bogg et al. | Perondi et al. | Speyer et al. | Ruiz et al. | Chamorro-Viña et al. | San Juan et al. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility criteria* | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Random allocation | - | + | + | - | - | + | - | - | - |
| Concealed allocation | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Similar groups | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Blinded participants | - | + | + | - | - | + | - | - | - |
| Blinded therapists | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Blinded evaluators | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | + | - |
| Adequate follow-up | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Intention-to-treat analysis | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Comparisons between groups | + | + | + | - | - | + | - | - | - |
| Point estimates and variability | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Total score | 5 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
*The eligibility criteria item does not contribute to the total score; +: yes; -: no.