PURPOSE: Performance status (PS) is a subjective assessment of patients' overall health. Quantification of physical activity using a wearable tracker (Fitbit Charge [FC]) may provide an objective measure of patient's overall PS and treatment tolerance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer were prospectively enrolled into two cohorts (medical and surgical) and asked to wear FC for 4 days at baseline (start of new chemotherapy [± 4 weeks] or prior to curative resection) and follow-up (4 weeks [± 2 weeks] after initial assessment in medical and postoperative discharge in surgical cohort). Primary end point was feasibility, defined as 75% of patients wearing FC for at least 12 hours/d, 3 of 4 assigned days. Mean steps per day (SPD) were correlated with toxicities of interest (postoperative complication or ≥ grade 3 toxicity). A cutoff of 5,000 SPD was selected to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty patients were accrued over 3 years with 55% males and a median age of 59.5 years. Feasibility end point was met with 68 patients (85%) wearing FC more than predefined duration and majority (91%) finding its use acceptable. The mean SPD count for patients with PS 0 was 6,313, and for those with PS 1, it was 2,925 (122 and 54 active minutes, respectively) (P = .0003). Occurrence of toxicity of interest was lower among patients with SPD > 5,000 (7 of 33, 21%) compared with those with SPD < 5,000 (14 of 43, 32%), although not significant (P = .31). CONCLUSION: Assessment of physical activity with FC is feasible in patients with colorectal cancer and well-accepted. SPD may serve as an adjunct to PS assessment and a possible tool to help predict toxicities, regardless of type of therapy. Future studies incorporating FC can standardize patient assessment and help identify vulnerable population.
PURPOSE: Performance status (PS) is a subjective assessment of patients' overall health. Quantification of physical activity using a wearable tracker (Fitbit Charge [FC]) may provide an objective measure of patient's overall PS and treatment tolerance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer were prospectively enrolled into two cohorts (medical and surgical) and asked to wear FC for 4 days at baseline (start of new chemotherapy [± 4 weeks] or prior to curative resection) and follow-up (4 weeks [± 2 weeks] after initial assessment in medical and postoperative discharge in surgical cohort). Primary end point was feasibility, defined as 75% of patients wearing FC for at least 12 hours/d, 3 of 4 assigned days. Mean steps per day (SPD) were correlated with toxicities of interest (postoperative complication or ≥ grade 3 toxicity). A cutoff of 5,000 SPD was selected to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty patients were accrued over 3 years with 55% males and a median age of 59.5 years. Feasibility end point was met with 68 patients (85%) wearing FC more than predefined duration and majority (91%) finding its use acceptable. The mean SPD count for patients with PS 0 was 6,313, and for those with PS 1, it was 2,925 (122 and 54 active minutes, respectively) (P = .0003). Occurrence of toxicity of interest was lower among patients with SPD > 5,000 (7 of 33, 21%) compared with those with SPD < 5,000 (14 of 43, 32%), although not significant (P = .31). CONCLUSION: Assessment of physical activity with FC is feasible in patients with colorectal cancer and well-accepted. SPD may serve as an adjunct to PS assessment and a possible tool to help predict toxicities, regardless of type of therapy. Future studies incorporating FC can standardize patient assessment and help identify vulnerable population.
Authors: Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Denise Heseltine; Donna Niedzwiecki; Donna Hollis; Leonard B Saltz; Robert J Mayer; James Thomas; Heidi Nelson; Renaud Whittom; Alexander Hantel; Richard L Schilsky; Charles S Fuchs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matti Aapro; Florian Scotte; Thierry Bouillet; David Currow; Antonio Vigano Journal: Clin Colorectal Cancer Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: Aminah Jatoi; Shauna Hillman; Philip J Stella; James A Mailliard; Jeff Sloan; Stephanie Vanone; Michael W Cannon; Leila Kutteh; Anne Kanard; James R Jett Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2003-03-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Melinda L Irwin; Ashley Wilder Smith; Anne McTiernan; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Kathy Cronin; Frank D Gilliland; Richard N Baumgartner; Kathy B Baumgartner; Leslie Bernstein Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cam Clayton; Lynne Feehan; Charlie H Goldsmith; William C Miller; Navi Grewal; Joanna Ye; Ju Young Yoo; Linda C Li Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2015-08-22
Authors: David J Sher; Sepeadeh Radpour; Jennifer L Shah; Nhat-Long Pham; Steve Jiang; Dat Vo; Baran D Sumer; Andrew T Day Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-03
Authors: Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Nicole Horevoorts; Dounya Schoormans; Sandra Beijer; Nicole P M Ezendam; Olga Husson; Simone Oerlemans; Sanne B Schagen; Geja J Hageman; Katrijn Van Deun; Corina van den Hurk; Mies van Eenbergen; Floortje Mols Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Max Gibb; Hannah Winter; Sandra Komarzynski; Nicholas I Wreglesworth; Pasquale F Innominato Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2022 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.077