Grace L Rose1,2, Tina L Skinner3, Shelley E Keating3, Nina K Friedrich4, Kate A Bolam5. 1. School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. grace.atkinson@uq.edu.au. 2. School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. grace.atkinson@uq.edu.au. 3. School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Institute of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 5. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the pooled effect of exercise on the bone health of people diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Four electronic databases were systematically searched. Controlled trials that assessed the effect of exercise on the bone mineral density (BMD) or content (BMC) measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or peripheral quantitative computed tomography in people who had been diagnosed with cancer were included in the study. Random-effect meta-analyses of effect size (ES) were conducted. Sub-group analyses were performed to explore the influence of intervention duration, prescription and participant characteristics. RESULTS: Of 66 full-text articles screened, 22 studies, from 21 interventions, were included (primarily breast/prostate cancer, sample range n = 36-498). When all interventions were grouped, a significant pooled ES was observed for exercise on hip (ES = 0.112, 95% CI: 0.026 to 0.198; p = 0.011) and lumbar spine BMD (ES = 0.269, 95% CI: 0.036 to 0.501; p = 0.024) compared to control. There was also an influence of sex, where females had greater improvements in hip (ES = 0.120, 95% CI: 0.017 to 0.223; p = 0.022) and spine BMD (ES = 0.415, 95% CI: 0.056 to 0.774; p = 0.23) compared to males. CONCLUSION: Overall, exercise regimens of studies included in this review appear to improve bone health at the hip and spine in people diagnosed with cancer. Sub-analyses suggest some influence of sex, where females had greater improvements in BMD compared to males. It is essential that future studies evaluate the dose-response of exercise training on bone health and create exercise protocols that better align with the laws of bone modelling to enhance osteogenic potential.
PURPOSE: To determine the pooled effect of exercise on the bone health of people diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Four electronic databases were systematically searched. Controlled trials that assessed the effect of exercise on the bone mineral density (BMD) or content (BMC) measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or peripheral quantitative computed tomography in people who had been diagnosed with cancer were included in the study. Random-effect meta-analyses of effect size (ES) were conducted. Sub-group analyses were performed to explore the influence of intervention duration, prescription and participant characteristics. RESULTS: Of 66 full-text articles screened, 22 studies, from 21 interventions, were included (primarily breast/prostate cancer, sample range n = 36-498). When all interventions were grouped, a significant pooled ES was observed for exercise on hip (ES = 0.112, 95% CI: 0.026 to 0.198; p = 0.011) and lumbar spine BMD (ES = 0.269, 95% CI: 0.036 to 0.501; p = 0.024) compared to control. There was also an influence of sex, where females had greater improvements in hip (ES = 0.120, 95% CI: 0.017 to 0.223; p = 0.022) and spine BMD (ES = 0.415, 95% CI: 0.056 to 0.774; p = 0.23) compared to males. CONCLUSION: Overall, exercise regimens of studies included in this review appear to improve bone health at the hip and spine in people diagnosed with cancer. Sub-analyses suggest some influence of sex, where females had greater improvements in BMD compared to males. It is essential that future studies evaluate the dose-response of exercise training on bone health and create exercise protocols that better align with the laws of bone modelling to enhance osteogenic potential.
Authors: A P Verhagen; H C de Vet; R A de Bie; A G Kessels; M Boers; L M Bouter; P G Knipschild Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: T Saarto; H Sievänen; P Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; R Nikander; L Vehmanen; R Huovinen; H Kautiainen; S Järvenpää; H M Penttinen; M Utriainen; A S Jääskeläinen; A Elme; J Ruohola; T Palva; H Vertio; M Rautalahti; M Fogelholm; R Luoto; C Blomqvist Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-09-03 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Fred Saad; Jonathan D Adachi; Jacques P Brown; Leah A Canning; Karen A Gelmon; Robert G Josse; Kathleen I Pritchard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Riku Nikander; Harri Sievänen; Ari Heinonen; Robin M Daly; Kirsti Uusi-Rasi; Pekka Kannus Journal: BMC Med Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 8.775