[Physical activity in cancer - effectiveness of exercise therapy approaches]. / Körperliche Aktivität bei Krebs ­ Wirksamkeit bewegungstherapeutischer Ansätze.

The positive effects of oncological exercise therapy are sufficiently proven according to scientific studies. International evidence-based guidelines confirm this importance and recommend physical exercise as part of the standard therapy for cancer. The effects of physical activity on cancer-specific deficits are versatile ranging from positive impact on fatigue syndrome, mortality, incontinence, lymphoedema, CIPN, anxiety, depression to reduction of pain. According to current knowledge, sensorimotor training is recommended for the treatment of polyneuropathy. The actual effectiveness of vibration training in reducing symptom burden is undetermined. There are more than 100 randomized, controlled studies with the highest evidence rating for the management of CrF available. In this regard, exercise therapy is more effective than drug therapy in alleviating the symptomatology of CrF. In addition to the movement-therapeutic approach, a coordinated diet is necessary to avoid nutrition shortages.The evidence on physical activity in oncology must be considered not only in theory, but also in practice and be accepted as a general recommendation for oncology patients. The personalized OTT treatment concept represents a practical implementation and offers a targeted treatment option with low side effects.

A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Study to Evaluate the Immediate Effect of Targeted Exercise Therapy on Cancer-Related Fatigue in Cancer Survivors: The FatiGO Study.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a clinically relevant side effect that impairs cancer survivors after treatment cessation. Exercise interventions have proven effective; however, specific exercise modalities remain untested. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of daily fatigue screenings and to show the impact of various exercise interventions on CRF. METHODS: The randomized controlled pilot study ran for 4 weeks with 3 training sessions per week, in 5 groups: endurance versus strength (moderate- and vigorous-intensity levels for each) compared to a non-active control group. The primary outcome was feasibility; more specifically, it was evaluated whether the documentation with the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) on a daily basis and the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) on a weekly basis are usable assessments to generate information about CRF. RESULTS: Over the course of the 4-week intervention, 8.3% of the participants (n = 3) dropped out. Thirty-three of the initial 36 participants completed the exercise sessions with an adherence of 95%. Measurements of daily fatigue were collected three times per day, 85% of which were completely filled out. In regard to weekly fatigue, all but one of the questionnaires were submitted (99.5%). Neither during the intervention nor during the tests did any serious adverse events occur within the FatiGO study; hence, the exercise intervention is considered to be feasible for participants. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study showed the feasibility of close-meshed daily fatigue screening. Preliminary data indicate that cancer survivors are able to train in high-intensity ranges with tendencies toward decreased fatigue. Therefore, practicability of the study design is shown. Further results are expected within the prospective multicenter trial.