BE-WEL trial (breast: evaluation of weight and exercise for lymphoedema) testing weight control and exercise programmes for women with breast cancer related lymphoedema: a feasibility trial.

PURPOSE: A combined body weight loss and upper body/arm exercise programme is a potential strategy for managing Breast cancer related lymphoedema (BCRL), but there is limited data on the best method for delivery or its potential efficacy. METHODS: Fifty-seven women with overweight/obesity and BCRL were randomised to a 12 week supervised (n = 12) or home-based combined weight loss and upper body/arm exercise programme (n = 16), a home-based upper-body arm exercise only programme (n = 17) or standard care (n = 12). Primary outcomes were uptake, retention and changes in weight and change in Relative Arm Volume Increase (RAVI) using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: Sixteen percent of women invited joined the study and 49 completed the trial (85% retention). Reductions in weight occurred in the supervised and home-based weight control and exercise programmes; Mean (95% CI) change compared to standard care - 1.68 (- 4.36 to - 1.00), - 2.47(- 4.99 to - 0.04) Kg. Reductions in perometer assessed RAVI were seen in the supervised and home-based combined weight control and arm exercise groups and the weight stable home-based arm exercise only group: mean (95% CI) change compared to standard care - 2.4 (- 5.0 to + 0.4),- 1.8 (- 4.3 to + 0.7), - 2.5(- 4.9 to - 0.05)%. CONCLUSION: Women with BCRL and overweight and obesity engaged in diet and exercise weight loss programmes. Both weight loss/arm exercise programmes led to modest changes in weight and BCRL. Comparable reductions in BCRL were reported in the weight stable group undertaking arm exercise only. The independent and combined effects of weight loss and exercise on BCRL need further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86789850 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN86789850 , registered 2011.

An app promoting weight gain prevention via healthy behaviours amongst young women with a family history of breast cancer: Acceptability and usability assessment.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most frequent female malignancy in the UK. Around 20% of cases are linked to weight gain, excess weight and health behaviours. We designed a weight gain prevention, health behaviour intervention for young women at increased risk. METHODS: The study comprised a single arm observational study over 2 months testing acceptability and usability of the intervention: online group welcome event, app and private Facebook group. Females aged 18-35 years at moderate or high risk of breast cancer (>17% lifetime risk) were recruited via invite letters and social media posts. The app included behaviour change techniques and education content. Online questionnaires were completed at baseline, as well as at 1 and 2 months. We also assessed feasibility of study procedures. RESULTS: Both recruitment methods were successful. Thirty-five women were recruited, 26% via social media posts. Median age was 33 (interquartile range = 28.2-34.5) years, the majority (94.1%) were of White ethnicity. Thirty-four participants were included in the analyses, of which 94% downloaded the app. Median self-monitoring logs per participant during the study period was 10.0 (interquartile range = 4.8-28.8). App quality mean (SD) score was 3.7 (0.6) at 1 and 2 months (scale: 1-5). Eighty-nine per cent rated the app at average or above at 1 month and 75.0% at 2 months. Nineteen women (55.9%) joined the Facebook group and there were 61 comments and 83 reactions and votes from participants during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This first iteration of the app and intervention was well received and is suitable to progress to the next stage of refining and further testing.

Randomised controlled trial of breast cancer and multiple disease prevention weight loss programmes vs written advice amongst women attending a breast cancer family history clinic.

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity are common amongst women attending breast cancer Family History, Risk and Prevention Clinics (FHRPCs). Overweight increases risk of breast cancer (BC) and conditions including1 cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type-2 diabetes (T2D). Clinics provide written health behaviour advice with is likely to have minimal effects. We assessed efficacy of two remotely delivered weight loss programmes vs. written advice. METHOD: 210 women with overweight or obesity attending three UK FHRPCs were randomised to either a BC prevention programme (BCPP) framed to reduce risk of BC (n = 86), a multiple disease prevention programme (MDPP) framed to reduce risk of BC, CVD and T2D (n = 87), or written advice (n = 37). Change in weight and health behaviours were assessed at 12-months. RESULTS: Weight loss at 12 months was -6.3% (-8.2, -4.5) in BCPP, -6.0% (-7.9, -4.2) in MDPP and -3.3% (-6.2, -0.5) in the written group (p = 0.451 across groups). The percentage losing ≥10% weight in these groups were respectively 34%, 23% and 14% (p = 0.038 across groups). DISCUSSION: BCPP and MDPP programmes resulted in more women achieving ≥10% weight loss, but no evidence of additional benefits of MDPP. A multicentre RCT to test the BCPP across UK FHRPCs is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration ISRCTN16431108.

Obesity at age 20 and weight gain during adulthood increase risk of total and premature all-cause mortality: findings from women attending breast screening in Manchester.

BACKGROUND: Obesity in early adulthood is associated with lower breast cancer rates in later life. This could be interpreted as a positive reinforcement of excess weight amongst younger women however, the wider implications of higher weights are less well known. This study examined the association between both obesity in early adulthood and body mass index (BMI) change through adulthood, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: The Predicting Risk of Cancer At Screening (PROCAS) study recruited 57,902 women aged 46-73 years (median age 57.2, IQR 51.8-63.7 years) from the Greater Manchester National Health Service breast screening programme in North West England between 2009 and 2015. It was used to assess associations between BMI at 20 years and cohort entry with all-cause mortality ascertained via deaths recorded on the National Breast Screening System to June 2020. Hazard ratios were estimated using proportional hazards (Cox) regression adjusted for factors at entry to the cohort: age, deprivation, bilateral oophorectomy, hormone-replacement therapy, menopausal status, ethnicity, alcohol intake, physical activity, and BMI. RESULTS: The prevalence of overweight (25-30 kg/m2) and obesity (> 30 kg/m2) were 10.4% and 2.5% respectively at 20 years, increasing to 35.2% and 25.9% respectively at cohort entry. After a mean 8.7 years follow-up we observed that overweight (HR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.10-1.47) and obesity (HR = 2.11, 95%CI = 1.67-2.66) at 20 years had a higher mortality rate compared with healthy weight. Women who were underweight/healthy weight at 20 years and gained weight to obesity at entry had a slightly increased mortality rate compared with women who were underweight/healthy weight at both time points (HR 1.16, 95%CI = 1.02-1.32). Women with overweight (HR = 1.36, 95%CI = 1.06-1.75) or obesity (HR = 1.90, 95%CI = 1.45-2.48) at both 20 years and entry had a higher mortality rate than women who were underweight/healthy weight at both points. CONCLUSIONS: Women who self-reported overweight and obesity at 20 years had a shorter life expectancy in this cohort of women attending breast cancer screening. Weight gain from 20 years was common in this group. Girls and women should be supported to maintain a healthy weight throughout the lifespan to help increase life expectancy. Trial registration number NCT04359420, retrospectively registered 24/04/2020.

Randomised controlled trial of intermittent vs continuous energy restriction during chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Excess adiposity at diagnosis and weight gain during chemotherapy is associated with tumour recurrence and chemotherapy toxicity. We assessed the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) vs continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight control and toxicity reduction during chemotherapy. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-two women were randomised to follow IER or CER throughout adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were weight and body fat change. Secondary endpoints included chemotherapy toxicity, cardiovascular risk markers, and correlative markers of metabolism, inflammation and oxidative stress. RESULTS: Primary analyses showed non-significant reductions in weight (-1.1 (-2.4 to +0.2) kg, p = 0.11) and body fat (-1.0 (-2.1 to +0.1) kg, p = 0.086) in IER compared with CER. Predefined secondary analyses adjusted for body water showed significantly greater reductions in weight (-1.4 (-2.5 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.024) and body fat (-1.1 (-2.1 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.046) in IER compared with CER. Incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities were comparable overall (IER 31.0 vs CER 36.5%, p = 0.45) with a trend to fewer grade 3/4 toxicities with IER (18%) vs CER (31%) during cycles 4-6 of primarily taxane therapy (p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: IER is feasible during chemotherapy. The potential efficacy for weight control and reducing toxicity needs to be tested in future larger trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04156504.

Magnitude and attributed reasons for adult weight gain amongst women at increased risk of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Excess weight (BMI ≥25.0 kg/m2) and weight gain during adult life increase the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in women who are already at increased risk of the disease. Reasons for weight gain in this population can inform strategies for weight gain prevention. METHODS: Baseline data from six weight loss studies for women at increased risk of breast cancer (age 31-74 years) were collated. Self-reported patterns of adult weight gain and attributed reasons for weight gain before joining the weight loss study were reported for the whole population and secondary analyses reported the different reasons given by women with/without children, pre-/peri- or postmenopausal, and moderate/high risk of breast cancer. RESULTS: Five hundred and one women with a mean age of 47.6 (SD 8.4) years and median BMI of 29.9 (IQR 27.0-34.7) kg/m2 were included in the analyses. The median weight gain since young adulthood (18-20 years) was 20.5 (IQR 14.0-29.7) kg or 33.7 (23.4-50.2) % and median annual weight gain was 0.73 (IQR 0.51-1.08) kg. Four hundred and one women were included in analysis of weight gain reasons. The main five self-reported reasons for weight gain were children / childcare / pregnancy (stated by 55.9% of participants), followed by inactivity (41.9%), comfort or boredom eating (38.2%), portion size (32.4%), and stress (27.4%). Reasons appeared broadly similar between the different groups in the secondary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We have highlighted common reasons for weight gain in women at increased risk of breast cancer. This will inform future interventions to support women to avoid weight gain in adulthood which would reduce the burden of breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIHR NRR N0226132725, ISRCTN52913838, ISRCTN77916487, ISRCTN91372184, ISRCTN10803394 and ISRCTN16431108.

Young adulthood body mass index, adult weight gain and breast cancer risk: the PROCAS Study (United Kingdom).

BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that body mass index (BMI) aged 20 years modifies the association of adult weight gain and breast cancer risk. METHODS: We recruited women (aged 47-73 years) into the PROCAS (Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening; Manchester, UK: 2009-2013) Study. In 47,042 women, we determined BMI at baseline and (by recall) at age 20 years, and derived weight changes. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for new breast cancer using Cox models and explored relationships between BMI aged 20 years, subsequent weight changes and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 5.6 years, 1142 breast cancers (post-menopausal at entry: 829) occurred. Among post-menopausal women at entry, BMI aged 20 years was inversely associated [HR per SD: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79-0.95)], while absolute weight gain was associated with breast cancer [HR per SD:1.23 (95% CI: 1.14-1.32)]. For post-menopausal women who had a recall BMI aged 20 years <23.4 kg/m2 (75th percentile), absolute weight gain was associated with breast cancer [HR per SD: 1.31 (95% CIs: 1.21-1.42)], but there were no associations for women with a recall BMI aged 20 years of >23.4 kg/m2 (Pinteraction values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adult weight gain increased post-menopausal breast cancer risk only among women who were <23.4 kg/m2 aged 20 years.

The effectiveness of home versus community-based weight control programmes initiated soon after breast cancer diagnosis: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer diagnosis may be a teachable moment for lifestyle behaviour change and to prevent adjuvant therapy associated weight gain. We assessed the acceptability and effectiveness of two weight control programmes initiated soon after breast cancer diagnosis to reduce weight amongst overweight or obese women and prevent gains in normal-weight women. METHODS: Overweight or obese (n = 243) and normal weight (n = 166) women were randomised to a three-month unsupervised home (home), a supervised community weight control programme (community) or to standard written advice (control). Primary end points were change in weight and body fat at 12 months. Secondary end points included change in insulin, cardiovascular risk markers, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the programmes. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of eligible women were recruited. Both programmes reduced weight and body fat: home vs. control mean (95% CI); weight -2.3 (-3.5, -1.0) kg, body fat -1.6 (-2.6, -0.7) kg, community vs. control; weight -2.4 (-3.6, -1.1) kg, body fat -1.4 (-2.4, -0.5) kg (all p < 0.001). The community group increased physical activity, reduced insulin, cardiovascular disease risk markers, increased QOL and was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The programmes were equally effective for weight control, but the community programme had additional benefits. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN68576140.

Breast cancer risk status influences uptake, retention and efficacy of a weight loss programme amongst breast cancer screening attendees: two randomised controlled feasibility trials.

BACKGROUND: Excess body weight and sub-optimal lifestyle are modifiable causes of breast cancer and other diseases. There is little evidence that behaviour change is possible within screening programmes and whether this is influenced by prior knowledge of disease risk. We determined whether breast cancer risk influences uptake, retention and efficacy of a weight control programme in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, and whether additional cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes risk information improves uptake and retention further. METHOD: Overweight/obese women in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme identified at high, moderately increased, average and low-risk of breast cancer were randomised to receive individualised breast cancer risk information (breast cancer prevention programme), or individualised breast cancer, cardiovascular disease (QRISK2) and type 2 diabetes (QDiabetes, HbA1c) information (multiple disease prevention programme). Personalised breast cancer risk feedback was given before randomisation in Study-1, and after randomisation in Study-2. RESULTS: Recruitment was 9% (126/1356) in Study-1 and 7% (52/738) in Study-2. With respect to breast cancer risk, odds ratio of uptake for high/moderately increased vs low risk women was 1.99 (95% CI 1.24-3.17, P = 0.004) in Study-1 and 3.58 (95% CI 1.59-8.07, P = 0.002) in Study-2. Odds ratio of retention for high/moderately increased -risk vs. low risk women was 2.98 (95% CI 1.05-8.47, P = 0.041) in Study-1 and 3.88 (95% CI 1.07-14.04, P = 0.039) in Study-2. Weight loss of ≥5% at 12 months was achieved by 63% high/moderate vs. 43% low-risk women in Study-1 (P = 0.083) and 39% vs. 8% in Study-2 (P = 0.008). Uptake, retention and weight loss were equivalent in both the breast cancer prevention programme and the multiple disease prevention programme in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: Women who are informed that they are at increased breast cancer risk were significantly more likely to join and remain in the programmes and consequently lose more weight across both studies. High risk women are more likely engage in a lifetyle prevention programme and also have the greatest potential benefit fom risk reduction strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91372184 Registered 28 September 2014.

Intermittent energy restriction induces changes in breast gene expression and systemic metabolism.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest weight loss and energy restriction reduce breast cancer risk. Intermittent energy restriction (IER) reduces weight to the same extent as, or more than equivalent continuous energy restriction (CER) but the effects of IER on normal breast tissue and systemic metabolism as indicators of breast cancer risk are unknown. METHODS: We assessed the effect of IER (two days of 65 % energy restriction per week) for one menstrual cycle on breast tissue gene expression using Affymetrix GeneChips, adipocyte size by morphometry, and systemic metabolism (insulin resistance, lipids, serum and urine metabolites, lymphocyte gene expression) in 23 overweight premenopausal women at high risk of breast cancer. Unsupervised and supervised analyses of matched pre and post IER biopsies in 20 subjects were performed, whilst liquid and gas chromatography mass spectrometry assessed corresponding changes in serum and urine metabolites in all subjects after the two restricted and five unrestricted days of the IER. RESULTS: Women lost 4.8 % (±2.0 %) of body weight and 8.0 % (±5.0 %) of total body fat. Insulin resistance (homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)) reduced by 29.8 % (±17.8 %) on the restricted days and by 11 % (±34 %) on the unrestricted days of the IER. Five hundred and twenty-seven metabolites significantly increased or decreased during the two restricted days of IER. Ninety-one percent of these returned to baseline after 5 days of normal eating. Eleven subjects (55 %) displayed reductions in energy restriction-associated metabolic gene pathways including lipid synthesis, gluconeogenesis and glycogen synthesis. Some of these women also had increases in genes associated with breast epithelial cell differentiation (secretoglobulins, milk proteins and mucins) and decreased collagen synthesis (TNMD, PCOLCE2, TIMP4). There was no appreciable effect of IER on breast gene expression in the other nine subjects. These groups did not differ in the degree of changes in weight, total body fat, fat cell size or serum or urine metabolomic markers. Corresponding gene changes were not seen in peripheral blood lymphocytes. CONCLUSION: The transcriptional response to IER is variable in breast tissue, which was not reflected in the systemic response, which occurred in all subjects. The mechanisms of breast responsiveness/non-responsiveness require further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77916487 31/07/2012.