European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4).

INTRODUCTION: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). METHODS: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. RESULTS: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. DISCUSSION: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.

Fruquintinib versus placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (FRESCO-2): an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of effective systemic therapy options for patients with advanced, chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, a highly selective and potent oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) 1, 2, and 3, in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (FRESCO-2) at 124 hospitals and cancer centres across 14 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) with histologically or cytologically documented metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma who had received all current standard approved cytotoxic and targeted therapies and progressed on or were intolerant to trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive fruquintinib (5 mg capsule) or matched placebo orally once daily on days 1-21 in 28-day cycles, plus best supportive care. Stratification factors were previous trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both, RAS mutation status, and duration of metastatic disease. Patients, investigators, study site personnel, and sponsors, except for selected sponsor pharmacovigilance personnel, were masked to study group assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. A non-binding futility analysis was done when approximately one-third of the expected overall survival events had occurred. Final analysis occurred after 480 overall survival events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04322539, and EudraCT, 2020-000158-88, and is ongoing but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2020, and Dec 2, 2021, 934 patients were assessed for eligibility and 691 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive fruquintinib (n=461) or placebo (n=230). Patients had received a median of 4 lines (IQR 3-6) of previous systemic therapy for metastatic disease, and 502 (73%) of 691 patients had received more than 3 lines. Median overall survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-8·2) in the fruquintinib group versus 4·8 months (4·0-5·8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·55-0·80; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 286 (63%) of 456 patients who received fruquintinib and 116 (50%) of 230 who received placebo; the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the fruquintinib group included hypertension (n=62 [14%]), asthenia (n=35 [8%]), and hand-foot syndrome (n=29 [6%]). There was one treatment-related death in each group (intestinal perforation in the fruquintinib group and cardiac arrest in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Fruquintinib treatment resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful benefit in overall survival compared with placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. These data support the use of fruquintinib as a global treatment option for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Ongoing analysis of the quality of life data will further establish the clinical benefit of fruquintinib in this patient population. FUNDING: HUTCHMED.

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION: The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials.

Definitions and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer according to multidisciplinary tumour boards in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%), or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 47 MDTs across 16 countries fully discussed the cases (96%). Oligometastatic disease was considered in patients with 1-2 metastases in either the liver, lung, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, adrenal gland, soft tissue or bone (consensus). At follow-up, oligometastatic disease was considered after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy when no progression or progression in size only of the oligometastatic lesion(s) was seen (consensus). If at restaging after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy the number of lesions progressed, this was not considered as oligometastatic disease (fair agreement). There was no consensus on treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSION: A broad consensus on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was found among MDTs of oesophagogastric cancer expert centres in Europe. However, high practice variability in treatment strategies exists.

Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated PD-L1-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: 2-year update of the randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 study (cutoff: 10/26/2017), pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong OS vs paclitaxel as second-line (2L) therapy in PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1 gastric/GEJ cancer. We present results in CPS ≥ 1, ≥ 5, and ≥ 10 populations after two additional years of follow-up (cutoff: 10/07/2019). METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for ≤ 35 cycles or standard-dose paclitaxel. Primary endpoints: OS and PFS (CPS ≥ 1 population). HRs were calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 366/395 patients (92.7%) with CPS ≥ 1 died. Pembrolizumab demonstrated a trend toward improved OS vs paclitaxel in the CPS ≥ 1 population (HR, 0.81); 24-month OS rates: 19.9% vs 8.5%. Pembrolizumab incrementally increased the OS benefit with PD-L1 enrichment (CPS ≥ 5: HR, 0.72, 24-month rate, 24.2% vs 8.8%; CPS ≥ 10: 0.69, 24-month rate, 32.1% vs 10.9%). There was no difference in median PFS among treatment groups (CPS ≥ 1: HR, 1.25; CPS ≥ 5: 0.98; CPS ≥ 10: 0.79). ORR (pembrolizumab vs paclitaxel) was 16.3% vs 13.6% (CPS ≥ 1), 20.0% vs 14.3% (CPS ≥ 5), and 24.5% vs 9.1% (CPS ≥ 10); median DOR was 19.1 months vs 5.2, 32.7 vs 4.8, and NR vs 6.9, respectively. Fewer treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred with pembrolizumab than paclitaxel (53% vs 84%). CONCLUSION: In this long-term analysis, 2L pembrolizumab did not significantly improve OS but was associated with higher 24-month OS rates than paclitaxel. Pembrolizumab also increased OS benefit with PD-L1 enrichment among patients with PD-L1-positive gastric/GEJ cancer and led to fewer TRAEs than paclitaxel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02370498.

Assessment of Pembrolizumab Therapy for the Treatment of Microsatellite Instability-High Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer Among Patients in the KEYNOTE-059, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-062 Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: Immunotherapy has been associated with improved outcomes among patients who have received previous treatment for microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab therapy vs chemotherapy among patients with MSI-H advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer regardless of the line of therapy in which it was received. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-059 (third-line treatment or higher) single-arm trial and the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 (second-line treatment) and KEYNOTE-062 (first-line treatment) randomized trials included patients with advanced G/GEJ cancer from 52 sites in 16 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-059, 148 sites in 30 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-061, and 200 sites in 29 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-062. Patients were enrolled from March 2, 2015, to March 26, 2016, in KEYNOTE-059; from June 4, 2015, to July 26, 2016, in KEYNOTE-061; and from September 18, 2015, to May 26, 2017, in KEYNOTE-062, with data cutoff dates of August 8, 2018; October 26, 2017; and March 26, 2019; respectively. INTERVENTIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy in KEYNOTE-059, pembrolizumab monotherapy or chemotherapy (paclitaxel) in KEYNOTE-061, and pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine), or chemotherapy alone in KEYNOTE-062. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Response was assessed centrally using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), version 1.1; MSI-H status was determined centrally by polymerase chain reaction testing. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 7 of 174 patients (4.0%) in KEYNOTE-059, 27 of 514 patients (5.3%) in KEYNOTE-061, and 50 of 682 patients (7.3%) in KEYNOTE-062 had MSI-H tumors. Among those with MSI-H tumors, the median overall survival was not reached (NR) for pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-059, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-062 or for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in KEYNOTE-062. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for pembrolizumab was NR (95% CI, 1.1 months to NR) in KEYNOTE-059 and 17.8 months (95% CI, 2.7 months to NR) in KEYNOTE-061 (vs 3.5 months [95% CI, 2.0-9.8 months] for chemotherapy). In KEYNOTE-062, the median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 1.5 months to NR) for pembrolizumab, NR (95% CI, 3.6 months to NR) for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.3 months) for chemotherapy. The objective response rate (ORR) for pembrolizumab was 57.1% in KEYNOTE-059 and 46.7% (vs 16.7% for chemotherapy) in KEYNOTE-061. In KEYNOTE-062, the ORR was 57.1% for pembrolizumab , 64.7% for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 36.8% for chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Findings from this study indicate that MSI-H status may be a biomarker for pembrolizumab therapy among patients with advanced G/GEJ cancer regardless of the line of therapy in which it was received. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02335411, NCT02370498, and NCT02494583.

Changes in the quality of care of colorectal cancer in Estonia: a population-based high-resolution study.

OBJECTIVES: Large disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) management and survival have been observed across Europe. Despite recent increases, the survival deficit of Estonian patients with CRC persists, particularly for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to examine diagnostic, staging and treatment patterns of CRC in Estonia, comparing clinical data from 1997 and 2011. DESIGN: Nationwide population-based retrospective study. SETTING: Estonia. PARTICIPANTS: All incident cases of colon and rectal cancer diagnosed in 1997 and 2011 identified from the Estonian Cancer Registry. Clinical data gathered from medical records. OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in diagnostic, staging and treatment patterns; 5-year relative survival ratios. RESULTS: The number of colon cancer cases was 337 in 1997 and 498 in 2011; for rectal cancer, the respective numbers were 209 and 349. From 1997 to 2011, large increases were seen in the use of colonoscopy and lung and liver imaging. Radical resection rate increased from 48% to 59%, but emergency surgeries showed a rise from 18% to 26% in colon and from 7% to 14% in rectal cancer. The proportion of radically operated patients with ≥12 lymph nodes examined pathologically increased from 2% to 58% in colon cancer and from 2% to 50% in rectal cancer. The use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy increased from 6% to 39% among stage II and from 20% to 50% among patients with stage III rectal cancer. The use of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer increased from 42% to 63%. The 5-year RSR increased from 50% to 58% in colon cancer and from 37% to 64% in patients with rectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Major improvements were seen in the diagnostics, staging and treatment of CRC in Estonia contributing to better outcomes. Increase in emergency surgeries highlights possible shortcomings in timely diagnosis and treatment.

European practice patterns and barriers to smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis in the setting of curative versus palliative cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis is associated with improved overall survival. Few studies have reported oncologists' cessation practice patterns, but differences between the curative and palliative settings have not been described. We aimed to study the oncologist's perceptions on patients' tobacco use, current practices and barriers to providing smoking cessation support, while distinguishing between treatment with curative (C) and palliative (P) intent. METHODS: In 2019, an online 34-item survey was sent to approximately 6235 oncologists from 16 European countries. Responses were descriptively reported and compared by treatment setting. RESULTS: Responses from 544 oncologists were included. Oncologists appeared to favour addressing tobacco in the curative setting more than in the palliative setting. Oncologists believe that continued smoking impacts treatment outcomes (C: 94%, P: 74%) and that cessation support should be standard cancer care (C: 95%, P: 63%). Most routinely assess tobacco use (C: 93%, P: 78%) and advise patients to stop using tobacco (C: 88%, P: 54%), but only 24% (P)-39% (C) routinely discuss medication options, and only 18% (P)-31% (C) provide cessation support. Hesitation to remove a pleasurable habit (C: 13%, P: 43%) and disbelieve on smoking affecting outcomes (C: 3%, P: 14%) were disparate barriers between the curative and palliative settings (p < 0.001), but dominant barriers of time, resources, education and patient resistance were similar between settings. CONCLUSION: Oncologists appear to favour addressing tobacco use more in the curative setting; however, they discuss medication options and/or provide cessation support in a minority of cases. All patients who report current smoking should have access to evidence-based smoking cessation support, also patients treated with palliative intent given their increasing survival.

Cancer Patients' Symptom Burden and Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) at Tertiary Cancer Center from 2006 to 2013: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To observe changes in symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 7 years among cancer patients at different stages of the disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study at the Helsinki University Hospital Cancer Center, was carried out in 2006 and repeated in 2013. All participants filled in the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. RESULTS: Altogether, 581 patients responded (49% in 2006 and 54% in 2013). The disease was local in 51% and advanced in 49% of patients. The HRQoL was significantly lower, except for emotional and cognitive functions, and the symptom burden more severe in advanced cancer. The most prevalent symptoms were fatigue (93% and 85%; moderate/severe 22% and 9%), pain (65% and 47%; moderate/severe 16% and 5%), and insomnia (64% and 60%; moderate/severe 20 and 21%), respectively. No changes in HRQoL or symptoms were found at 7 years. CONCLUSION: There is a need for early integrated palliative care to improve HRQoL during cancer treatments.

Final Analysis of Outcomes and RAS/BRAF Status in a Randomized Phase 3 Study of Panitumumab and Best Supportive Care in Chemorefractory Wild Type KRAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor rat sarcoma gene (RAS) status is a negative predictive biomarker for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We analyzed outcomes according to RAS and v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutational status, and evaluated early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) for patients with wild type RAS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with confirmed metastatic colon or rectum adenocarcinoma, wild type Kristen rat sarcoma gene tumor exon 2 status, clinical/radiologic disease progression or toxicity during irinotecan or oxaliplatin treatment, and no previous anti-EGFR therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive best supportive care (BSC) with or without panitumumab (6.0 mg/kg, intravenously, on day 1 of each 14-day cycle) in this open-label, multicenter, phase III study (20100007). RAS and BRAF mutation status were determined using Sanger sequencing. ETS was evaluated as maximum percentage change from baseline to week 8; DpR was calculated as the percentage change for tumor shrinkage at nadir versus baseline. RESULTS: Overall, 270 patients had RAS wild type mCRC (panitumumab with BSC, n = 142; BSC, n = 128). For patients with wild type RAS tumors, median overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .015) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 0.45; P < .0001) were improved with panitumumab with BSC versus BSC. Similar improvements were seen for patients with wild type RAS, and wild type BRAF tumors (OS: HR, 0.75; P = .04; PFS: HR, 0.45; P < .0001). Median DpR was 16.9% for the evaluable panitumumab with BSC wild type RAS population. Overall, 69.5% experienced any type of tumor shrinkage at week 8; 38.2% experienced ≥ 20% shrinkage. Similar improvements in OS and PFS were seen with stratification according to ETS. CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that panitumumab improved outcomes in wild type RAS mCRC and indicated that ETS and DpR could be used as additional efficacy markers.

A phase 3 trial evaluating panitumumab plus best supportive care vs best supportive care in chemorefractory wild-type KRAS or RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the treatment effect of panitumumab plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC on overall survival (OS) in patients with chemorefractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and report the first prospective extended RAS analysis in a phase 3 trial. METHODS: Patients with wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC were randomised 1 : 1 to panitumumab (6 mg kg-1 Q2W) plus BSC or BSC. On-study crossover was prohibited. RAS mutation status was determined by central laboratory testing. The primary endpoint was OS in wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC; OS in wild-type RAS mCRC (KRAS and NRAS exons 2, 3, and 4) was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy seven patients with wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC were randomised. Median OS was 10.0 months with panitumumab plus BSC vs 7.4 months with BSC (HR=0.73; 95% CI=0.57-0.93; P=0.0096). RAS ascertainment was 86%. In wild-type RAS mCRC, median OS for panitumumab plus BSC was 10.0 vs 6.9 months for BSC (HR=0.70; 95% CI=0.53-0.93; P=0.0135). Patients with RAS mutations did not benefit from panitumumab (OS HR=0.99; 95% CI=0.49-2.00). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Panitumumab significantly improved OS in wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC. The effect was more pronounced in wild-type RAS mCRC, validating previous retrospective analyses.

Electrocardiography changes during adjuvant breast cancer therapy: incidence and risk factors.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Breast cancer survivors have a higher cardiovascular morbidity/mortality rate, when compared with healthy age-matched general population. Electrocardiography (ECG) changes have been found to be associated with chemo- and radiation therapy. In the present study we investigated changes in ECG patterns following modern adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A standard 12-lead electrocardiogram was recorded at rest three times (prior and after adjuvant therapy) and retrospectively analyzed in 414 breast cancer patients, who participated in the open prospective phase III randomized trial (BREX) of exercise training 2005-2007. RESULTS: New electrocardiographic changes in the T-wave or ST-segment (depression or elevation) after the adjuvant therapy were recorded in 49 patients (13%). In multivariate analyses, hypertension treated with anti-hypertensive medication was the only significant factor associated with irreversible ECG changes (OR=4.71; 95% CI=1.36-16.38; p=0.015). CONCLUSION: New irreversible pathological electrocardiographic changes, which acquired during the adjuvant therapy, had a clear relationship with hypertension This patients subgroup needs to be studied further.

Obesity and physical inactivity are related to impaired physical health of breast cancer survivors.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to examine the impact of obesity and physical activity on the health and wellbeing of patients with breast cancer shortly after the adjuvant treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 537 women aged 35 to 68 years with newly-diagnosed breast cancer were enrolled into the exercise intervention study. The physical activity, physical performance (2-km walking test), cardiovascular risk factors, quality of life (EORTC-QoL-C30), co-morbidities and body-mass index (BMI) were measured after the adjuvant treatments. RESULTS: Overall, 191 (39%) patients were overweight (BMI=25-30) and 85 (17%) obese (BMI ≥ 30). Physical activity and performance (p<0.001 and p<0.001), QoL (p<0.001) and high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol decreased (p<0.001) whereas age (p=0.009), co-morbidities (p<0.001), hypertension (p=0.011), metabolic syndrome (p<0.001), low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (p=0.0043), triglycerides (p<0.001), glucose (p<0.001) and insulin (p<0.001) increased linearly with BMI. Higher waist circumference (p=0.0011), triglyceride (p=0.020), insulin (p=0.0098), rate of metabolic syndrome (p=0.028), and lower HDL-cholesterol (p=0.012) and QoL (p<0.001) were associated with low physical activity. Physical activity and BMI were the most important determinants of physical performance (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Obesity and a sedentary lifestyle are related to poor physical performance, increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and impaired QoL, leading to a vicious circle, which impairs patients' physical health and QoL.

Effectiveness of a 12-month exercise program on physical performance and quality of life of breast cancer survivors.

AIM: The study aimed at determining whether physical exercise training improves the quality of life (QoL) and physical fitness of breast cancer survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 573 breast cancer survivors were randomized into an exercise or a control group, 12-months after adjuvant treatments. EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR-23 questionnaires were used for evaluation of QoL, FACIT-F for fatigue and the Finnish modified version of Beck's 13-item depression scale (RBDI) for depression. Physical fitness was assessed by a 2-km walking test, and a figure-8 running test and physical activity (PA) by metabolic equivalent (MET) hours per week (MET-h/wk). RESULTS: Figure-8 running time improved significantly among the patients of the intervention group compared with the controls (p<0.001). No significant between-group differences were observed in 2-km walking time, in PA, EORTC-QLQ-C30, BR-23, FACIT-F or BDI. However, there was a linear relationship between increased PA and improved QoL (p=0.006), irrespective of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Increase in physical activity was associated with improved QoL, but no effect of the exercise intervention was observed.