Efficacy of exercise interventions for women during and after gynaecological cancer treatment - a systematic scoping review.

PURPOSE: To systematically synthesise evidence of exercise intervention efficacy for physical/psychosocial outcomes that matter to women during/following treatment for gynaecological cancer. METHODS: Five databases were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Scopus). Exercise-only intervention studies that included women during/ following treatment for any gynaecological cancer, with/ without control comparison, on any physical or psychosocial outcome(s), were included and qualitatively appraised using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three single-arm pre-post studies, and one prospective cohort study satisfied were included (11 studies). Most studies were completed following treatment (91%), included combined (aerobic and resistance; 36%) and aerobic (36%) training, were fully/mostly (63%) unsupervised, and had a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Overall, 33 outcomes (64% objectively-measured) were assessed. Improvements were observed in aerobic capacity (V̇O2 Peak +1.6 mL/kg/min, 6-minute walk distance +20-27 m), lower- (30-second sit-to-stand +2-4 repetitions) and upper-limb strength (30-second arm curl +5 repetitions; 1RM grip strength/chest press +2.4-3.1 kg), and agility (timed up-and-go -0.6 seconds). However, changes in quality of life, anthropometry/body composition, balance and flexibility were inconsistent. There was no evidence to support worsening of outcomes. CONCLUSION: Preliminary research into the role of exercise post-gynaecological cancer suggests an improvement in exercise capacity, muscular strength, and agility which, in the absence of exercise, typically decline following gynaecological cancer. Future exercise trials involving larger and more diverse gynaecological cancer samples will improve understanding of the potential and magnitude of effect of guideline-recommended exercise on outcomes that matter to patients.

The Effect of Exercise on Pain in People with Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer-related pain is common and undertreated. Exercise is known to have a pain-relieving effect in non-cancer pain. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate (1) the effect of exercise on cancer-related pain in all cancers, and (2) whether the effect of exercise differed according to exercise mode, degree of supervision, intervention duration and timing (during or after cancer treatment), pain types, measurement tool and cancer type. METHODS: Electronic searches were undertaken in six databases to identify exercise studies evaluating pain in people with cancer, published prior to 11 January 2023. All stages of screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two authors. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used and overall strength of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed overall and by study design, exercise intervention and pain characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 71 studies reported in 74 papers were eligible for inclusion. The overall meta-analysis included 5877 participants and showed reductions in pain favouring exercise (standardised mean difference - 0.45; 95% confidence interval - 0.62, - 0.28). For most (> 82%) of the subgroup analyses, the direction of effect favoured exercise compared with usual care, with effect sizes ranging from small to large (median effect size - 0.35; range - 0.03 to - 1.17). The overall strength of evidence for the effect of exercise on cancer-related pain was very low. CONCLUSION: The findings provide support that exercise participation does not worsen cancer-related pain and that it may be beneficial. Better pain categorisation and inclusion of more diverse cancer populations in future research would improve understanding of the extent of benefit and to whom. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021266826.

The Effect of Exercise for the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of exercise on (i) the prevention of cancer-related lymphedema (CRL) and (ii) the treatment of CRL, lymphedema-associated symptoms, and other health outcomes among individuals with CRL. METHODS: An electronic search was undertaken for exercise studies measuring lymphedema and involving individuals at risk of developing or with CRL. The Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality scale was used to assess study quality, and overall quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate effects of exercise on CRL incidence, existing CRL status, lymphedema-associated symptoms, and health outcomes. RESULTS: Twelve studies ( n = 1955; 75% moderate-high quality) and 36 studies ( n = 1741; 58% moderate-high quality) were included in the prevention and treatment aim, respectively. Relative risk of developing CRL for those in the exercise group compared with the nonexercise group was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72 to 1.13) overall and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.85) for those with five or more lymph nodes removed. For those with CRL in the exercise group, the standardized mean difference (SMD) before to after exercise of CRL was -0.11 (95% CI, -0.22 to 0.01), and compared with usual care postintervention, the SMD was -0.10 (95% CI, -0.24 to 0.04). Improvements after intervention were observed for pain, upper-body function and strength, lower-body strength, fatigue, and quality of life for those in the exercise group (SMD, 0.3-0.8; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the application of exercise guidelines for the wider cancer population to those with or at risk of CRL. This includes promotion of aerobic and resistance exercise, and not just resistance exercise alone, as well as unsupervised exercise guided by symptom response.