Search

Purpose: The Exercise for Health trials were randomised, controlled trials designed to evaluate an 8-month pragmatic exercise intervention, commencing 6 weeks post-surgery for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer residing in urban or rural/regional Australia. For these exploratory analyses, the primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), respectively.Methods: Consenting urban- (n = 194) and rural/regional-residing women (n = 143) were randomised to exercise (intervention delivered face-to-face or by telephone) or usual care. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for survival outcomes (exercise group, n = 207, 65% urban women; usual care group, n = 130, 46% urban women).Results: After a median follow-up of 8.3 years, there were 11 (5.3%) deaths in the exercise group compared with 15 (11.5%) deaths in the usual care group (OS HR for the exercise group: 0.45, 95% CI 0.20–0.96; p = 0.04). DFS events for the exercise versus usual care group were 25 (12.1%) and 23 (17.7%), respectively (HR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.38–1.17; p = 0.16). HRs for OS favoured exercise irrespective of age, body mass index, stage of disease, intervention compliance, and physical activity levels at 12 months post-diagnosis, although were stronger (p < 0.05) for younger women, women with stage II + disease, women with 1 + comorbidity at time of diagnosis, higher intervention compliance and for those who met national physical activity guidelines at 12 months post-diagnosis.Conclusion: An exercise intervention delivered during and beyond treatment for breast cancer, and that was designed to cater for all women irrespective of place of residence and access to health services, has clear potential to benefit survival. Trial numbers: ACT RN: 012606000233527; ACT RN: 12609000809235. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the original publication of the article, under the heading Discussion, 1st paragraph, the sentence that reads as, “Nonetheless, our observed improvements of over 50% for OS and over 30% for DFS (HRs: 0.45 and 0.66, respectively) are consistent with results from other available studies” should read as “Nonetheless, our observed improvements of over 50% for OS and DFS (HRs: 0.45 and 0.66, respectively) are consistent with results from other available studies.” Under the heading Discussion, 3rd paragraph, the sentence that reads as “We cannot discount the possibility …such as education, income and access to care [1, 7]” should read as “We cannot discount the possibility…such as education, income and access to care, which ultimately have on survival outcomes [1, 7].” [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To report on the cost-effectiveness of the Exercise for Health trial, comparing an exercise intervention with usual care during and following treatment for women with breast cancer., Methods: Women with breast cancer were randomized to an 8-month exercise intervention (involving regular contact with an exercise physiologist over the phone, n = 67, or home delivered face to face, n = 67) or usual care (n = 60) group and were assessed pre-intervention (5 weeks post-surgery), mid-intervention (6 months post-surgery), and 10 weeks post-intervention (12 months post-surgery). The benefit measures were "number of improvers" in quality of life (FACT-B+4) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Data on provider, patient, and government costs were used to consider 2 cost scenarios: (1) a service provider model and (2) a private model., Results: There were 69 improvers in the intervention group compared with 21 in the usual care group (odds ratio 2.09, 95% confidence interval 1.08, 4.01; P = .033). The incremental cost per improver was A$2282 to A$2644. Quality-adjusted life years gain for the intervention group versus the usual care group was 0.009, with incremental cost per QALY gain for models 1 and 2 being A$105 231 and A$90 842, respectively. However, sensitivity analyses indicate that incremental cost per QALY gained was volatile to EuroQol-5D-3L weights., Conclusions: Findings suggest that a pragmatic exercise intervention yields more women with markedly improved quality of life after breast cancer than usual care and may be cost-effective. The results are less certain in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years; however, this may be an inappropriate measure for reflecting exercise benefit for women with breast cancer., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: While weight gain following breast cancer is considered common, results supporting these findings are dated. This work describes changes in body weight following breast cancer over 72 months, compares weight with normative data and explores whether weight changes over time are associated with personal, diagnostic, treatment or behavioral characteristics., Methods: A population-based sample of 287 Australian women diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer was assessed prospectively at six, 12, 18 and 72 months post-surgery. Weight was clinically measured and linear mixed models were used to explore associations between weight and participant characteristics (collected via self-administered questionnaire). Those with BMI changes of one or more units were considered to have experienced clinically significant changes in weight., Results: More than half (57%) of participants were overweight or obese at 6 months post-surgery, and by 72 months post-surgery 68% of women were overweight or obese. Among those who gained more weight than age-matched norms, clinically significant weight gain between 6 and 18 months and 6 and 72 months post-surgery was observed in 24% and 39% of participants, respectively (median [range] weight gain: 3.9 kg [2.0-11.3 kg] and 5.2 kg [0.6-28.7], respectively). Clinically-significant weight losses were observed in up to 24% of the sample (median [range] weight loss between 6 and 72 months post-surgery: -6.4 kg [-1.9--24.6 kg]). More extensive lymph node removal, being treated on the non-dominant side, receiving radiation therapy and lower physical activity levels at 6 months was associated with higher body weights post-breast cancer (group differences >3 kg; all p < 0.05)., Conclusions: While average weight gain among breast cancer survivors in the long-term is small, subgroups of women experience greater gains linked with adverse health and above that experienced by age-matched counterparts. Weight change post-breast cancer is a contemporary public health issue and the integration of healthy weight education and support into standard breast cancer care has potential to significantly improve the length and quality of cancer survivorship.