Search

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) affected by cancer are an understudied group. Effective interventions are needed to support coping with the late effects of cancer, its treatment and to promote quality of life. Nature-based interventions may be promising in support of the self-management and health of AYAs affected by cancer. However, randomised controlled studies (RCTs) on the effectiveness of such interventions are lacking. We performed a first pilot RCT (n=42) that showed that it is feasible and safe to conduct such a study. Here, we propose a full-scale RCT to investigate the effectiveness and safety of a wilderness programme on the mental and physical health of AYAs affected by cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants are 150 AYAs affected by cancer, aged 16-39 years, who will be randomised to a wilderness (n=75) or a hotel stay (n=75). The wilderness programme is an 8-day intervention including a 6-day wilderness expedition. This is followed 3 months later by a 4-day intervention including a 2-day basecamp. Activities include hiking, backpacking, kayaking, rock climbing, mindfulness and bush-crafting. The comparison group is an 8-day hotel stay followed by a 4-day hotel stay (interventions include two travel days) at the same hotel after 3 months. Primary outcomes are psychological well-being and nature connectedness up to 1 year after the study start. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, physical activity and safety parameters. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Swedish Ethical Review Authority approved the study protocol on 27 September 2023 (reference: 2023-05247-01). The recruitment started on 19 February 2024 and the first part is planned to end on 31 December 2027. Study results will be disseminated by means of scientific publications, presentations at conferences, popular articles, interviews, chronicles and books. News items will be spread via social media, websites and newsletters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93856392.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) affected by cancer are an understudied group. Effective interventions are needed to support coping with the late effects of cancer, its treatment and to promote quality of life. Nature-based interventions may be promising in support of the self-management and health of AYAs affected by cancer. However, randomised controlled studies (RCTs) on the effectiveness of such interventions are lacking. We performed a first pilot RCT (n=42) that showed that it is feasible and safe to conduct such a study. Here, we propose a full-scale RCT to investigate the effectiveness and safety of a wilderness programme on the mental and physical health of AYAs affected by cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants are 150 AYAs affected by cancer, aged 16-39 years, who will be randomised to a wilderness (n=75) or a hotel stay (n=75). The wilderness programme is an 8-day intervention including a 6-day wilderness expedition. This is followed 3 months later by a 4-day intervention including a 2-day basecamp. Activities include hiking, backpacking, kayaking, rock climbing, mindfulness and bush-crafting. The comparison group is an 8-day hotel stay followed by a 4-day hotel stay (interventions include two travel days) at the same hotel after 3 months. Primary outcomes are psychological well-being and nature connectedness up to 1 year after the study start. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, physical activity and safety parameters. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Swedish Ethical Review Authority approved the study protocol on 27 September 2023 (reference: 2023-05247-01). The recruitment started on 19 February 2024 and the first part is planned to end on 31 December 2027. Study results will be disseminated by means of scientific publications, presentations at conferences, popular articles, interviews, chronicles and books. News items will be spread via social media, websites and newsletters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93856392.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) affected by cancer are an understudied group. Effective interventions are needed to support coping with the late effects of cancer, its treatment and to promote quality of life. Nature-based interventions may be promising in support of the self-management and health of AYAs affected by cancer. However, randomised controlled studies (RCTs) on the effectiveness of such interventions are lacking. We performed a first pilot RCT (n=42) that showed that it is feasible and safe to conduct such a study. Here, we propose a full-scale RCT to investigate the effectiveness and safety of a wilderness programme on the mental and physical health of AYAs affected by cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants are 150 AYAs affected by cancer, aged 16-39 years, who will be randomised to a wilderness (n=75) or a hotel stay (n=75). The wilderness programme is an 8-day intervention including a 6-day wilderness expedition. This is followed 3 months later by a 4-day intervention including a 2-day basecamp. Activities include hiking, backpacking, kayaking, rock climbing, mindfulness and bush-crafting. The comparison group is an 8-day hotel stay followed by a 4-day hotel stay (interventions include two travel days) at the same hotel after 3 months. Primary outcomes are psychological well-being and nature connectedness up to 1 year after the study start. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, physical activity and safety parameters. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Swedish Ethical Review Authority approved the study protocol on 27 September 2023 (reference: 2023-05247-01). The recruitment started on 19 February 2024 and the first part is planned to end on 31 December 2027. Study results will be disseminated by means of scientific publications, presentations at conferences, popular articles, interviews, chronicles and books. News items will be spread via social media, websites and newsletters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93856392.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) affected by cancer are an understudied group. Effective interventions are needed to support coping with the late effects of cancer, its treatment and to promote quality of life. Nature-based interventions may be promising in support of the self-management and health of AYAs affected by cancer. However, randomised controlled studies (RCTs) on the effectiveness of such interventions are lacking. We performed a first pilot RCT (n=42) that showed that it is feasible and safe to conduct such a study. Here, we propose a full-scale RCT to investigate the effectiveness and safety of a wilderness programme on the mental and physical health of AYAs affected by cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants are 150 AYAs affected by cancer, aged 16-39 years, who will be randomised to a wilderness (n=75) or a hotel stay (n=75). The wilderness programme is an 8-day intervention including a 6-day wilderness expedition. This is followed 3 months later by a 4-day intervention including a 2-day basecamp. Activities include hiking, backpacking, kayaking, rock climbing, mindfulness and bush-crafting. The comparison group is an 8-day hotel stay followed by a 4-day hotel stay (interventions include two travel days) at the same hotel after 3 months. Primary outcomes are psychological well-being and nature connectedness up to 1 year after the study start. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, physical activity and safety parameters. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Swedish Ethical Review Authority approved the study protocol on 27 September 2023 (reference: 2023-05247-01). The recruitment started on 19 February 2024 and the first part is planned to end on 31 December 2027. Study results will be disseminated by means of scientific publications, presentations at conferences, popular articles, interviews, chronicles and books. News items will be spread via social media, websites and newsletters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93856392.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness is important in the prioritisation between interventions in health care. Exercise is cost-effective compared to usual care during oncological treatment; however, the significance of exercise intensity to the cost-effectiveness is unclear. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the randomised controlled trial Phys-Can, a six-month exercise programme of high (HI) or low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, based on 189 participants with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer (HI: n = 99 and LMI: n = 90) from the Phys-Can RCT in Sweden. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective, and included cost of the exercise intervention, health care utilisation and productivity loss. Health outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D-5L at baseline, post intervention and 12 months after the completion of the intervention. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up after the intervention, the total cost per participant did not differ significantly between HI (€27,314) and LMI exercise (€29,788). There was no significant difference in health outcome between the intensity groups. On average HI generated 1.190 QALYs and LMI 1.185 QALYs. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that HI was cost effective compared with LMI, but the uncertainty was large. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that HI and LMI exercise have similar costs and effects during oncological treatment. Hence, based on cost-effectiveness, we suggest that decision makers and clinicians can consider implementing both HI and LMI exercise programmes and recommend either intensity to the patients with cancer during oncological treatment to facilitate improvement of health.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness is important in the prioritisation between interventions in health care. Exercise is cost-effective compared to usual care during oncological treatment; however, the significance of exercise intensity to the cost-effectiveness is unclear. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the randomised controlled trial Phys-Can, a six-month exercise programme of high (HI) or low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, based on 189 participants with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer (HI: n = 99 and LMI: n = 90) from the Phys-Can RCT in Sweden. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective, and included cost of the exercise intervention, health care utilisation and productivity loss. Health outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D-5L at baseline, post intervention and 12 months after the completion of the intervention. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up after the intervention, the total cost per participant did not differ significantly between HI (€27,314) and LMI exercise (€29,788). There was no significant difference in health outcome between the intensity groups. On average HI generated 1.190 QALYs and LMI 1.185 QALYs. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that HI was cost effective compared with LMI, but the uncertainty was large. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that HI and LMI exercise have similar costs and effects during oncological treatment. Hence, based on cost-effectiveness, we suggest that decision makers and clinicians can consider implementing both HI and LMI exercise programmes and recommend either intensity to the patients with cancer during oncological treatment to facilitate improvement of health.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness is important in the prioritisation between interventions in health care. Exercise is cost-effective compared to usual care during oncological treatment; however, the significance of exercise intensity to the cost-effectiveness is unclear. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the randomised controlled trial Phys-Can, a six-month exercise programme of high (HI) or low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, based on 189 participants with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer (HI: n = 99 and LMI: n = 90) from the Phys-Can RCT in Sweden. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective, and included cost of the exercise intervention, health care utilisation and productivity loss. Health outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D-5L at baseline, post intervention and 12 months after the completion of the intervention. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up after the intervention, the total cost per participant did not differ significantly between HI (€27,314) and LMI exercise (€29,788). There was no significant difference in health outcome between the intensity groups. On average HI generated 1.190 QALYs and LMI 1.185 QALYs. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that HI was cost effective compared with LMI, but the uncertainty was large. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that HI and LMI exercise have similar costs and effects during oncological treatment. Hence, based on cost-effectiveness, we suggest that decision makers and clinicians can consider implementing both HI and LMI exercise programmes and recommend either intensity to the patients with cancer during oncological treatment to facilitate improvement of health.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) monitoring is applied in a growing number of studies within cancer research. However, no consensus exists on how many days PA should be monitored to obtain reliable estimates in the cancer population. The objective of the present study was to determine the minimum number of monitoring days required for reliable estimates of different PA intensities in cancer survivors when using a six-days protocol. Furthermore, reliability of monitoring days was assessed stratified on sex, age, cancer type, weight status, and educational level. METHODS: Data was obtained from two studies where PA was monitored for seven days using the SenseWear Armband Mini in a total of 984 cancer survivors diagnosed with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer. Participants with ≥22 hours monitor wear-time for six days were included in the reliability analysis (n = 736). The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Spearman Brown prophecy formula were used to assess the reliability of different number of monitoring days. RESULTS: For time in light PA, two monitoring days resulted in reliable estimates (ICC >0.80). Participants with BMI ≥25, low-medium education, colorectal cancer, or age ≥60 years required one additional monitoring day. For moderate and moderate-to-vigorous PA, three monitoring days yielded reliable estimates. Participants with BMI ≥25 or breast cancer required one additional monitoring day. Vigorous PA showed the largest within subject variations and reliable estimates were not obtained for the sample as a whole. However, reliable estimates were obtained for breast cancer survivors (4 days), females, BMI ≥30, and age <60 years (6 days). CONCLUSION: Shorter monitoring periods may provide reliable estimates of PA levels in cancer survivors when monitored continuously with a wearable device. This could potentially lower the participant burden and allow for less exclusion of participants not adhering to longer protocols.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) monitoring is applied in a growing number of studies within cancer research. However, no consensus exists on how many days PA should be monitored to obtain reliable estimates in the cancer population. The objective of the present study was to determine the minimum number of monitoring days required for reliable estimates of different PA intensities in cancer survivors when using a six-days protocol. Furthermore, reliability of monitoring days was assessed stratified on sex, age, cancer type, weight status, and educational level. METHODS: Data was obtained from two studies where PA was monitored for seven days using the SenseWear Armband Mini in a total of 984 cancer survivors diagnosed with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer. Participants with ≥22 hours monitor wear-time for six days were included in the reliability analysis (n = 736). The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Spearman Brown prophecy formula were used to assess the reliability of different number of monitoring days. RESULTS: For time in light PA, two monitoring days resulted in reliable estimates (ICC >0.80). Participants with BMI ≥25, low-medium education, colorectal cancer, or age ≥60 years required one additional monitoring day. For moderate and moderate-to-vigorous PA, three monitoring days yielded reliable estimates. Participants with BMI ≥25 or breast cancer required one additional monitoring day. Vigorous PA showed the largest within subject variations and reliable estimates were not obtained for the sample as a whole. However, reliable estimates were obtained for breast cancer survivors (4 days), females, BMI ≥30, and age <60 years (6 days). CONCLUSION: Shorter monitoring periods may provide reliable estimates of PA levels in cancer survivors when monitored continuously with a wearable device. This could potentially lower the participant burden and allow for less exclusion of participants not adhering to longer protocols.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) monitoring is applied in a growing number of studies within cancer research. However, no consensus exists on how many days PA should be monitored to obtain reliable estimates in the cancer population. The objective of the present study was to determine the minimum number of monitoring days required for reliable estimates of different PA intensities in cancer survivors when using a six-days protocol. Furthermore, reliability of monitoring days was assessed stratified on sex, age, cancer type, weight status, and educational level. METHODS: Data was obtained from two studies where PA was monitored for seven days using the SenseWear Armband Mini in a total of 984 cancer survivors diagnosed with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer. Participants with ≥22 hours monitor wear-time for six days were included in the reliability analysis (n = 736). The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Spearman Brown prophecy formula were used to assess the reliability of different number of monitoring days. RESULTS: For time in light PA, two monitoring days resulted in reliable estimates (ICC >0.80). Participants with BMI ≥25, low-medium education, colorectal cancer, or age ≥60 years required one additional monitoring day. For moderate and moderate-to-vigorous PA, three monitoring days yielded reliable estimates. Participants with BMI ≥25 or breast cancer required one additional monitoring day. Vigorous PA showed the largest within subject variations and reliable estimates were not obtained for the sample as a whole. However, reliable estimates were obtained for breast cancer survivors (4 days), females, BMI ≥30, and age <60 years (6 days). CONCLUSION: Shorter monitoring periods may provide reliable estimates of PA levels in cancer survivors when monitored continuously with a wearable device. This could potentially lower the participant burden and allow for less exclusion of participants not adhering to longer protocols.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness is important in the prioritisation between interventions in health care. Exercise is cost-effective compared to usual care during oncological treatment; however, the significance of exercise intensity to the cost-effectiveness is unclear. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the randomised controlled trial Phys-Can, a six-month exercise programme of high (HI) or low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, based on 189 participants with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer (HI: n = 99 and LMI: n = 90) from the Phys-Can RCT in Sweden. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective, and included cost of the exercise intervention, health care utilisation and productivity loss. Health outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D-5L at baseline, post intervention and 12 months after the completion of the intervention. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up after the intervention, the total cost per participant did not differ significantly between HI (€27,314) and LMI exercise (€29,788). There was no significant difference in health outcome between the intensity groups. On average HI generated 1.190 QALYs and LMI 1.185 QALYs. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that HI was cost effective compared with LMI, but the uncertainty was large. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that HI and LMI exercise have similar costs and effects during oncological treatment. Hence, based on cost-effectiveness, we suggest that decision makers and clinicians can consider implementing both HI and LMI exercise programmes and recommend either intensity to the patients with cancer during oncological treatment to facilitate improvement of health.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness is important in the prioritisation between interventions in health care. Exercise is cost-effective compared to usual care during oncological treatment; however, the significance of exercise intensity to the cost-effectiveness is unclear. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the randomised controlled trial Phys-Can, a six-month exercise programme of high (HI) or low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, based on 189 participants with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer (HI: n = 99 and LMI: n = 90) from the Phys-Can RCT in Sweden. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective, and included cost of the exercise intervention, health care utilisation and productivity loss. Health outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D-5L at baseline, post intervention and 12 months after the completion of the intervention. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up after the intervention, the total cost per participant did not differ significantly between HI (€27,314) and LMI exercise (€29,788). There was no significant difference in health outcome between the intensity groups. On average HI generated 1.190 QALYs and LMI 1.185 QALYs. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that HI was cost effective compared with LMI, but the uncertainty was large. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that HI and LMI exercise have similar costs and effects during oncological treatment. Hence, based on cost-effectiveness, we suggest that decision makers and clinicians can consider implementing both HI and LMI exercise programmes and recommend either intensity to the patients with cancer during oncological treatment to facilitate improvement of health.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) monitoring is applied in a growing number of studies within cancer research. However, no consensus exists on how many days PA should be monitored to obtain reliable estimates in the cancer population. The objective of the present study was to determine the minimum number of monitoring days required for reliable estimates of different PA intensities in cancer survivors when using a six-days protocol. Furthermore, reliability of monitoring days was assessed stratified on sex, age, cancer type, weight status, and educational level. METHODS: Data was obtained from two studies where PA was monitored for seven days using the SenseWear Armband Mini in a total of 984 cancer survivors diagnosed with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer. Participants with ≥22 hours monitor wear-time for six days were included in the reliability analysis (n = 736). The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Spearman Brown prophecy formula were used to assess the reliability of different number of monitoring days. RESULTS: For time in light PA, two monitoring days resulted in reliable estimates (ICC >0.80). Participants with BMI ≥25, low-medium education, colorectal cancer, or age ≥60 years required one additional monitoring day. For moderate and moderate-to-vigorous PA, three monitoring days yielded reliable estimates. Participants with BMI ≥25 or breast cancer required one additional monitoring day. Vigorous PA showed the largest within subject variations and reliable estimates were not obtained for the sample as a whole. However, reliable estimates were obtained for breast cancer survivors (4 days), females, BMI ≥30, and age <60 years (6 days). CONCLUSION: Shorter monitoring periods may provide reliable estimates of PA levels in cancer survivors when monitored continuously with a wearable device. This could potentially lower the participant burden and allow for less exclusion of participants not adhering to longer protocols.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) monitoring is applied in a growing number of studies within cancer research. However, no consensus exists on how many days PA should be monitored to obtain reliable estimates in the cancer population. The objective of the present study was to determine the minimum number of monitoring days required for reliable estimates of different PA intensities in cancer survivors when using a six-days protocol. Furthermore, reliability of monitoring days was assessed stratified on sex, age, cancer type, weight status, and educational level. METHODS: Data was obtained from two studies where PA was monitored for seven days using the SenseWear Armband Mini in a total of 984 cancer survivors diagnosed with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer. Participants with ≥22 hours monitor wear-time for six days were included in the reliability analysis (n = 736). The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Spearman Brown prophecy formula were used to assess the reliability of different number of monitoring days. RESULTS: For time in light PA, two monitoring days resulted in reliable estimates (ICC >0.80). Participants with BMI ≥25, low-medium education, colorectal cancer, or age ≥60 years required one additional monitoring day. For moderate and moderate-to-vigorous PA, three monitoring days yielded reliable estimates. Participants with BMI ≥25 or breast cancer required one additional monitoring day. Vigorous PA showed the largest within subject variations and reliable estimates were not obtained for the sample as a whole. However, reliable estimates were obtained for breast cancer survivors (4 days), females, BMI ≥30, and age <60 years (6 days). CONCLUSION: Shorter monitoring periods may provide reliable estimates of PA levels in cancer survivors when monitored continuously with a wearable device. This could potentially lower the participant burden and allow for less exclusion of participants not adhering to longer protocols.

BACKGROUND: Exercise during oncological treatment is beneficial to patient health and can counteract the side effects of treatment. Knowledge of the societal costs associated with an exercise intervention, however, is limited. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the long-term resource utilisation and societal costs of an exercise intervention conducted during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment in a randomised control trial (RCT) versus usual care (UC), and to compare high-intensity (HI) versus low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise in the RCT. METHODS: We used data from the Physical Training and Cancer (Phys-Can) project. In the RCT, 577 participants were randomised to HI or to LMI of combined endurance and resistance training for 6 months, during oncological treatment. The project also included 89 participants with UC in a longitudinal observational study. We measured at baseline and after 18 months. Resource utilisation and costs of the exercise intervention, health care, and productivity loss were compared using analyses of covariance (RCT vs. UC) and t test (HI vs. LMI). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 619 participants (RCT HI: n = 269, LMI: n = 265, and UC: n = 85). We found no difference in total societal costs between the exercise intervention groups in the RCT and UC. However, participants in the RCT had lower rates of disability pension days (p < .001), corresponding costs (p = .001), and pharmacy costs (p = .018) than the UC group. Nor did we find differences in resource utilisation or costs between HI and LMI exercise int the RCT. CONCLUSION: Our study showed no difference in total societal costs between the comprehensive exercise intervention and UC or between the exercise intensities. This suggests that exercise, with its well-documented health benefits during oncological treatment, produces neither additional costs nor savings.

BACKGROUND: Exercise during oncological treatment is beneficial to patient health and can counteract the side effects of treatment. Knowledge of the societal costs associated with an exercise intervention, however, is limited. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the long-term resource utilisation and societal costs of an exercise intervention conducted during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment in a randomised control trial (RCT) versus usual care (UC), and to compare high-intensity (HI) versus low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise in the RCT. METHODS: We used data from the Physical Training and Cancer (Phys-Can) project. In the RCT, 577 participants were randomised to HI or to LMI of combined endurance and resistance training for 6 months, during oncological treatment. The project also included 89 participants with UC in a longitudinal observational study. We measured at baseline and after 18 months. Resource utilisation and costs of the exercise intervention, health care, and productivity loss were compared using analyses of covariance (RCT vs. UC) and t test (HI vs. LMI). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 619 participants (RCT HI: n = 269, LMI: n = 265, and UC: n = 85). We found no difference in total societal costs between the exercise intervention groups in the RCT and UC. However, participants in the RCT had lower rates of disability pension days (p < .001), corresponding costs (p = .001), and pharmacy costs (p = .018) than the UC group. Nor did we find differences in resource utilisation or costs between HI and LMI exercise int the RCT. CONCLUSION: Our study showed no difference in total societal costs between the comprehensive exercise intervention and UC or between the exercise intensities. This suggests that exercise, with its well-documented health benefits during oncological treatment, produces neither additional costs nor savings.

Introduction: The results from the physical training and cancer randomized controlled trial (Phys-Can RCT) indicate that high intensity (HI) strength and endurance training during (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment is more beneficial for cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF, measured as peak oxygen uptake [VO2peak]) than low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise. Adherence to the exercise intervention and demographic or clinical characteristics of patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant treatment may moderate the exercise intervention effect on VO2peak. In this study, the objective was to investigate whether baseline values of VO2peak, body mass index (BMI), time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA), physical fatigue, age, chemotherapy treatment, and the adherence to the endurance training moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI exercise on VO2peak. Materials and Methods: We used data collected from a subsample from the Phys-Can RCT; women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and had a valid baseline and post-intervention VO2peak test were included (n = 255). The exercise interventions from the RCT included strength and endurance training at either LMI, which was continuous endurance training at 40–50% of heart rate reserve (HRR), or at HI, which was interval training at 80–90% of HRR, with similar exercise volume in the two groups. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate moderating effects using a significance level of p < 0.10. Statistically significant interactions were examined further using the Johnson–Neyman (J-N) technique and regions of significance (for continuous variables) or box plots with adjusted means of post-intervention VO2peak (for binary variables). Results: Age, as a continuous variable, and adherence, dichotomized into < or > 58% based on median, moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI on CRF (B = −0.08, 95% CI [−0.16, 0.01], pinteraction = 0.06, and B = 1.63, 95% CI [−0.12, 3.38], pinteraction = 0.07, resp

Introduction: The results from the physical training and cancer randomized controlled trial (Phys-Can RCT) indicate that high intensity (HI) strength and endurance training during (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment is more beneficial for cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF, measured as peak oxygen uptake [VO2peak]) than low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise. Adherence to the exercise intervention and demographic or clinical characteristics of patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant treatment may moderate the exercise intervention effect on VO2peak. In this study, the objective was to investigate whether baseline values of VO2peak, body mass index (BMI), time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA), physical fatigue, age, chemotherapy treatment, and the adherence to the endurance training moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI exercise on VO2peak. Materials and Methods: We used data collected from a subsample from the Phys-Can RCT; women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and had a valid baseline and post-intervention VO2peak test were included (n = 255). The exercise interventions from the RCT included strength and endurance training at either LMI, which was continuous endurance training at 40–50% of heart rate reserve (HRR), or at HI, which was interval training at 80–90% of HRR, with similar exercise volume in the two groups. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate moderating effects using a significance level of p < 0.10. Statistically significant interactions were examined further using the Johnson–Neyman (J-N) technique and regions of significance (for continuous variables) or box plots with adjusted means of post-intervention VO2peak (for binary variables). Results: Age, as a continuous variable, and adherence, dichotomized into < or > 58% based on median, moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI on CRF (B = −0.08, 95% CI [−0.16, 0.01], pinteraction = 0.06, and B = 1.63, 95% CI [−0.12, 3.38], pinteraction = 0.07, resp

Purpose To compare sociodemographic, health- and exercise-related characteristics of participants vs. decliners, and completers vs. drop-outs, in an exercise intervention trial during cancer treatment. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer were invited to participate in a 6-month exercise intervention. Background data for all respondents (n = 2051) were collected at baseline by questionnaire and medical records. Additional data were collected using an extended questionnaire, physical activity monitors, and fitness testing for trial participants (n = 577). Moreover, a sub-group of decliners (n = 436) consented to additional data collection by an extended questionnaire . Data were analyzed for between-group differences using independent t-tests and chi2-tests. Results Trial participants were younger (59 ± 12yrs vs. 64 ± 11yrs, p < .001), more likely to be women (80% vs. 75%, p = .012), and scheduled for chemotherapy treatment (54% vs. 34%, p < .001), compared to decliners (n = 1391). A greater proportion had university education (60% vs 40%, p < .001), reported higher anxiety and fatigue, higher exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and less kinesiophobia at baseline compared to decliners. A greater proportion of trial participants were classified as ‘not physically active’ at baseline; however, within the group who participated, being “physically active” at baseline was associated with trial completion. Completers (n = 410) also reported less kinesiophobia than drop-outs (n = 167). Conclusion The recruitment procedures used in comprehensive oncology exercise trials should specifically address barriers for participation among men, patients without university education and older patients. Individualized efforts should be made to enroll patients with low exercise self-efficacy and low outcome expectations of exercise. To retain participants in an ongoing exercise intervention, extra support may be needed for pat

BACKGROUND: Exercise during oncological treatment is beneficial to patient health and can counteract the side effects of treatment. Knowledge of the societal costs associated with an exercise intervention, however, is limited. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the long-term resource utilisation and societal costs of an exercise intervention conducted during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment in a randomised control trial (RCT) versus usual care (UC), and to compare high-intensity (HI) versus low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise in the RCT. METHODS: We used data from the Physical Training and Cancer (Phys-Can) project. In the RCT, 577 participants were randomised to HI or to LMI of combined endurance and resistance training for 6 months, during oncological treatment. The project also included 89 participants with UC in a longitudinal observational study. We measured at baseline and after 18 months. Resource utilisation and costs of the exercise intervention, health care, and productivity loss were compared using analyses of covariance (RCT vs. UC) and t test (HI vs. LMI). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 619 participants (RCT HI: n = 269, LMI: n = 265, and UC: n = 85). We found no difference in total societal costs between the exercise intervention groups in the RCT and UC. However, participants in the RCT had lower rates of disability pension days (p < .001), corresponding costs (p = .001), and pharmacy costs (p = .018) than the UC group. Nor did we find differences in resource utilisation or costs between HI and LMI exercise int the RCT. CONCLUSION: Our study showed no difference in total societal costs between the comprehensive exercise intervention and UC or between the exercise intensities. This suggests that exercise, with its well-documented health benefits during oncological treatment, produces neither additional costs nor savings.

Introduction: The results from the physical training and cancer randomized controlled trial (Phys-Can RCT) indicate that high intensity (HI) strength and endurance training during (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment is more beneficial for cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF, measured as peak oxygen uptake [VO2peak]) than low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise. Adherence to the exercise intervention and demographic or clinical characteristics of patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant treatment may moderate the exercise intervention effect on VO2peak. In this study, the objective was to investigate whether baseline values of VO2peak, body mass index (BMI), time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA), physical fatigue, age, chemotherapy treatment, and the adherence to the endurance training moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI exercise on VO2peak. Materials and Methods: We used data collected from a subsample from the Phys-Can RCT; women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and had a valid baseline and post-intervention VO2peak test were included (n = 255). The exercise interventions from the RCT included strength and endurance training at either LMI, which was continuous endurance training at 40–50% of heart rate reserve (HRR), or at HI, which was interval training at 80–90% of HRR, with similar exercise volume in the two groups. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate moderating effects using a significance level of p < 0.10. Statistically significant interactions were examined further using the Johnson–Neyman (J-N) technique and regions of significance (for continuous variables) or box plots with adjusted means of post-intervention VO2peak (for binary variables). Results: Age, as a continuous variable, and adherence, dichotomized into < or > 58% based on median, moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI on CRF (B = −0.08, 95% CI [−0.16, 0.01], pinteraction = 0.06, and B = 1.63, 95% CI [−0.12, 3.38], pinteraction = 0.07, resp

Purpose To compare sociodemographic, health- and exercise-related characteristics of participants vs. decliners, and completers vs. drop-outs, in an exercise intervention trial during cancer treatment. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer were invited to participate in a 6-month exercise intervention. Background data for all respondents (n = 2051) were collected at baseline by questionnaire and medical records. Additional data were collected using an extended questionnaire, physical activity monitors, and fitness testing for trial participants (n = 577). Moreover, a sub-group of decliners (n = 436) consented to additional data collection by an extended questionnaire . Data were analyzed for between-group differences using independent t-tests and chi2-tests. Results Trial participants were younger (59 ± 12yrs vs. 64 ± 11yrs, p < .001), more likely to be women (80% vs. 75%, p = .012), and scheduled for chemotherapy treatment (54% vs. 34%, p < .001), compared to decliners (n = 1391). A greater proportion had university education (60% vs 40%, p < .001), reported higher anxiety and fatigue, higher exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and less kinesiophobia at baseline compared to decliners. A greater proportion of trial participants were classified as ‘not physically active’ at baseline; however, within the group who participated, being “physically active” at baseline was associated with trial completion. Completers (n = 410) also reported less kinesiophobia than drop-outs (n = 167). Conclusion The recruitment procedures used in comprehensive oncology exercise trials should specifically address barriers for participation among men, patients without university education and older patients. Individualized efforts should be made to enroll patients with low exercise self-efficacy and low outcome expectations of exercise. To retain participants in an ongoing exercise intervention, extra support may be needed for pat

Purpose To compare sociodemographic, health- and exercise-related characteristics of participants vs. decliners, and completers vs. drop-outs, in an exercise intervention trial during cancer treatment. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer were invited to participate in a 6-month exercise intervention. Background data for all respondents (n = 2051) were collected at baseline by questionnaire and medical records. Additional data were collected using an extended questionnaire, physical activity monitors, and fitness testing for trial participants (n = 577). Moreover, a sub-group of decliners (n = 436) consented to additional data collection by an extended questionnaire . Data were analyzed for between-group differences using independent t-tests and chi2-tests. Results Trial participants were younger (59 ± 12yrs vs. 64 ± 11yrs, p < .001), more likely to be women (80% vs. 75%, p = .012), and scheduled for chemotherapy treatment (54% vs. 34%, p < .001), compared to decliners (n = 1391). A greater proportion had university education (60% vs 40%, p < .001), reported higher anxiety and fatigue, higher exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and less kinesiophobia at baseline compared to decliners. A greater proportion of trial participants were classified as ‘not physically active’ at baseline; however, within the group who participated, being “physically active” at baseline was associated with trial completion. Completers (n = 410) also reported less kinesiophobia than drop-outs (n = 167). Conclusion The recruitment procedures used in comprehensive oncology exercise trials should specifically address barriers for participation among men, patients without university education and older patients. Individualized efforts should be made to enroll patients with low exercise self-efficacy and low outcome expectations of exercise. To retain participants in an ongoing exercise intervention, extra support may be needed for pat

BACKGROUND: Exercise during oncological treatment is beneficial to patient health and can counteract the side effects of treatment. Knowledge of the societal costs associated with an exercise intervention, however, is limited. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the long-term resource utilisation and societal costs of an exercise intervention conducted during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment in a randomised control trial (RCT) versus usual care (UC), and to compare high-intensity (HI) versus low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise in the RCT. METHODS: We used data from the Physical Training and Cancer (Phys-Can) project. In the RCT, 577 participants were randomised to HI or to LMI of combined endurance and resistance training for 6 months, during oncological treatment. The project also included 89 participants with UC in a longitudinal observational study. We measured at baseline and after 18 months. Resource utilisation and costs of the exercise intervention, health care, and productivity loss were compared using analyses of covariance (RCT vs. UC) and t test (HI vs. LMI). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 619 participants (RCT HI: n = 269, LMI: n = 265, and UC: n = 85). We found no difference in total societal costs between the exercise intervention groups in the RCT and UC. However, participants in the RCT had lower rates of disability pension days (p < .001), corresponding costs (p = .001), and pharmacy costs (p = .018) than the UC group. Nor did we find differences in resource utilisation or costs between HI and LMI exercise int the RCT. CONCLUSION: Our study showed no difference in total societal costs between the comprehensive exercise intervention and UC or between the exercise intensities. This suggests that exercise, with its well-documented health benefits during oncological treatment, produces neither additional costs nor savings.

Purpose To compare sociodemographic, health- and exercise-related characteristics of participants vs. decliners, and completers vs. drop-outs, in an exercise intervention trial during cancer treatment. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer were invited to participate in a 6-month exercise intervention. Background data for all respondents (n = 2051) were collected at baseline by questionnaire and medical records. Additional data were collected using an extended questionnaire, physical activity monitors, and fitness testing for trial participants (n = 577). Moreover, a sub-group of decliners (n = 436) consented to additional data collection by an extended questionnaire . Data were analyzed for between-group differences using independent t-tests and chi2-tests. Results Trial participants were younger (59 ± 12yrs vs. 64 ± 11yrs, p < .001), more likely to be women (80% vs. 75%, p = .012), and scheduled for chemotherapy treatment (54% vs. 34%, p < .001), compared to decliners (n = 1391). A greater proportion had university education (60% vs 40%, p < .001), reported higher anxiety and fatigue, higher exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and less kinesiophobia at baseline compared to decliners. A greater proportion of trial participants were classified as ‘not physically active’ at baseline; however, within the group who participated, being “physically active” at baseline was associated with trial completion. Completers (n = 410) also reported less kinesiophobia than drop-outs (n = 167). Conclusion The recruitment procedures used in comprehensive oncology exercise trials should specifically address barriers for participation among men, patients without university education and older patients. Individualized efforts should be made to enroll patients with low exercise self-efficacy and low outcome expectations of exercise. To retain participants in an ongoing exercise intervention, extra support may be needed for pat

BACKGROUND: Exercise during oncological treatment is beneficial to patient health and can counteract the side effects of treatment. Knowledge of the societal costs associated with an exercise intervention, however, is limited. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the long-term resource utilisation and societal costs of an exercise intervention conducted during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment in a randomised control trial (RCT) versus usual care (UC), and to compare high-intensity (HI) versus low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise in the RCT. METHODS: We used data from the Physical Training and Cancer (Phys-Can) project. In the RCT, 577 participants were randomised to HI or to LMI of combined endurance and resistance training for 6 months, during oncological treatment. The project also included 89 participants with UC in a longitudinal observational study. We measured at baseline and after 18 months. Resource utilisation and costs of the exercise intervention, health care, and productivity loss were compared using analyses of covariance (RCT vs. UC) and t test (HI vs. LMI). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 619 participants (RCT HI: n = 269, LMI: n = 265, and UC: n = 85). We found no difference in total societal costs between the exercise intervention groups in the RCT and UC. However, participants in the RCT had lower rates of disability pension days (p < .001), corresponding costs (p = .001), and pharmacy costs (p = .018) than the UC group. Nor did we find differences in resource utilisation or costs between HI and LMI exercise int the RCT. CONCLUSION: Our study showed no difference in total societal costs between the comprehensive exercise intervention and UC or between the exercise intensities. This suggests that exercise, with its well-documented health benefits during oncological treatment, produces neither additional costs nor savings.

Introduction: The results from the physical training and cancer randomized controlled trial (Phys-Can RCT) indicate that high intensity (HI) strength and endurance training during (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment is more beneficial for cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF, measured as peak oxygen uptake [VO2peak]) than low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise. Adherence to the exercise intervention and demographic or clinical characteristics of patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant treatment may moderate the exercise intervention effect on VO2peak. In this study, the objective was to investigate whether baseline values of VO2peak, body mass index (BMI), time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA), physical fatigue, age, chemotherapy treatment, and the adherence to the endurance training moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI exercise on VO2peak. Materials and Methods: We used data collected from a subsample from the Phys-Can RCT; women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and had a valid baseline and post-intervention VO2peak test were included (n = 255). The exercise interventions from the RCT included strength and endurance training at either LMI, which was continuous endurance training at 40–50% of heart rate reserve (HRR), or at HI, which was interval training at 80–90% of HRR, with similar exercise volume in the two groups. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate moderating effects using a significance level of p < 0.10. Statistically significant interactions were examined further using the Johnson–Neyman (J-N) technique and regions of significance (for continuous variables) or box plots with adjusted means of post-intervention VO2peak (for binary variables). Results: Age, as a continuous variable, and adherence, dichotomized into < or > 58% based on median, moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI on CRF (B = −0.08, 95% CI [−0.16, 0.01], pinteraction = 0.06, and B = 1.63, 95% CI [−0.12, 3.38], pinteraction = 0.07, resp

Introduction: The results from the physical training and cancer randomized controlled trial (Phys-Can RCT) indicate that high intensity (HI) strength and endurance training during (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment is more beneficial for cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF, measured as peak oxygen uptake [VO2peak]) than low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise. Adherence to the exercise intervention and demographic or clinical characteristics of patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant treatment may moderate the exercise intervention effect on VO2peak. In this study, the objective was to investigate whether baseline values of VO2peak, body mass index (BMI), time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA), physical fatigue, age, chemotherapy treatment, and the adherence to the endurance training moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI exercise on VO2peak. Materials and Methods: We used data collected from a subsample from the Phys-Can RCT; women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and had a valid baseline and post-intervention VO2peak test were included (n = 255). The exercise interventions from the RCT included strength and endurance training at either LMI, which was continuous endurance training at 40–50% of heart rate reserve (HRR), or at HI, which was interval training at 80–90% of HRR, with similar exercise volume in the two groups. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate moderating effects using a significance level of p < 0.10. Statistically significant interactions were examined further using the Johnson–Neyman (J-N) technique and regions of significance (for continuous variables) or box plots with adjusted means of post-intervention VO2peak (for binary variables). Results: Age, as a continuous variable, and adherence, dichotomized into < or > 58% based on median, moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI on CRF (B = −0.08, 95% CI [−0.16, 0.01], pinteraction = 0.06, and B = 1.63, 95% CI [−0.12, 3.38], pinteraction = 0.07, resp

Purpose To compare sociodemographic, health- and exercise-related characteristics of participants vs. decliners, and completers vs. drop-outs, in an exercise intervention trial during cancer treatment. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer were invited to participate in a 6-month exercise intervention. Background data for all respondents (n = 2051) were collected at baseline by questionnaire and medical records. Additional data were collected using an extended questionnaire, physical activity monitors, and fitness testing for trial participants (n = 577). Moreover, a sub-group of decliners (n = 436) consented to additional data collection by an extended questionnaire . Data were analyzed for between-group differences using independent t-tests and chi2-tests. Results Trial participants were younger (59 ± 12yrs vs. 64 ± 11yrs, p < .001), more likely to be women (80% vs. 75%, p = .012), and scheduled for chemotherapy treatment (54% vs. 34%, p < .001), compared to decliners (n = 1391). A greater proportion had university education (60% vs 40%, p < .001), reported higher anxiety and fatigue, higher exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and less kinesiophobia at baseline compared to decliners. A greater proportion of trial participants were classified as ‘not physically active’ at baseline; however, within the group who participated, being “physically active” at baseline was associated with trial completion. Completers (n = 410) also reported less kinesiophobia than drop-outs (n = 167). Conclusion The recruitment procedures used in comprehensive oncology exercise trials should specifically address barriers for participation among men, patients without university education and older patients. Individualized efforts should be made to enroll patients with low exercise self-efficacy and low outcome expectations of exercise. To retain participants in an ongoing exercise intervention, extra support may be needed for pat

Knowledge about how weather conditions affect travel behavior in different user groups and contexts is relevant for planners and policymakers to facilitate sustainable transportation systems. We aimed to assess the influence of day-to-day weather on cycling for transportation among parents of young children with access to different bike types (e-bike vs non e-bike) in a natural study setting over nine months. We hypothesized less impact of weather variability on cycling when using an e-bike compared with a non e-bike. A randomized, controlled trial was conducted in Southern Norway. The intervention group (n = 18) was in random order equipped with an e-bike with trailer for child transportation (n = 6), a cargo (longtail) bike (n = 6) and a traditional bike with trailer (n = 6), each for three months. These 18 participants reported cycling on 832 out of 3276 person-days (25%). We used dynamic structural equation modeling for intensive longitudinal data to examine the relations between daily weather conditions, bike type (e-bike vs traditional bike), and cycling (dichotomized daily at yes or no). Air temperature (positively) and wind speed (negatively) were both credible predictors of cycling, whereas the other predictors (precipitation in the morning (yes or no) and presence of snow (yes or no) were not. We added interaction terms between bike type and weather conditions, but none of the interaction terms had a credible effect on cycling. Thus, the relations between weather conditions and cycling were not moderated by bike type among parents of young children.

Introduction: (Neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer has a deleterious impact on muscle tissue resulting in reduced cardiorespiratory fitness, skeletal muscle mass and function. Physical exercise during treatment may counteract some of these negative effects. However, the effects of resistance training (RT) alone have never been explored. The present study aims to investigate if heavy-load RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy counteracts deleterious effects on skeletal muscle in women diagnosed with breast cancer. We hypothesize that (neo-)adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy will reduce muscle fiber size, impair mitochondrial function, and increase indicators of cellular stress and that RT during treatment will counteract these negative effects. We also hypothesize that RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will increase muscle and blood levels of potential antitumor myokines and reduce treatment-related side effects on muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness. Methods: Fifty women recently diagnosed with breast cancer scheduled to start (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to either randomized to either intervention group or to control group. The intervention group will perform supervised heavy-load RT twice a week over the course of chemotherapy (approximately 16-weeks) whereas the control group will be encouraged to continue with their usual activities. Muscle biopsies from m. vastus lateralis will be collected before the first cycle of chemotherapy (T0), after chemotherapy (T1), and 6 months later (T2) for assessment of muscle cellular outcomes. The primary outcome for this study is muscle fiber size. Secondary outcomes are: regulators of muscle fiber size and function, indicators of cellular stress and mitochondrial function, myokines with potential antitumor effects, muscle strength, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden (D

Introduction: (Neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer has a deleterious impact on muscle tissue resulting in reduced cardiorespiratory fitness, skeletal muscle mass and function. Physical exercise during treatment may counteract some of these negative effects. However, the effects of resistance training (RT) alone have never been explored. The present study aims to investigate if heavy-load RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy counteracts deleterious effects on skeletal muscle in women diagnosed with breast cancer. We hypothesize that (neo-)adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy will reduce muscle fiber size, impair mitochondrial function, and increase indicators of cellular stress and that RT during treatment will counteract these negative effects. We also hypothesize that RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will increase muscle and blood levels of potential antitumor myokines and reduce treatment-related side effects on muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness. Methods: Fifty women recently diagnosed with breast cancer scheduled to start (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to either randomized to either intervention group or to control group. The intervention group will perform supervised heavy-load RT twice a week over the course of chemotherapy (approximately 16-weeks) whereas the control group will be encouraged to continue with their usual activities. Muscle biopsies from m. vastus lateralis will be collected before the first cycle of chemotherapy (T0), after chemotherapy (T1), and 6 months later (T2) for assessment of muscle cellular outcomes. The primary outcome for this study is muscle fiber size. Secondary outcomes are: regulators of muscle fiber size and function, indicators of cellular stress and mitochondrial function, myokines with potential antitumor effects, muscle strength, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden (D

Introduction: (Neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer has a deleterious impact on muscle tissue resulting in reduced cardiorespiratory fitness, skeletal muscle mass and function. Physical exercise during treatment may counteract some of these negative effects. However, the effects of resistance training (RT) alone have never been explored. The present study aims to investigate if heavy-load RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy counteracts deleterious effects on skeletal muscle in women diagnosed with breast cancer. We hypothesize that (neo-)adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy will reduce muscle fiber size, impair mitochondrial function, and increase indicators of cellular stress and that RT during treatment will counteract these negative effects. We also hypothesize that RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will increase muscle and blood levels of potential antitumor myokines and reduce treatment-related side effects on muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness. Methods: Fifty women recently diagnosed with breast cancer scheduled to start (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to either randomized to either intervention group or to control group. The intervention group will perform supervised heavy-load RT twice a week over the course of chemotherapy (approximately 16-weeks) whereas the control group will be encouraged to continue with their usual activities. Muscle biopsies from m. vastus lateralis will be collected before the first cycle of chemotherapy (T0), after chemotherapy (T1), and 6 months later (T2) for assessment of muscle cellular outcomes. The primary outcome for this study is muscle fiber size. Secondary outcomes are: regulators of muscle fiber size and function, indicators of cellular stress and mitochondrial function, myokines with potential antitumor effects, muscle strength, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden (D

Introduction: (Neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer has a deleterious impact on muscle tissue resulting in reduced cardiorespiratory fitness, skeletal muscle mass and function. Physical exercise during treatment may counteract some of these negative effects. However, the effects of resistance training (RT) alone have never been explored. The present study aims to investigate if heavy-load RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy counteracts deleterious effects on skeletal muscle in women diagnosed with breast cancer. We hypothesize that (neo-)adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy will reduce muscle fiber size, impair mitochondrial function, and increase indicators of cellular stress and that RT during treatment will counteract these negative effects. We also hypothesize that RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will increase muscle and blood levels of potential antitumor myokines and reduce treatment-related side effects on muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness. Methods: Fifty women recently diagnosed with breast cancer scheduled to start (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to either randomized to either intervention group or to control group. The intervention group will perform supervised heavy-load RT twice a week over the course of chemotherapy (approximately 16-weeks) whereas the control group will be encouraged to continue with their usual activities. Muscle biopsies from m. vastus lateralis will be collected before the first cycle of chemotherapy (T0), after chemotherapy (T1), and 6 months later (T2) for assessment of muscle cellular outcomes. The primary outcome for this study is muscle fiber size. Secondary outcomes are: regulators of muscle fiber size and function, indicators of cellular stress and mitochondrial function, myokines with potential antitumor effects, muscle strength, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden (D

Introduction: (Neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer has a deleterious impact on muscle tissue resulting in reduced cardiorespiratory fitness, skeletal muscle mass and function. Physical exercise during treatment may counteract some of these negative effects. However, the effects of resistance training (RT) alone have never been explored. The present study aims to investigate if heavy-load RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy counteracts deleterious effects on skeletal muscle in women diagnosed with breast cancer. We hypothesize that (neo-)adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy will reduce muscle fiber size, impair mitochondrial function, and increase indicators of cellular stress and that RT during treatment will counteract these negative effects. We also hypothesize that RT during (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will increase muscle and blood levels of potential antitumor myokines and reduce treatment-related side effects on muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness. Methods: Fifty women recently diagnosed with breast cancer scheduled to start (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to either randomized to either intervention group or to control group. The intervention group will perform supervised heavy-load RT twice a week over the course of chemotherapy (approximately 16-weeks) whereas the control group will be encouraged to continue with their usual activities. Muscle biopsies from m. vastus lateralis will be collected before the first cycle of chemotherapy (T0), after chemotherapy (T1), and 6 months later (T2) for assessment of muscle cellular outcomes. The primary outcome for this study is muscle fiber size. Secondary outcomes are: regulators of muscle fiber size and function, indicators of cellular stress and mitochondrial function, myokines with potential antitumor effects, muscle strength, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden (D