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]

Objective:To evaluate a universal obesity prevention intervention, which commenced at infant age 4-6 months, using outcome data assessed 6 months after completion of the first of two intervention modules and 9 months from baseline.Design:Randomised controlled trial of a community-based early feeding intervention.Subjects and methods:Six hundred and ninety-eight first-time mothers (mean age 30±5 years) with healthy term infants (51% male) aged 4.3±1.0 months at baseline. Mothers and infants were randomly allocated to self-directed access to usual care or to attend two group education modules, each delivered over 3 months, that provided anticipatory guidance on early feeding practices. Outcome data reported here were assessed at infant age 13.7±1.3 months. Anthropometrics were expressed as z-scores (WHO reference). Rapid weight gain was defined as change in weight-for-age z-score (WAZ) of >+0.67. Maternal feeding practices were assessed via self-administered questionnaire.Results:There were no differences according to group allocation on key maternal and infant characteristics. At follow-up (n=598 (86%)), the control group infants had higher BMI-for-age z-score (BMIZ) (0.42±0.85 vs 0.23±0.93, P=0.009) and were more likely to show rapid weight gain from baseline to follow-up (odds ratio (OR)=1.5, confidence interval (CI) 95%=1.1-2.1, P=0.014). Mothers in the control group were more likely to report using non-responsive feeding practices that fail to respond to infant satiety cues such as encouraging eating by using food as a reward (15% vs 4%, P=0.001) or using games (67% vs 29%, P<0.001).Conclusions:These results provide early evidence that anticipatory guidance targeting the 'when, what and how' of solid feeding can be effective in changing maternal feeding practices and, at least in the short term, reducing anthropometric indicators of childhood obesity risk. Analyses of outcomes at later ages are required to determine if these promising effects can be sustained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Goals Of Work: The aim of this secondary data analysis was to investigate symptom clusters over time for symptom management of a patient group after commencing adjuvant chemotherapy.Materials and Methods: A prospective longitudinal study of 219 cancer outpatients conducted within 1 month of commencing chemotherapy (T1), 6 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) later. Patients' distress levels were assessed for 42 physical symptoms on a clinician-modified Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Symptom clusters were identified in exploratory factor analyses at each time. Symptom inclusion in clusters was determined from structure coefficients. Symptoms could be associated with multiple clusters. Stability over time was determined from symptom cluster composition and the proportion of symptoms in the initial symptom clusters replicated at later times.Main Results: Fatigue and daytime sleepiness were the most prevalent distressing symptoms over time. The median number of concurrent distressing symptoms approximated 7, over time. Five consistent clusters were identified at T1, T2, and T3. An additional two clusters were identified at 12 months, possibly due to less variation in distress levels. Weakness and fatigue were each associated with two, four, and five symptom clusters at T1, T2, and T3, respectively, potentially suggesting different causal mechanisms.Conclusion: Stability is a necessary attribute of symptom clusters, but definitional clarification is required. We propose that a core set of concurrent symptoms identifies each symptom cluster, signifying a common cause. Additional related symptoms may be included over time. Further longitudinal investigation is required to identify symptom clusters and the underlying causes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE:: To compare, in patients with cancer and in healthy subjects, measured resting energy expenditure (REE) from traditional indirect calorimetry to a new portable device (MedGem™) and predicted REE. DESIGN:: Cross-sectional clinical validation study. SETTING:: Private radiation oncology centre, Brisbane, Australia. SUBJECTS:: Cancer patients (n=18) and healthy subjects (n=17) aged 37-86?y, with body mass indices ranging from 18 to 42?kg/m2. INTERVENTIONS:: Oxygen consumption (VO2) and REE were measured by VMax229 (VM) and MedGem (MG) indirect calorimeters in random order after a 12-h fast and 30-min rest. REE was also calculated from the MG without adjustment for nitrogen excretion (MGN) and estimated from Harris-Benedict prediction equations. Data were analysed using the Bland and Altman approach, based on a clinically acceptable difference between methods of 5%. RESULTS:: The mean bias (MGN-VM) was 10%and limits of agreement were-42 to 21%for cancer patients; mean bias-5%with limits of-45 to 35%for healthy subjects. Less than half of the cancer patients (n=7, 46.7%) and only a third (n=5, 33.3%) of healthy subjects had measured REE by MGN within clinically acceptable limits of VM. Predicted REE showed a mean bias (HB-VM) of-5%for cancer patients and 4%for healthy subjects, with limits of agreement of-30 to 20%and-27 to 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:: Limits of agreement for the MG and Harris Benedict equations compared to traditional indirect calorimetry were similar but wide, indicating poor clinical accuracy for determining the REE of individual cancer patients and healthy subjects.European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2005) 59, 603-610. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602114 Published online 2 March 2005 [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]