Search

01 februari 2020, Contains fulltext : 220990.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: Fatigue is a common and potentially disabling symptom in patients with cancer. It can often be effectively reduced by exercise. Yet, effects of exercise interventions might differ across subgroups. We conducted a meta-analysis using individual patient data of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to investigate moderators of exercise intervention effects on cancer-related fatigue. METHODS: We used individual patient data from 31 exercise RCT worldwide, representing 4366 patients, of whom 3846 had complete fatigue data. We performed a one-step individual patient data meta-analysis, using linear mixed-effect models to analyze the effects of exercise interventions on fatigue (z score) and to identify demographic, clinical, intervention- and exercise-related moderators. Models were adjusted for baseline fatigue and included a random intercept on study level to account for clustering of patients within studies. We identified potential moderators by testing their interaction with group allocation, using a likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Exercise interventions had statistically significant beneficial effects on fatigue (beta = -0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.22 to -0.12). There was no evidence of moderation by demographic or clinical characteristics. Supervised exercise interventions had significantly larger effects on fatigue than unsupervised exercise interventions (betadifference = -0.18; 95% CI -0.28 to -0.08). Supervised interventions with a duration

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of psychosocial interventions (PSI) on quality of life (QoL), emotional function (EF), and social function (SF) in patients with cancer, and to study moderator effects of demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention-related characteristics. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified via literature searches in 4 databases. We pooled IPD from 22 (n = 4217) of 61 eligible randomized controlled trials. Linear mixed-effect model analyses were used to study intervention effects on the post-intervention values of QoL, EF, and SF (z-scores), adjusting for baseline values, age, and cancer type. We studied moderator effects by testing interactions with the intervention for demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention-related characteristics, and conducted subsequent stratified analyses for significant moderator variables. RESULTS: PSI significantly improved QoL (beta = 0.14,95%CI = 0.06;0.21), EF (beta = 0.13,95%CI = 0.05;0.20), and SF (beta = 0.10,95%CI = 0.03;0.18). Significant differences in effects of different types of PSI were found, with largest effects of psychotherapy. The effects of coping skills training were moderated by age, treatment type, and targeted interventions. Effects of psychotherapy on EF may be moderated by cancer type, but these analyses were based on 2 randomized controlled trials with small sample sizes of some cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: PSI significantly improved QoL, EF, and SF, with small overall effects. However, the effects differed by several demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention-related characteristics. Our study highlights the beneficial effects of coping skills training in patients treated with chemotherapy, the importance of targeted interventions, and the need of developing interventions tailored to the specific needs of elderly patients.

Item does not contain fulltext, Background: Exercise effects in cancer patients often appear modest, possibly because interventions rarely target patients most in need. This study investigated the moderator effects of baseline values on the exercise outcomes of fatigue, aerobic fitness, muscle strength, quality of life (QoL), and self-reported physical function (PF) in cancer patients during and post-treatment. Methods: Individual patient data from 34 randomized exercise trials (n = 4519) were pooled. Linear mixed-effect models were used to study moderator effects of baseline values on exercise intervention outcomes and to determine whether these moderator effects differed by intervention timing (during vs post-treatment). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Moderator effects of baseline fatigue and PF were consistent across intervention timing, with greater effects in patients with worse fatigue (Pinteraction = .05) and worse PF (Pinteraction = .003). Moderator effects of baseline aerobic fitness, muscle strength, and QoL differed by intervention timing. During treatment, effects on aerobic fitness were greater for patients with better baseline aerobic fitness (Pinteraction = .002). Post-treatment, effects on upper (Pinteraction < .001) and lower (Pinteraction = .01) body muscle strength and QoL (Pinteraction < .001) were greater in patients with worse baseline values. Conclusion: Although exercise should be encouraged for most cancer patients during and post-treatments, targeting specific subgroups may be especially beneficial and cost effective. For fatigue and PF, interventions during and post-treatment should target patients with high fatigue and low PF. During treatment, patients experience benefit for muscle strength and QoL regardless of baseline values; however, only patients with low baseline values benefit post-treatment. For aerobic fitness, patients with low baseline values do not appear to benefit from exercise during treatment.

Contains fulltext : 170325.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), This individual patient data meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise on quality of life (QoL) and physical function (PF) in patients with cancer, and to identify moderator effects of demographic (age, sex, marital status, education), clinical (body mass index, cancer type, presence of metastasis), intervention-related (intervention timing, delivery mode and duration, and type of control group), and exercise-related (exercise frequency, intensity, type, time) characteristics. Relevant published and unpublished studies were identified in September 2012 via PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, reference checking and personal communications. Principle investigators of all 69 eligible trials were requested to share IPD from their study. IPD from 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4519 patients) that evaluated the effects of exercise compared to a usual care, wait-list or attention control group on QoL and PF in adult patients with cancer were retrieved and pooled. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the effects of the exercise on post-intervention outcome values (z-score) adjusting for baseline values. Moderator effects were studies by testing interactions. Exercise significantly improved QoL (beta=0.15, 95%CI=0.10;0.20) and PF (beta=0.18, 95%CI=0.13;0.23). The effects were not moderated by demographic, clinical or exercise characteristics. Effects on QoL (betadifference_in_effect=0.13, 95%CI=0.03;0.22) and PF (betadifference_in_effect=0.10, 95%CI=0.01;0.20) were significantly larger for supervised than unsupervised interventions. In conclusion, exercise, and particularly supervised exercise, effectively improves QoL and PF in patients with cancer with different demographic and clinical characteristics during and following treatment. Although effect sizes are small, there is consistent empirical evidence to support implementation of exercise as part of cancer care.