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]."