Wagner Carina, Ernst Moritz, Cryns Nora, Oeser Annika, Messer Sarah, Wender Andreas, Wiskemann Joachim, Baumann Freerk T, Monsef Ina, Bröckelmann Paul J, Holtkamp Ulrike, Scherer Roberta W, Mishra Shiraz I, Skoetz Nicole
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis Unit Germany/UK, Cochrane Haematology, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Medical Oncology, University Hospital and National Center for Tumor Diseases Heidelberg, a partnership between DKFZ and University Medical Center Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Feb 20;2(2):CD015517. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015517.
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most prevalent and severe symptom among people with cancer. It can be attributed to the cancer itself or to anticancer therapies. CRF affects the individual physically and mentally, and cannot be alleviated by rest. Studies show a positive effect of exercise on CRF.
To evaluate the effects of cardiovascular training on cancer-related fatigue (CRF), quality of life (QoL), adverse events, anxiety, and depression in people with cancer, with regard to their stage of anticancer therapy (before, during, or after), up to 12 weeks, up to six months, or longer, postintervention.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization ICTRP to identify studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was October 2023.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating cardiovascular training for CRF or QoL, or both, in people with cancer. Trials were eligible if training was structured, included at least five sessions, and instruction was face-to-face (via video tools or in person). We excluded studies with fewer than 20 randomised participants per group and where only an abstract was available.
Our critical outcomes were: short-, medium-, long-term CRF and QoL. Important outcomes were adverse events, and short-, medium-, long-term anxiety and depression.
We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess bias in RCTs.
We used standard Cochrane methodology. We synthesised results for each outcome using meta-analysis where possible (inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel; random-effects model). We pooled data for the respective assessment periods above. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
We included 23 RCTs with 2135 participants, of whom 96.6% originated from high-income countries; 1101 participants were randomised to cardiovascular training and 1034 to no training. Studies included mostly females who were diagnosed with breast cancer. We also identified 36 ongoing and 12 completed studies that have not yet published (awaiting assessment). We only present findings on CRF, QoL and adverse events. For details regarding anxiety and depression, see full text.
Cardiovascular training before anticancer therapy versus no training for people with cancer We identified no studies for inclusion in this comparison. Cardiovascular training during anticancer therapy versus no training for people with cancer We included 10 studies (1026 participants); eight studies contributed data to quantitative analyses (860 participants). Cardiovascular training probably reduces short-term CRF slightly (mean difference (MD) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 4.55, on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Fatigue (FACT-F), scale 0 to 52, higher values mean better outcome; minimally important difference (MID) 3; 6 studies, 593 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in short-term QoL (MD 3.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 6.90, on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ C-30), scale 0 to 100, higher values mean better outcome, MID 10; 6 studies, 612 participants) (both moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects on medium-term CRF (MD 2.67, 95% CI -2.58 to 7.92, on FACT-F; MID 3; 1 study, 62 participants), long-term CRF (MD 0.41, 95% CI -2.24 to 3.05, on FACT-F; MID 3; 2 studies, 230 participants), medium-term QoL (MD 6.79, 95% CI -4.39 to 17.97, on EORTC QLQ C-30; MID 10; 1 study, 62 participants), and long-term QoL (MD 1.51, 95% CI -3.40 to 6.42, on EORTC QLQ C-30; MID 10; 2 studies, 230 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence). For adverse events (any grade and follow-up), we did not perform meta-analysis due to heterogeneous definitions, reporting, and measurement (9 RCTs, 955 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Cardiovascular training after anticancer therapy versus no training for people with cancer We included 13 studies (1109 participants); nine studies contributed data to quantitative analyses (756 participants). We are uncertain about the effects of cardiovascular training on short-term CRF (MD 3.62, 95% CI 0 to 7.13, on FACT-F; MID 3; 6 studies, 497 participants), long-term CRF (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.72 to 0.13, on the Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI), scale 1 to 10, higher values mean worse outcome; MID 1; 2 studies, 262 participants), short-term QoL (MD 3.70, 95% CI -0.14 to 7.41, on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), scale 0 to 108, higher values mean better outcome; MID 4; 8 studies, 642 participants), long-term QoL (MD 3.10, 95% CI -1.12 to 7.32, on FACT-G; MID 4; 1 study, 201 participants), and adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 2.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 12.67; 1 study, 50 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence). There were no data for medium-term CRF and QoL.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that cardiovascular training by people with cancer during their anticancer therapy slightly reduces short-term CRF and results in little to no difference in short-term QoL. We do not know whether cardiovascular training increases or decreases medium-term CRF/QoL, and long-term CRF/QoL. There is very low-certainty evidence (due to heterogeneous definitions, reporting and measurement) evaluating whether the training increases or decreases adverse events. In people with cancer who perform cardiovascular training after anticancer therapy, we are uncertain about the effects on short-term CRF/QoL, long-term CRF/QoL, and adverse events. We identified a lack of evidence concerning cardiovascular training before anticancer therapy and on safety outcomes. The 36 ongoing and 12 completed, but unpublished, studies could help close this gap, and could contribute to improving the effect estimates and certainty.
This Cochrane review was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, grant number: FKZ 01KG2017.
Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015211.
癌症相关疲劳(CRF)是癌症患者中最普遍且严重的症状。它可能归因于癌症本身或抗癌治疗。CRF会对个体的身心产生影响,且无法通过休息缓解。研究表明运动对CRF有积极作用。
评估心血管训练对癌症患者的癌症相关疲劳(CRF)、生活质量(QoL)、不良事件、焦虑和抑郁的影响,涉及抗癌治疗阶段(治疗前、治疗期间或治疗后),干预后长达12周、长达6个月或更长时间。
我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库、MEDLINE、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台,以识别纳入本综述的研究。最新检索日期为2023年10月。
我们纳入了评估心血管训练对癌症患者CRF或QoL或两者影响的随机对照试验(RCT)。如果训练是有组织的,包括至少五节课程,且指导是面对面的(通过视频工具或亲自指导),则试验符合纳入标准。我们排除了每组随机参与者少于20人的研究以及仅有摘要的研究。
我们的关键结局指标为:短期、中期、长期的CRF和QoL。重要结局指标为不良事件,以及短期、中期、长期的焦虑和抑郁。
我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险1工具评估RCT中的偏倚。
我们采用标准的Cochrane方法。我们尽可能使用Meta分析(逆方差法或Mantel-Haenszel法;随机效应模型)对每个结局指标的结果进行综合。我们汇总了上述各自评估期的数据。我们使用GRADE评估每个结局指标证据的确定性。
我们纳入了23项RCT,共2135名参与者,其中96.6%来自高收入国家;1101名参与者被随机分配至心血管训练组,1034名参与者被分配至无训练组。研究中大多为被诊断患有乳腺癌的女性。我们还识别出36项正在进行的研究和12项已完成但尚未发表的研究(等待评估)。我们仅呈现关于CRF、QoL和不良事件的研究结果。有关焦虑和抑郁的详细信息,请参阅全文。
抗癌治疗前心血管训练与癌症患者无训练的比较 我们未识别出可纳入此比较的研究。抗癌治疗期间心血管训练与癌症患者无训练的比较 我们纳入了10项研究(1026名参与者);8项研究为定量分析提供了数据(860名参与者)。心血管训练可能会略微降低短期CRF(癌症治疗功能评估-疲劳量表(FACT-F),范围0至52,分值越高结局越好,最小重要差异(MID)为3;均值差(MD)2.85,95%置信区间(CI)1.16至4.55;6项研究,593名参与者),且可能导致短期QoL几乎无差异(欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生活质量问卷C30(EORTC QLQ C-30),范围0至100,分值越高结局越好,MID为10;MD 3.56,95%CI 0.21至6.90;6项研究,612名参与者)(两者均为中等确定性证据)。我们不确定其对中期CRF(FACT-F;MID为3;MD 2.67,95%CI -2.58至7.92;1项研究,62名参与者)、长期CRF(FACT-F;MID为3;MD 0.41,95%CI -2.24至3.05;2项研究,230名参与者)、中期QoL(EORTC QLQ C-30;MID为10;MD 6.79,95%CI -4.39至17.97;1项研究,62名参与者)和长期QoL(EORTC QLQ C-30;MID为10;MD 1.51,95%CI -3.40至6.42;2项研究,230名参与者)的影响(均为极低确定性证据)。对于不良事件(任何级别及随访),由于定义、报告和测量存在异质性,我们未进行Meta分析(9项RCT,955名参与者;极低确定性证据)。抗癌治疗后心血管训练与癌症患者无训练的比较 我们纳入了13项研究(1109名参与者);9项研究为定量分析提供了数据(756名参与者)。我们不确定心血管训练对短期CRF(FACT-F;MID为3;MD 3.62,95%CI 0至7.13;6项研究,497名参与者)、长期CRF(疲劳症状量表(FSI),范围1至10,分值越高结局越差;MID为1;MD -0.80,95%CI -1.72至0.13;2项研究,262名参与者)、短期QoL(癌症治疗功能评估-通用量表(FACT-G),范围0至108,分值越高结局越好;MID为4;MD 3.70,95%CI -0.14至7.41;8项研究,642名参与者)、长期QoL(FACT-G;MID为4;MD 3.10,95%CI -1.12至7.32;1项研究,201名参与者)和不良事件(风险比(RR)2.71,95%CI 0.58至12.67;1项研究,50名参与者)的影响(均为极低确定性证据)。没有关于中期CRF和QoL的数据。
中等确定性证据表明,癌症患者在抗癌治疗期间进行心血管训练可略微降低短期CRF,且短期QoL几乎无差异。我们不知道心血管训练会增加还是降低中期CRF/QoL以及长期CRF/QoL。由于定义、报告和测量存在异质性,评估训练是否会增加或降低不良事件的证据确定性极低。对于抗癌治疗后进行心血管训练的癌症患者,我们不确定其对短期CRF/QoL、长期CRF/QoL和不良事件的影响。我们发现缺乏关于抗癌治疗前心血管训练及安全性结局的证据。36项正在进行的研究和12项已完成但未发表的研究可能有助于填补这一空白,并有助于提高效应估计值和证据确定性。
本Cochrane系统评价由德国联邦教育与研究部资助,资助编号:FKZ 01KG2017。
方案可通过DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD015211获取。