Harms of exercise training in patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished controlled trials

24Citations
Citations of this article
80Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Exercise is recommended for people with cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the harms of exercise in patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included published and unpublished controlled trials comparing exercise interventions versus controls in adults with cancer scheduled to undergo systemic treatment. The primary outcomes were adverse events, health-care utilization, and treatment tolerability and response. Eleven electronic databases and trial registries were systematically searched with no date or language restrictions. The latest searches were performed on April 26, 2022. The risk of bias was judged using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes was assessed using GRADE. Data were statistically synthesised using pre-specified random-effect meta-analyses. The protocol for this study was registered in the PROESPERO database (ID: CRD42021266882). Findings: 129 controlled trials including 12,044 participants were eligible. Primary meta-analyses revealed evidence of a higher risk of some harms, including serious adverse events (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.87 [1.47–2.39], I2 = 0%, n = 1722, k = 10), thromboses (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.67 [1.11–2.51], I2 = 0%, n = 934, k = 6), and fractures (risk ratio [95% CI]: 3.07 [3.03–3.11], I2 = 0%, n = 203, k = 2) in intervention versus control. In contrast, we found evidence of a lower risk of fever (risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.69 [0.55–0.87], I2 = 0% n = 1109, k = 7) and a higher relative dose intensity of systemic treatment (difference in means [95% CI]: 1.50% [0.14–2.85], I2 = 0% n = 1110, k = 13) in intervention versus control. For all outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence due to imprecision, risk of bias, and indirectness, resulting in very low certainty of evidence. Interpretation: The harms of exercise in patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment are uncertain, and there is currently insufficient data on harms to make evidence-based risk-benefits assessments of the application of structured exercise in this population. Funding: There was no funding for this study.

References Powered by Scopus

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

48588Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions

37301Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

17145Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The efficacy and safety of exercise regimens to mitigate chemotherapy cardiotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

6Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

First, do no harm: a call to action to improve the evaluation of harms in clinical exercise research

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Dropout from exercise trials among cancer survivors—An individual patient data meta-analysis from the POLARIS study

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Thomsen, S. N., Lahart, I. M., Thomsen, L. M., Fridh, M. K., Larsen, A., Mau-Sørensen, M., … Simonsen, C. (2023). Harms of exercise training in patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished controlled trials. EClinicalMedicine, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101937

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 6

50%

Researcher 5

42%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 7

44%

Nursing and Health Professions 5

31%

Sports and Recreations 3

19%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

6%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 3

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free