Search

Background: Cost-effectiveness is important in the prioritisation between interventions in health care. Exercise is cost-effective compared to usual care during oncological treatment; however, the significance of exercise intensity to the cost-effectiveness is unclear. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the randomised controlled trial Phys-Can, a six-month exercise programme of high (HI) or low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment., Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, based on 189 participants with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer (HI: n  = 99 and LMI: n  = 90) from the Phys-Can RCT in Sweden. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective, and included cost of the exercise intervention, health care utilisation and productivity loss. Health outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D-5L at baseline, post intervention and 12 months after the completion of the intervention., Results: At 12-month follow-up after the intervention, the total cost per participant did not differ significantly between HI (€27,314) and LMI exercise (€29,788). There was no significant difference in health outcome between the intensity groups. On average HI generated 1.190 QALYs and LMI 1.185 QALYs. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that HI was cost effective compared with LMI, but the uncertainty was large., Conclusions: We conclude that HI and LMI exercise have similar costs and effects during oncological treatment. Hence, based on cost-effectiveness, we suggest that decision makers and clinicians can consider implementing both HI and LMI exercise programmes and recommend either intensity to the patients with cancer during oncological treatment to facilitate improvement of health.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of high intensity (HI) vs low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) up to 18 months after commencement of oncological treatment in patients with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer. In addition, we conducted a comparison with usual care (UC)., Methods: Patients scheduled for (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment (n = 577) were randomly assigned to 6 months of combined resistance and endurance training of HI or LMI. A longitudinal descriptive study (UC) included participants (n = 89) immediately before the RCT started. HRQoL was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline, 3, 6 and 18 months (1 year after completed exercise intervention) follow-up. Linear mixed models were used to study the groups over time., Results: Directly after the intervention, HI scored significant (P = 0.02), but not clinically relevant, higher pain compared with LMI. No other significant difference in HRQoL was found between the exercise intensities over time. Clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL over time were detected within both exercise intensities. We found favourable significant differences in HRQoL in both exercise intensities compared with UC over time., Conclusion: This study adds to the strong evidence of positive effect of exercise and shows that exercise, regardless of intensity, can have beneficial effects on HRQoL during oncological treatment and also for a substantial time after completion of an exercise intervention. In this study, for one year after., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Patients can be advised to exercise at either intensity level according to their personal preferences, and still benefit from both short-term and long-term improvements in HRQoL., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Exercise during oncological treatment is beneficial to patient health and can counteract the side effects of treatment. Knowledge of the societal costs associated with an exercise intervention, however, is limited. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the long-term resource utilisation and societal costs of an exercise intervention conducted during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment in a randomised control trial (RCT) versus usual care (UC), and to compare high-intensity (HI) versus low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise in the RCT., Methods: We used data from the Physical Training and Cancer (Phys-Can) project. In the RCT, 577 participants were randomised to HI or to LMI of combined endurance and resistance training for 6 months, during oncological treatment. The project also included 89 participants with UC in a longitudinal observational study. We measured at baseline and after 18 months. Resource utilisation and costs of the exercise intervention, health care, and productivity loss were compared using analyses of covariance (RCT vs. UC) and t test (HI vs. LMI)., Results: Complete data were available for 619 participants (RCT HI: n  = 269, LMI: n  = 265, and UC: n  = 85). We found no difference in total societal costs between the exercise intervention groups in the RCT and UC. However, participants in the RCT had lower rates of disability pension days ( p < .001), corresponding costs ( p = .001), and pharmacy costs ( p = .018) than the UC group. Nor did we find differences in resource utilisation or costs between HI and LMI exercise int the RCT., Conclusion: Our study showed no difference in total societal costs between the comprehensive exercise intervention and UC or between the exercise intensities. This suggests that exercise, with its well-documented health benefits during oncological treatment, produces neither additional costs nor savings.

Exercise during cancer treatment improves cancer-related fatigue (CRF), but the importance of exercise intensity for CRF is unclear. We compared the effects of high- vs low-to-moderate-intensity exercise with or without additional behavior change support (BCS) on CRF in patients undergoing (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment. This was a multicenter, 2x2 factorial design randomized controlled trial (Clinical Trials NCT02473003) in Sweden. Participants recently diagnosed with breast (n = 457), prostate (n = 97) or colorectal (n = 23) cancer undergoing (neo-)adjuvant treatment were randomized to high intensity (n = 144), low-to-moderate intensity (n = 144), high intensity with BCS (n = 144) or low-to-moderate intensity with BCS (n = 145). The 6-month exercise intervention included supervised resistance training and home-based endurance training. CRF was assessed by Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI, five subscales score range 4-20), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale (FACIT-F, score range 0-52). Multiple linear regression for main factorial effects was performed according to intention-to-treat, with post-intervention CRF as primary endpoint. Overall, 577 participants (mean age 58.7 years) were randomized. Participants randomized to high- vs low-to-moderate-intensity exercise had lower physical fatigue (MFI Physical Fatigue subscale; mean difference -1.05 [95% CI: -1.85, -0.25]), but the difference was not clinically important (ie <2). We found no differences in other CRF dimensions and no effect of additional BCS. There were few minor adverse events. For CRF, patients undergoing (neo-)adjuvant treatment for breast, prostate or colorectal cancer can safely exercise at high- or low-to-moderate intensity, according to their own preferences. Additional BCS does not provide extra benefit for CRF in supervised, well-controlled exercise interventions., (© 2021 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science In Sports published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Impaired functioning due to cancer treatment is a challenge for daily life. Exercise during treatment can improve functioning. However, research describing experiences of how exercise affects activities of daily life is limited. We aimed to explore how individuals with cancer receiving curative treatment and participating in an exercise intervention experienced their functioning in daily life., Methods: Twenty-one participants were recruited from Phys-Can, an exercise intervention study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after the intervention had finished, and data was analysed using thematic analysis., Results: Two main themes evolved: "Striving to maintain a normal life in a new context" and "Struggling with impairments from side effects of cancer treatment". The supervised group exercise proved popular, and participants reported positive effects on physical and psychological functioning, as well as social and informative support from other participants. Participants struggled with impaired cognitive and physical functioning and exhaustion. They strove to maintain a normal life by adjusting their activities., Conclusions: Perceived physical and psychological benefits from exercise during cancer treatment suggest that exercise should be a part of cancer rehabilitation to facilitate activities and participation in daily life. Striving to maintain a normal life during cancer treatment is vital, and adjustments are needed to maintain activities and participation in daily life. Cancer nurses should motivate patients to engage in physical activity and encourage the introduction of exercise as part of their rehabilitation. They could also support patients in making adjustments to maintain functioning in daily life., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)