1.
Randomized trial of weight loss in primary breast cancer: Impact on body composition, circulating biomarkers and tumor characteristics.
Demark-Wahnefried, W, Rogers, LQ, Gibson, JT, Harada, S, Frugé, AD, Oster, RA, Grizzle, WE, Norian, LA, Yang, ES, Della Manna, D, et al
International journal of cancer. 2020;146(10):2784-2796
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Obesity directly impacts survival in individuals with breast cancer. Previous studies in animals and at the cellular level have shown that calorie restriction and increased physical activity to achieve a negative energy balance may inhibit cancer progression, however effects in patients are unknown. This randomised control trial aimed to determine the impact of a pre surgery weight loss programme in 32 women with breast cancer on tumour biology and other markers of disease. The results were mixed and showed that proteins which bind to hormones involved in breast cancer were increased, which could decrease severity of disease. However, tumour biology was negatively affected; specific genes involved in breast cancer progression were increased and those involved in tumour suppression were decreased. Although this did result in no net effect on the rate at which new tumours were formed. It was concluded that although the study showed mixed results, ultimately the rate at which new tumours were formed remained unaffected. This trial could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that the role of negative energy intake in breast cancer development is complicated and warrants further research.
Abstract
Obesity adversely impacts overall and cancer-specific survival among breast cancer patients. Preclinical studies demonstrate negative energy balance inhibits cancer progression; however, feasibility and effects in patients are unknown. A two-arm, single-blinded, randomized controlled weight-loss trial was undertaken presurgery among 32 overweight/obese, Stage 0-II breast cancer patients. The attention control arm (AC) received basic nutritional counseling and upper-body progressive resistance training whereas the weight loss intervention (WLI) arm received identical guidance, plus counseling on caloric restriction and aerobic exercise to promote 0.68-0.92 kg/week weight loss. Anthropometrics, body composition, blood and survey data were collected at baseline and presurgery ∼30 days later. Tumor markers (e.g., Ki67) and gene expression were assessed on biopsy and surgical specimens; sera were analyzed for cytokines, growth and metabolic factors. Significant WLI vs. AC differences were seen in baseline-to-follow-up changes in weight (-3.62 vs. -0.52 kg), %body fat (-1.3 vs. 0%), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (+224 vs. +115 min/week), caloric density (-0.3 vs. 0 kcal/g), serum leptin (-12.3 vs. -4.0 ng/dl) and upregulation of tumor PI3Kinase signaling and cell cycle-apoptosis related genes (CC-ARG; all p-values <0.05). Cytolytic CD56dim NK cell expression was positively associated with weight loss; CC-ARG increased with physical activity. Increased tumor (nuclear) TNFα and IL-1β, CX3CL1 and CXCL1 gene expression was observed in the WLI. Tumor Ki67 did not differ between arms. Feasibility benchmarks included 80% accrual, 100% retention, no adverse effects and excellent adherence. Short-term weight loss interventions are feasible; however, mixed effects on tumor biology suggest unclear benefit to presurgical caloric restriction, but possible benefits of physical activity.
2.
A phase II randomized controlled trial of three exercise delivery methods in men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy.
Alibhai, SMH, Santa Mina, D, Ritvo, P, Tomlinson, G, Sabiston, C, Krahn, M, Durbano, S, Matthew, A, Warde, P, O'Neill, M, et al
BMC cancer. 2019;19(1):2
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Most men diagnosed with prostate cancer receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and they commonly experience adverse side effects. Exercise is one of the most effective interventions to counter ADT side effects. The main aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of conducting a large multi-centre non-inferiority RCT of three exercise delivery models in men with prostate cancer on ADT. The study is a randomized phase II non-inferiority trial recruited 59 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer at any stage. The study compared 1:1, site-based personal training with two less-resource-intense approaches: group, site-training and individual home-based training. Results indicate that exercise adherence, as measured through attendance, was high for supervised sessions but under 50% by self-report and accelerometery. There was no difference between the three groups in terms of satisfaction. Authors conclude that both group, site-training and individual home-based training interventions in men with prostate cancer on ADT appeared to be similar to 1:1, site-based personal training for multiple efficacy outcomes.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Existing evidence demonstrates that 1:1 personal training (PT) improves many adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether less resource-intensive exercise delivery models are as effective remains to be established. We determined the feasibility of conducting a multi-center non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing PT with supervised group (GROUP) and home-based (HOME) exercise programs, and obtained preliminary efficacy estimates for GROUP and HOME compared to PT on quality of life (QOL) and physical fitness. METHODS Men with prostate cancer on ADT were recruited from one of two experienced Canadian centres and randomized 1:1:1 to PT, GROUP, or HOME. Randomization was stratified by length of ADT use and site. Participants completed moderate intensity aerobic and resistance exercises 4-5 days per week for 6 months with a target 150 min per week of exercise. Exercise prescriptions were individualized and progressed throughout the trial. Feasibility endpoints included recruitment, retention, adherence, and participant satisfaction. The efficacy endpoints QOL, fatigue, and fitness (VO2 peak, grip strength, and timed chair stands) in GROUP and HOME were compared for non-inferiority to PT. Descriptive analyses were used for feasibility endpoints. Between-group differences for efficacy endpoints were examined using Bayesian linear mixed effects models. RESULTS Fifty-nine participants (mean age 69.9 years) were enrolled. The recruitment rate was 25.4% and recruitment was slower than projected. Retention was 71.2%. Exercise adherence as measured through attendance was high for supervised sessions but under 50% by self-report and accelerometry. Satisfaction was high and there was no difference in this measure between all three groups. Between-group differences (comparing both GROUP and HOME to PT) were smaller than the minimum clinically important difference on most measures of QOL, fatigue, and fitness. However, two of six outcomes for GROUP and four of six outcomes for HOME had a > 20% probability of being inferior for GROUP. CONCLUSIONS Feasibility endpoints were generally met. Both GROUP and HOME interventions in men with PC on ADT appeared to be similar to PT for multiple efficacy outcomes, although conclusions are limited by a small sample size and cost considerations have not been incorporated. Efforts need to be targeted to improving recruitment and adherence. A larger trial is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02046837 . Date of registration: January 20, 2014.