ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the gold standard for measuring exercise capacity, however, it is resource intensive and has limited availability. This study aimed to determine: 1) the association between the 6-min walk test (6MWT) and the 30-s sit-to-stand test (30STS) with CPET peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and anaerobic threshold (AT) and 2) 6MWT and 30STS cut points associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications. METHODS: A cross-sectional study, retrospectively analyzing data collected from a tertiary cancer center over a 23-month period. Measures included CPET VO2peak and AT, 6MWT and 30STS test. Correlations were used to characterize relationships between variables. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses determined 6MWT and 30STS cut points that aligned with CPET variable cut points. RESULTS: Note that, 156 participants were included. The 6MWT and 30STS displayed moderate correlations with VO2peak, rho = 0.65, p = 0.01 and rho = 0.52, p < 0.005 respectively. Fair correlations were observed between AT and 6MWT (rho = 0.36, p = 0.01) and 30STS (rho = 0.41, p < 0.005). The optimal cut points to identify VO2peak < 15 mL/kg/min were 493.5 m on the 6MWT and 12.5 stands on the 30STS test and for AT < 11 mL/kg/min were 506.5 m on the 6MWT and 12.5 stands on the 30STS test. CONCLUSION: Both the 6MWT and 30STS test could be used as alternative tools for measuring exercise capacity preoperatively in the cancer setting where CPET is not available. A range of 6MWT and 30STS cut points, according to sensitivity and specificity levels, may be used to evaluate risk of postoperative outcomes.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Physical activity can provide analgesic benefit but its effect on cancer-related pain is unclear. This review synthesised and appraised the evidence for the effect of physical activity on pain in people living with or beyond cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of Ovid Medline and Embase was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), randomised cross-over studies (RXTs), and prospective observational studies that examined physical activity and pain outcomes in adults living with or beyond cancer. Meta-analyses were performed to generate effect estimates. Risk of bias was assessed, and the GRADE system was used to assess evidence quality. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one studies (n = 13,806), including 102 RCTs, 6 RXTs, and 13 observational studies, met the criteria for inclusion. Meta-analyses of RCTs identified a decrease in pain intensity (n = 3734; standardised mean difference (SMD) - 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.45, - 0.15) and bodily pain (n = 1170; SMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) but not pain interference (n = 207; SMD - 0.13, 95% CI - 0.42, 0.15) following physical activity interventions. Individual studies also identified a reduction in pain sensitivity but not analgesic use, although meta-analysis was not possible for these outcomes. High heterogeneity between studies, low certainty in some effect estimates, and possible publication bias meant that evidence quality was graded as very low to low. CONCLUSION: Physical activity may decrease pain in people living with and beyond cancer; however, high heterogeneity limits the ability to generalise this finding to all people with cancer or to specific types of cancer-related pain.
