ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Patients with advanced-stage cancer often suffer many physical and psychological symptoms. Exercise has been shown to improve quality of life (QoL), decrease cancer-related symptoms, and maintain or improve functional status in cancer survivors or patients with early stage cancer. However, the effect of exercise on these outcomes in patients with advanced-stage cancer is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of exercise interventions for patients with advanced-stage cancer in improving cancer-related symptoms and functional status outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from their inception to February 3, 2019, to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise and usual care for improving outcomes in patients with advanced-stage cancer. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed the risk of bias of individual RCTs using the Cochrane Handbook, Version 5.1.0. RESULTS: About 15 RCTs enrolling 1208 patients were included. Compared with usual care, exercise showed a significant improvement in QoL (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.22; 95% CI 0.06-0.38; P = 0.009), fatigue (SMD -0.25; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.04; P = 0.02), insomnia (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.56 to -0.17; P = 0.0002), physical function (SMD 0.22; 95% CI 0.05-0.38; P = 0.009), social function (SMD 0.18; 95% CI 0.02-0.34; P = 0.03), and dyspnea reduction (SMD -0.18; 95% CI -0.34 to -0.01; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Exercise serves as an effective intervention to improve QoL and alleviate fatigue, insomnia, dyspnea, and physical and social functions for patients with advanced-stage cancer.
Subject(s)
Exercise , Neoplasms , Anxiety , Fatigue/therapy , Humans , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the Western world. Preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) has been widely performed in the treatment of rectal cancer patients. However, there is no consensus on the length of waiting interval between the end of preoperative nCRT and surgery. Present network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the differences of effect between all available interval to surgery after nCRT in rectal cancer in improving overall survival, disease-free survival and pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, and to rate the certainty of evidence from present NMA. METHOD: We will systematically search PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases to identify studies assessing the interval to surgery after CRT in rectal cancer. We will conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis using Bayesian method and report the full-text according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Extension Vision statement (PRISMA-NMA). We will assess the risk of bias of individual study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Handbook V.5.1.0. We will also use the advance of GRADE to rate the certainty of NMA. Data will be analyzed by using R software V.3.4.1. RESULTS: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and NMA will first use both direct and indirect evidence to compare the differences of all available interval to surgery after CRT in rectal cancer. This is a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis, so the ethical approval and patient consent are not required.
