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.

BackgroundCancer-related fatigue is a common problem in persons with cancer, influencing health-related quality of life and causing a considerable challenge to society. Current evidence supports the beneficial effects of physical exercise in reducing fatigue, but the results across studies are not consistent, especially in terms of exercise intensity. It is also unclear whether use of behaviour change techniques can further increase exercise adherence and maintain physical activity behaviour. This study will investigate whether exercise intensity affects fatigue and health related quality of life in persons undergoing adjuvant cancer treatment. In addition, to examine effects of exercise intensity on mood disturbance, adherence to oncological treatment, adverse effects from treatment, activities of daily living after treatment completion and return to work, and behaviour change techniques effect on exercise adherence. We will also investigate whether exercise intensity influences inflammatory markers and cytokines, and whether gene expressions following training serve as mediators for the effects of exercise on fatigue and health related quality of life.Methods/designSix hundred newly diagnosed persons with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer undergoing adjuvant therapy will be randomized in a 2 × 2 factorial design to following conditions; A) individually tailored low-to-moderate intensity exercise with or without behaviour change techniques or B) individually tailored high intensity exercise with or without behaviour change techniques. The training consists of both resistance and endurance exercise sessions under the guidance of trained coaches. The primary outcomes, fatigue and health related quality of life, are measured by self-reports. Secondary outcomes include fitness, mood disturbance, adherence to the cancer treatment, adverse effects, return to activities of daily living after completed treatment, return to work as well as inflammatory markers, cytokines and gene expression.DiscussionThe study will contribute to our understanding of the value of exercise and exercise intensity in reducing fatigue and improving health related quality of life and, potentially, clinical outcomes. The value of behaviour change techniques in terms of adherence to and maintenance of physical exercise behaviour in persons with cancer will be evaluated.Trial registration NCT02473003, October, 2014.

No abstract

IntroductionBreathlessness is a cardinal symptom in cardiorespiratory disease. An instrument for measuring different aspects of breathlessness was recently developed, the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP). This study aimed to validate the MDP in terms of the underlying factor structure, internal consistency, test–retest reliability and concurrent validity in Swedish outpatients with cardiorespiratory disease.MethodsOutpatients with stable cardiorespiratory disease and breathlessness in daily life were recruited. Factor structure of MDP was analysed using confirmatory factor analysis; internal consistency was analysed using Cronbach’s alpha; and test–retest reliability was analysed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for patients with unchanged breathlessness between assessments (baseline, after 30–90 min and 2 weeks). Concurrent validity was evaluated using correlations with validated scales of breathlessness, anxiety, depression and health-related quality of life.ResultsIn total, 182 outpatients with cardiorespiratory disease and breathlessness in daily life were included; 53.3% were women; main diagnoses were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (24.7%), asthma (21.4%), heart failure (19.2%) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (18.7%). The MDP total, immediate perception and emotional response scores, and individual item scores showed expected factor structure and acceptable measurement properties: internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, range 0.80–0.93); test–retest reliability at 30–90 min and 2 weeks (ICC, range 0.67–0.91); and concurrent validity. There was no evidence of a learning effect. Findings were similar between diagnoses.DiscussionMDP is a valid instrument for multidimensional measurement of breathlessness in Swedish outpatients across cardiorespiratory diseases.

Context. Breathlessness is a cardinal symptom in cardiorespiratory disease and consists of multiple dimensions that can be measured using the instruments Dyspnea-12 (D12) and the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP). Objectives. The objective of the study is to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of all D12 and MDP summary and subdomain scores as well as the instruments' feasibility in patients with cardiorespiratory disease. Methods. Prospective multicenter cohort study of outpatients with diagnosed cardiorespiratory disease and breathlessness in daily life. D12 and MDP were assessed at baseline, after 30e90 minutes and two weeks. MCIDs were calculated using anchorbased and distributional methods for summary and subdomain scores. Feasibility was assessed as rate of missing data, help required, self-reported difficulty, and completion time. Results. A total 182 outpatients (53.3% women) were included; main diagnoses were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 25%), asthma (21%), heart failure (19%), and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (19%). Anchor-based MCIDs were for D12 total score 2.83 (95% CI 1.99e3.66); D12 physical 1.81 (1.29e2.34); D12 affective 1.07 (0.64e1.49); MDP A1 unpleasantness 0.82 (0.56e1.08); MDP perception 4.63 (3.21e6.05), and MDP emotional score 2.37 (1.10e3.64). The estimates were consistent with small-to-moderate effect sizes using distributional analysis, and MCIDs were similar between COPD and non-COPD patients. The instruments were generally feasible and quick to use. Conclusion. D12 and MDP are responsive to change and feasible for use for assessing multidimensional breathlessness in outpatients with cardiorespiratory disease. MCIDs were determined for use as endpoints in clinical trials. J Pain Symptom Manage 2020;60:968e975.