Resistance Training-Induced Gains in Muscle Strength and Power Mediate the Improvement in Walking Speed in Middle-Aged Women Who Are Breast Cancer Survivors

Exercise and survival benefit in cancer patients: evidence from a comprehensive meta-analysis

Cancer remains a major global health challenge, and growing evidence suggests that physical activity is a key modifiable factor that may improve survival outcomes in cancer patients. However, a comprehensive, large-scale synthesis of the effects of post-diagnosis physical activity across multiple cancer types remains lacking. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the association between physical activity and survival in patients diagnosed with breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and skin cancers. We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for studies on physical activity and cancer survival. Eligible studies (January 2000-November 2024) included adults (≥ 18 years) with breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, or skin cancer. Only prospective cohort and case-control studies reporting hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall or cancer-specific mortality were included, with a minimum sample size of 100 and at least six months of follow-up. Meta-analysis was performed using metaanalysisonline.com, applying random-effects models and assessing heterogeneity via the I2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias (Egger's test, funnel plots) were evaluated. The meta-analysis included 151 cohorts with almost 1.5 million cancer patients. Post-diagnosis physical activity was associated with significantly lower cancer-specific mortality across all five cancer types. The greatest benefit was observed in breast cancer, with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.63-0.75), followed by prostate cancer (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87). Lung cancer patients who engaged in physical activity had a 24% lower risk of cancer-specific death (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.69-0.84), while colorectal cancer patients experienced a similar benefit (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.63-0.80). In skin cancer, physical activity was associated with a non-significant reduction in mortality (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.71-1.05). These findings provide robust evidence supporting the survival benefits of post-diagnosis physical activity in cancer patients, particularly for breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancers. The results underscore the potential for incorporating structured physical activity interventions into oncological care to improve long-term patient outcomes.

Physical activity and exercise health benefits: cancer prevention, interception, and survival

Physical activity (PA) has an established role in the promotion of health and fitness and the prevention of disease. Expected overall benefits include reduction of all-cause morbidity and death, weight control, improved quality of life, improved bone health and decreased falls of elderly subjects, , deeper cognition, and reduced risk of depression, anxiety, and sleeplessness. Currently, PA is a mainstay in the management of cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and bone health. Recently, the perception of its role in primary and secondary prevention, interception, and treatment of cancer, however, is also gaining importance. Regular walking, the simplest type of PA, is associated with reduced all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality, and a role in cancer prevention is of increasing interest. Furthermore, PA improves the quality of life of cancer patients, attenuating side effects of chemotherapy, decreasing sarcopenia, increasing fitness, and inhibiting the recurrence and progression of some cancer types. It promotes emotional and psychological benefits in patients, inducing positive changes. While mechanisms, effective levels and useful amount of PA practice are well established in cardiology, they are yet to be fully determined in oncology. Nevertheless, PA is recommended to reduce cancer risk in the general population, and it has been introduced in programs for the prevention of second cancers. In perspective, it will help as integrative therapy in cancer patients and for cancer survivors. The number of beneficial effects in the cancer continuum is highlighted in this review.

The Impact of Non-bone Metastatic Cancer on Musculoskeletal Health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to discuss the musculoskeletal consequences of cancer, including those that occur in the absence of bone metastases.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cancer patients frequently develop cachexia, a debilitating condition reflected by weight loss and skeletal muscle wasting. The negative effects that tumors exert on bone health represents a growing interest amongst cachexia researchers. Recent clinical and pre-clinical evidence demonstrates cancer-induced bone loss, even in the absence of skeletal metastases. Together with muscle wasting, losses in bone demonstrates the impact of cancer on the musculoskeletal system. Identifying therapeutic targets that comprehensively protect musculoskeletal health is essential to improve the quality of life in cancer patients and survivors. IL-6, RANKL, PTHrP, sclerostin, and TGF-β superfamily members represent potential targets to counteract cachexia. However, more research is needed to determine the efficacy of these targets in protecting both skeletal muscle and bone.

Intramuscular adipose tissue, muscle area, and power as predictors of performance in breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

The decline in physical performance, assessed by physical tests such as the timed up and go (TUG) test, is a consequence of reduced physiological reserves at higher levels of a hierarchical process. This occurs due to changes in muscle architecture, including atrophy and fat infiltration into the muscles, which in turn lead to changes in muscle function, resulting in reduced muscle strength and power and, consequently, affecting physical performance. This study investigated predictive factors for physical performance in breast cancer survivor (BCS), focusing on intramuscular adipose tissue (IMAT), quadríceps muscle area (QMA), and muscular power.

METHODS

This observational, analytical, and cross-sectional study included 23 women without a history of cancer (age, 58.5 ± 8.3 years; BMI, 27.2 ± 5.1 kg/m2) and 56 BCS (age, 58.5 ± 8.3 years; BMI, 27.2 ± 5.1 kg/m2). QMA and IMAT were assessed using computed tomography images. Muscular power and physical performance were measured using the 5-repetition sit-to-stand and TUG tests, respectively.

RESULTS

IMAT (r = 0.4, P < 0.01) and muscular power (r =  - 0.4, P < 0.01) were associated with TUG performance in BCS, whereas QMA (r =  - 0.22, P = 0.10) showed no significant association. QMA (r = 0.55, P < 0.01) was associated with muscular power, while no significant association was found between IMAT and muscular power (r =  - 0.05, P = 0.73). Age explained 19% (P < 0.01) of TUG performance variability. Adding muscular power increased explanatory power by 12% (P < 0.01), and including IMAT further increased it by 7% (P = 0.02) for TUG performance. Collectively, age, muscular power, and IMAT accounted for 38% of the performance variance in the TUG test (age, B = 0.06, P = 0.043; muscular power, B =  - 0.01, P = 0.002; IMAT, B =  - 0.05, P = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that IMAT and muscular power predict the physical performance of BCS, while QMA does not have the same predictive capability.

Impact of Resistance Training Volume on Physical and Perceptual Outcomes of Breast Cancer Survivors Submitted to a Combined Training Program: A Randomized, Single-Blinded Study

BACKGROUND

To determine the effect of resistance training volume on physical and perceptual outcomes of breast cancer survivors submitted to a combined training program.

DESIGN

Randomized single-blinded study.

METHODS

Nineteen breast cancer survivor women were randomized to a single-set (SS) or a multiple-set (MS) group. Both groups completed an 8-week combined training intervention in which the SS and MS groups performed 1 and 3 sets per resistance exercise, respectively. The following outcomes were assessed preintervention and postintervention: maximal knee extension dynamic strength (1-repetition maximum), quadriceps muscle thickness, peak oxygen uptake, time to exhaustion, cancer-related fatigue, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Both interventions increased knee extension 1-repetition maximum (SS: 29.8% [37.5%]; MS: 19.3% [11.8%]), quadriceps muscle thickness (9.4% [4.1%]; 8.9% [5.9%]), and quality of life (4.3% [6.3%]; 7.9% [9.0%]), with no difference between the groups. However, only MS improved cancer-related fatigue (-2.1% [1.7%]) and time to exhaustion (21.3% [14.9%]), whereas peak oxygen uptake remained unchanged in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer-related fatigue and time to exhaustion, improved only in the MS group after the intervention. On the other hand, similar knee extension 1-repetition maximum, quadriceps muscle thickness, and quality of life improvements were observed in breast cancer survivors irrespective of the resistance training volume performed.