Exercise and psychosocial interventions in breast cancer survivors: Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial

Physical and psychological decline is common in the post-treatment breast cancer population, yet the efficacy of concurrent interventions to meet both physical- psychosocial needs in this population has not been extensively examined. PURPOSE: This study explores the effects of a combined exercise and psychosocial intervention model on selected physiological-psychological parameters in post-treated breast cancer. METHODS: Forty-one breast cancer survivors were randomly assigned to one of four groups for an 8-week intervention: exercise only [EX, n=13] (aerobic and resistance training), psychosocial therapy only [PS, n=11] (biofeedback), combined EX and PS [EX+PS, n=11], or to control conditions [CO, n=6]. Mean delta score (post-intervention - baseline) were calculated for each of the following: body weight, % body fat (skin folds), predicted VO2max (Modified Bruce Protocol), overall dynamic muscular endurance [OME] (RMCRI protocol), static balance (Single leg stance test), dynamic balance (360° turn and 4-square step test), fatigue (Revised Piper Scale), and quality of life (FACT-B). A one-way ANOVA was used to analyze the preliminary results of this on-going randomized trial. RESULTS: Overall, there were significant differences in the delta scores for predicted VO2max, OME, and dynamic balance among the 4 groups (p<0.05). The EX+PS group showed a significant improvement in VO2max compared with the PS group (4.2 ± 3.8 vs. -0.9 ± 4.2 mL/kg/min; p<0.05). Both the EX+PS and EX groups showed significant improvements in OME compared with the PS and CO groups (44.5 ± 23.5 and 43.4 ± 22.1 vs. -3.9 ± 15.2 and 2.7 ± 13.7 repetitions; p<0.05). All 3 intervention groups showed significant improvements in dynamic balance compared with the CO group (-0.8 ± 0.6, -0.6 ± 0.8, and -0.6 ±1.0 vs. 0.6 ± 0.6 seconds; p<0.05). Overall, changes in fatigue tended towards significance among the 4 groups (p = 0.08), with decreased fatigue in the intervention groups and increased fatigue in the CO group. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings suggest that EX and PS seem to produce greater positive changes in the outcome measures than CO. However, at this point no definite conclusions can be made on the additive effects of combining the EX and PS interventions.

Decision trees for detection of activity intensity in youth with cerebral palsy

PURPOSE To develop and test decision tree (DT) models to classify physical activity (PA) intensity from accelerometer output and Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) classification level in ambulatory youth with cerebral palsy (CP); and 2) compare the classification accuracy of the new DT models to that achieved by previously published cut-points for youth with CP. METHODS Youth with CP (GMFCS Levels I - III) (N=51) completed seven activity trials with increasing PA intensity while wearing a portable metabolic system and ActiGraph GT3X accelerometers. DT models were used to identify vertical axis (VA) and vector magnitude (VM) count thresholds corresponding to sedentary (SED) (<1.5 METs), light PA (LPA) (>/=1.5 and <3 METs) and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) (>/=3 METs). Models were trained and cross-validated using the 'rpart' and 'caret' packages within R. RESULTS For the VA (VA_DT) and VM decision trees (VM_DT), a single threshold differentiated LPA from SED, while the threshold for differentiating MVPA from LPA decreased as the level of impairment increased. The average cross-validation accuracy for the VC_DT was 81.1%, 76.7%, and 82.9% for GMFCS levels I, II, and III, respectively. The corresponding cross-validation accuracy for the VM_DT was 80.5%, 75.6%, and 84.2%, respectively. Within each GMFCS level, the decision tree models achieved better PA intensity recognition than previously published cut-points. The accuracy differential was greatest among GMFCS level III participants, in whom the previously published cut-points misclassified 40% of the MVPA activity trials. CONCLUSION GMFCS-specific cut-points provide more accurate assessments of MVPA levels in youth with CP across the full spectrum of ambulatory ability.

Does vigorous physical activity provide additional benefits beyond those of moderate?

Background Although guidelines suggest that vigorous physical activity (PA) confers “extra” benefits compared with those from moderate-intensity activity alone, the magnitude of this additional benefit is unclear. The aim was to compare the reduction in risk of hypertension (HT) and depressive symptoms (DS) for 12 yr in middle-age women who reported (a) only moderate-intensity PA (MOPA) and (b) a combination of moderate and vigorous PA (MVPA), after controlling for overall volume of activity. Methods The study involved 11,285 participants in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, who completed surveys in 1998 (age = 46–52 yr), 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. Generalized estimating equation models (with 3-yr time lag) were used to examine the relationship between PA in seven categories from 0 to >2000 MET·min·wk−1 and occurrence of HT and DS for women who reported MOPA or MVPA. Results For HT, risk was slightly lower for MVPA than for MOPA across the entire range of PA levels, but this difference was only significant at the highest PA level (>2000; odds ratio [OR] = 0.80 MOPA and 0.56 MVPA). For DS, OR values were similar in both groups up to 500 MET·min·wk−1, then slightly lower for MVPA than for MOPA at higher PA levels. Again, this difference was only significant at the highest PA level (>2000; OR = 0.57 MOPA and 0.42 MVPA). OR values were slightly attenuated in adjusted models. Conclusions Doing both vigorous and moderate activity does not have significant additional benefits in terms of HT and DS, above those from moderate-intensity activity alone, except at very high levels of PA.

Response: Special communication: Letters to the Editor-in-Chief [Vigorous exercise in clinical practice: balancing risks and benefits]

The effects of different exercise intensities on health have been investigated in several studies in recent years, in which some authors showed greater benefits for vigorous exercise (6) while others did not find any differences (8). An important issue regarding these conflicting results could be the fact that only a few of the studies controlled the effects of different exercise intensities for the overall volume of physical activity, making the evaluation of the available data difficult.