Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Control Group Design, Contamination and Drop-Out in Exercise Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review

  • Charlotte N. Steins Bisschop,

    Affiliation Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands

  • Kerry S. Courneya,

    Affiliation Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Miranda J. Velthuis,

    Affiliation Comprehensive Cancer Center the Netherlands (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands

  • Evelyn M. Monninkhof,

    Affiliation Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands

  • Lee W. Jones,

    Affiliation Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America

  • Christine Friedenreich,

    Affiliations Department of Population Health Research, Cancer Control Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Canada, Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

  • Elsken van der Wall,

    Affiliation Cancer Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands

  • Petra H. M. Peeters,

    Affiliation Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands

  • Anne M. May

    A.M.May@umcutrecht.nl

    Affiliation Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands

Control Group Design, Contamination and Drop-Out in Exercise Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review

  • Charlotte N. Steins Bisschop, 
  • Kerry S. Courneya, 
  • Miranda J. Velthuis, 
  • Evelyn M. Monninkhof, 
  • Lee W. Jones, 
  • Christine Friedenreich, 
  • Elsken van der Wall, 
  • Petra H. M. Peeters, 
  • Anne M. May
PLOS
x

Abstract

Purpose

Important considerations for exercise trials in cancer patients are contamination and differential drop-out among the control group members that might jeopardize the internal validity. This systematic review provides an overview of different control groups design characteristics of exercise-oncology trials and explores the association with contamination and drop-out rates.

Methods

Randomized controlled exercise-oncology trials from two Cochrane reviews were included. Additionally, a computer-aided search using Medline (Pubmed), Embase and CINAHL was conducted after completion date of the Cochrane reviews. Eligible studies were classified according to three control group design characteristics: the exercise instruction given to controls before start of the study (exercise allowed or not); and the intervention the control group was offered during (any (e.g., education sessions or telephone contacts) or none) or after (any (e.g., cross-over or exercise instruction) or none) the intervention period. Contamination (yes or no) and excess drop-out rates (i.e., drop-out rate of the control group minus the drop-out rate exercise group) were described according to the three design characteristics of the control group and according to the combinations of these three characteristics; so we additionally made subgroups based on combinations of type and timing of instructions received.

Results

40 exercise-oncology trials were included based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. The lowest contamination (7.1% of studies) and low drop-out rates (excess drop-out rate -4.7±9.2) were found in control groups offered an intervention after the intervention period. When control groups were offered an intervention both during and after the intervention period, contamination (0%) and excess drop-out rates (-10.0±12.8%) were even lower.

Conclusions

Control groups receiving an intervention during and after the study intervention period have lower contamination and drop-out rates. The present findings can be considered when designing future exercise-oncology trials.

Introduction

There is growing evidence for beneficial effects of physical exercise in patients with cancer [13]. Pooled results of exercise oncology trials focusing on supervised and home-based exercise programs in several meta-analyses showed that exercise during and after cancer treatment is beneficial in terms of improved quality of life, physical fitness, reduced cancer-related fatigue and anxiety and depression [13]. Reported effect sizes were small to moderate, which might partially be explained by possible contamination in the control groups (i.e. control participants adopt the exercise intervention) [4].

In many exercise-oncology trials, patients are randomized to either an exercise intervention or a usual care (i.e., no exercise) control group. Given the nature of the intervention, blinding of the participants to their allocation is not possible, which then can create undesirable consequences in these trials because of the control group. First, inclusion of participants for the trial may be affected because eligible patients decide to refrain from participation because they do not want to be randomized to the control group [5]. Second, cancer patients participating in an exercise trial are highly motivated to exercise and, therefore, participants randomized to the control group may also increase their physical activity levels. They often change their behavior despite the request to maintain their usual activity pattern [6]. This non-compliance by controls may lead to a decrease of power to detect a significant intervention effect. Last, patients who first agreed to participate may drop out after being randomized to the control group.

In exercise trials, different designs have been used to address these issues with the control group participants in terms of: (A) the exercise instruction before the start of the intervention, (B) the intervention offered to controls during the study intervention and (C) the intervention offered to controls after the intervention [7]. In some trials the control group is asked to either maintain their usual lifestyle pattern during the study period or to refrain from exercise. Other trials offered the control group an alternative intervention during the study period, like stretching exercises. Finally, in some studies an intervention is offered after completion of the study. Thus far, the influence of these different study designs on contamination and drop-out within the controls has not been studied.

This review provides an overview of these different types of control groups applied in exercise-oncology trials and explores the influence on contamination and drop-out rates. In addition, we will explore the impact of restriction of pre-trial exercise level on contamination and drop-out rates. The aim of this review is to provide useful information to improve the design of future exercise oncology trials.

Methods

Search strategy

We included exercise oncology trials from two relevant Cochrane reviews on the effect of exercise during and after cancer treatment on fatigue and quality of life [1, 3]. Furthermore, we performed a computer-aided search for the trials published after these reviews (April 19, 2012 to August 16, 2013) using Medline (Pubmed), Embase and CINAHL. The following search terms were used: ‘exercise (with synonyms) and ‘cancer’ (with synonyms) and ‘trials’ (see S1 Table). The reference lists of identified studies were searched for additional relevant studies.

Inclusion criteria

We included randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of supervised or home-based exercise training on quality of life or cancer-related fatigue performed in adults older than 18 years diagnosed with cancer and treated curatively. Included studies evaluated the effects of exercise programs offered before, during or after their cancer treatment. Excluded were trials primarily aimed at behavioral change. We also excluded small pilot studies (<20 patients per study arm). Small studies were excluded because a small sample size may affect our study outcome: less effort is needed to prevent high drop-out rates or low study compliance than in large trials. No language restrictions were used.

Selection of studies

Two independent reviewers (CS, AM) screened the titles and abstracts of all identified studies for eligibility (n = 159). Full texts of potential relevant papers were subsequently read for inclusion.

Data extraction

For each study the following data were extracted: patient and disease characteristics (age and cancer type), information about the exercise intervention (i.e. timing of exercise intervention according to treatment; aerobic or resistance training; and supervised or home-based exercise, restriction of pre-trial exercise level (none or inactive/unfit), excess drop-out rates and contamination.

We computed the excess drop-out rate for each study by subtracting the drop-out rate in the exercise group from the drop-out rate in the control group. This estimation was done to standardize drop-out rates across studies.

We rated contamination (yes or no) for each study as defined by Waters et al. (2012) [7] as an increase of ≥ 60 minutes (= 4 Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET)-hours = 1 kcal/kg/hour) of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week in the control group, or a 10% increase in the proportion of participants in the control group meeting the study exercise prescription (e.g. physical activity guidelines). In addition, contamination was also scored to be present if reported by the authors using slightly different definitions. For example, in several home-based exercise trials, contamination was defined as exercising (moderate/strenuous) >60 minutes per week [8].

Two independent reviewers (CS, AM) extracted all information for all trials.

Data analysis

Data were described per study and according to three design characteristics of the control group:

  1. the exercise instruction given to the controls before start of the study: exercise allowed (n = 18) or exercise not allowed (n = 22).
  2. the intervention the control group was offered during the intervention period: any intervention offered (n = 21) or no intervention offered (n = 19). Any intervention included information about exercise (n = 1), education sessions (n = 4), regular telephone contacts (n = 6), stretching sessions (n = 2), relaxation training (n = 1), exercise diary (n = 2), regular phone calls and use of pedometers (n = 1) or regular phone calls and use of exercise diary or pedometers (n = 4). Note, that because of small numbers of studies these different interventions were combined into one category.
  3. the intervention for the control group was offered after the intervention period had ended: any intervention offered (n = 19) or no intervention offered (n = 21). Any intervention included a full cross-over study (n = 7), a partial cross-over (n = 2) or exercise prescriptions (n = 10).
    Each study was grouped according to the three design characteristics of the control group (A, B, C) and according to the combinations of these three characteristics. Data per subgroup were shown descriptively. Mean and standard deviations of the drop-out rates and contamination rates were calculated. Mean excess drop-out rates and contamination were also described by pre-trial exercise level (no restriction or inactive/unfit). Unfortunately, because of limited numbers performing inferential statistical analyses to test differences between groups and/or controlling for confounding factors was not feasible.

Results

From the two Cochrane reviews [1, 3] we included 28 studies. In the additional literature search, 1186 studies were found, of which 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Checking references in the papers led to two additional references. Fig. 1 shows the flowchart of included studies [4, 842]. Characteristics of each individual study are described in S2 Table.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Flowchart of included studies.

Exercise oncology trials of the literature search between 19-4-2012 and 16-8-2013 and from two Cochrane reviews updated on 19-4-2012 and 1-6-2012. [1,2].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120996.g001

Overall, information on contamination was reported in 30 out of 40 studies (75%) and drop-out rates were provided in 36 out of 40 studies (90%). Most studies included patients with mixed cancer types (40%), or with breast cancer only (38%). Most interventions were performed after treatment (35%), were supervised (48%),included an aerobic (55%) exercise program and included participants without pre-trial exercise restrictions (70%) (Table 1).

On average the studies had lower drop-out rates in the control as compared to the exercise intervention group (-2.3 ± 8.5%). This lower drop-out rate resulted in negative values for the excess drop-out rates. Contamination was present in 11 of 30 (37%) studies that reported on contamination.

The lowest contamination and drop-out rates were observed in studies with control groups that were offered an intervention after the intervention period (contamination in only 7.1% of studies, excess drop-out rate -4.7 ± 9.2%) (Table 2 and S3 Table) showing more detailed results for interventions during and after the intervention period).

Table 3, 4, and 5 show the results for contamination and drop-out for different combinations of the three design characteristics of the control group.

thumbnail
Table 3. Contamination and drop-out rate in the control group by (A) instruction before and (B) intervention during the study intervention period.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120996.t003

thumbnail
Table 4. Contamination and drop-out rate in the control group by (A) instruction before and (C) intervention after study intervention period.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120996.t004

thumbnail
Table 5. Contamination and drop-out rate in the control group by (B) intervention during and (C) after study intervention period.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120996.t005

Table 3 shows the lowest contamination in control groups with an instruction that allowed exercise during the intervention period combined with any kind of intervention during the study (contamination in 14.3% of 7 studies). Lowest drop-out rates were present in control groups that used no change in exercise as an instruction combined with any kind of intervention during the study (excess drop-out -7.1 ± 11.3%).

Table 4 shows lowest contamination (0 out of 7 studies) in control groups with an instruction that allowed exercise combined with any kind of intervention after the study. Lowest drop-out rates (excess drop-out rate -7.0 ± 12.2%) were found in control groups that used no change in exercise as an instruction combined with any kind of intervention after the intervention period.

Table 5 shows least contamination (0 studies out of 5) and lowest excess drop-out rates (-10.0 ± 12.8%) in control groups that received an intervention both during and after the intervention period.

With regard to designs resulting in more contamination and higher drop-out rates, there was no combination that uniformly results in more contamination and higher drop-out rates. Highest excess drop-out rate (1.8 ± 6.3%) was present in control groups with no intervention during the intervention period in combination with no intervention after the intervention period; while highest contamination (77.8%) was in control groups with an instruction before the intervention period including ‘no change in exercise’ in combination with no intervention after the intervention period (Table 45).

In studies that included participants irrespective of their exercise history, mean excess drop-out rate was -1.3 ± 6.5 and contamination was 38.1%. In studies that only allowed inactive or unfit participants excess drop-out rate was -4.6 ± 11.9 and contamination was 33.3% (data not shown in Tables).

Discussion

In this systematic review we present an overview of three different design characteristics of the control group and their influence on contamination and drop-out rates. Contamination was reported in 30/40 (75%) studies and drop-out rates were reported in 36/40 (90%) studies. Low contamination (7.1% of studies) and low drop-out rates (excess drop-out rate -4.7 ± 9.2) were found in control groups offered an intervention after the exercise intervention period, e.g. cross-over or exercise instruction. If control groups received an intervention both during (such as education sessions or regular telephone contacts) and after the intervention period, contamination (0%) and excess drop-out rates (-10.0 ± 12.8%) were even lower. In studies that included inactive or unfit patients only, excess drop-out rates were lower and contamination was slightly lower compared to studies without pre-trial exercise restrictions.

Contamination and drop-out rates are frequently mentioned as bias in control groups of exercise-oncology trials [4, 5, 43]. In order to prevent this bias, it is important to know which control group characteristics affect contamination and drop-out rates. In the literature little is known about the relationship between control group characteristics in exercise-oncology trials and contamination and drop-out rates. Waters et al. (2012) [7] investigated physical activity levels in control groups of physical intervention trials in the primary care setting. In line with our results, they found that minimal contamination was mostly found in control groups that were provided with some sort of intervention (defined as written and/or oral advice on physical activity).

In the present paper we focused on instructions or interventions for the control group as key factors that might influence contamination. In addition there are other possibilities in the design or analysis phase to handle contamination. Hertogh et al (2010) [6] providing recommendations about the expected behavior of the participants, not only at start but also throughout the study period. A better understanding of the study goals may result in better compliance [6]. Furthermore, in a pilot study we tested an adapted version of the Zelen design, in which only those who were randomized in the intervention group were informed about the exercise intervention, and for the patients randomized in the control group information about the detailed research aims was postponed until the end of the study [44]. However, patients were not enthusiastic about the incomplete information about the study, and the overall accrual into the study was low. Another option to account for contamination is in the data analyses phase. Researchers regularly perform per-protocol analyses when a high contamination rate exists. However, then random group allocation is not preserved and analyses can be highly biased because of selective non-compliance [45]. For example, control group participants who are highly motivated to exercise are more likely to initiate exercising [46]. Instrumental variable analysis is a promising method that could estimate, even in the presence of selective non-compliance, the causal effect of the intervention [6, 47].

A noteworthy finding of the current review is that drop-out rates were on average greater in the intervention group compared to drop-out in the control group. Future studies should focus on predictors of drop-out in both the intervention and the control group and also investigate whether these are distinct factors, which could be taken into account when designing exercise-oncology studies.

Although we performed a comprehensive systematic review, the following limitations have to be considered. The data indicate that the use of an alternative intervention in the control group during the study may reduce contamination and drop-out rates. However, whilst this might be the case, the effect of an alternative intervention upon the outcome of interest would also need to be considered to ensure that it does not mask a true effect of the experimental intervention. Additionally, difference in contamination or drop-out rates might not only be based on different instructions or interventions offered to the control group. Other factors, such as the type of cancer, pre-trial exercise restriction, sample size, age of participants, treatments received or length of intervention [6] might influence contamination and drop-out rates. Unfortunately, because of limited number of studies we are not able to perform inferential statistical analyses to control for confounding factors. We were also not able to statistically test differences between groups. Furthermore, for the same reason, we were not able to make the categories of control groups more precise. For example, the category ‘any’ intervention during the intervention period included both information about exercise and an alternative intervention like stretching, while differences in terms of contamination and drop out between these subcategories might exist. Even the current percentages that we present are based on a limited numbers of studies (often below 10) and thus should be interpreted with caution. Additionally, it is possible that studies with mainly low contamination were published and therefore publication bias might be an issue. Finally, in 25% of the included studies contamination was not reported. We recommend authors from exercise-oncology trials to assess physical activity levels in the control group and report contamination for a careful interpretation of the results.

Conclusion

The results from this systematic review suggest that control groups receiving an intervention after the exercise intervention period have low contamination and low drop-out rates. If control groups receive an additional intervention during the intervention period, this effect seems even stronger. For future exercise oncology trials, it might be beneficial to offer an intervention to the control group both during and after the study period to prevent contamination and drop out. The most optimal type of control group intervention needs further investigation.

Supporting Information

S2 Table. Characteristics of each individual study included in the review.

Abbreviations: Ref—references; NR—not reported

a. Instruction control group: BEFORE study intervention period: (A) not to exercise/change exercise/ continue as is (all implying no change); (B) allowed to exercise such as no advice, do what they want; (C) asked/ recommended to exercise

b. Intervention control group DURING study intervention period: (A) information about exercise; (B) education (session) unrelated to exercises; (C) phone calls unrelated to exercise; (D) stretching program; (E) relaxation training; (G) psycho-education; (H) keep exercise diary, regular PA questionnaire; (I) use pedometers/accelerometers; (J) outcome assessment during intervention

c. Intervention control group AFTER study intervention period: A) full cross-over; (B) partial cross-over;(C) single session;(D) exercise prescription; (E) Information about exercise

d. Control patients received weekly telephone calls by project director to report level of exercise and answer questions and provide equal contact and attention

e. +I, only 1st 2 weeks and last week

f. + access to the full range of psychosocial services

g. + light-intensity resistance exercise (not individualized)

h. 2-page leaflet "Exercise after cancer diagnosis"

i. Support to construct own personalized exercise plan and invited to join GP exercise referral scheme

j. Not discouraged from performing normal activities, but advised to rest and thinks easy if they became fatigue

* We rated contamination (yes or no) for each study as defined by Waters et al. (2012) (44) as an increase of ≥ 60 minutes (4 MET hours) of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week in the control group, or a 10% increase in the proportion of participants meeting the study exercise prescription (e.g. physical activity guidelines). In addition, contamination was also scored to be present if reported by the authors using slightly different definitions. For example, in several home-based exercise trials contamination was defined as exercising (moderate/strenuous) >60 minutes per week (32).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120996.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Contamination and excess drop-out rates by detailed interventions during and after the study intervention period

a. For contamination results data is given in number (percentages) of studies that reported contamination. Contamination was reported in 30/40 (75%) studies.

b. For drop-out rates data is given in mean ± standard deviation of studies that reported drop-out. Drop-out rates were reported in 36/40 (90%) studies.

c. Excess drop-out rate = drop-out rate control group—drop-out rate exercise group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120996.s003

(DOCX)

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: CS KC MV EM LJ CF EW PP AM. Performed the experiments: CS KC AM. Analyzed the data: CS KC AM. Wrote the paper: CS KC MV EM LJ CF EW PP AM.

References

  1. 1. Cramp F, Byron-Daniel J. Exercise for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11: CD006145. pmid:23152233
  2. 2. Fong DY, Ho JW, Hui BP Lee AM, Macfarlane DJ, Leung SS, et al. Physical activity for cancer survivors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2012;344: e70. pmid:22294757
  3. 3. Mishra SI, Scherer RW, Snyder C, Geigle PM, Berlanstein DR, Topaloglu O. Exercise interventions on health-related quality of life for people with cancer during active treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;8: CD008465. pmid:22895974
  4. 4. Courneya KS, Friedenreich CM, Quinney HA, Fields AL, jones LW, Fairey AS. A randomized trial of exercise and quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2003;12(4): 347–357. pmid:14982314
  5. 5. Courneya KS, Forbes CC, Trinh L, Sellar CM, Friedenreich CM, Reiman T. Patient satisfaction with participation in a randomized exercise trial: effects of randomization and a usual care posttrial exercise program. Clin Trials 2013;10(6): 959–966. pmid:23918843
  6. 6. Hertogh EM, Schuit AJ, Peeters PH, Monninkhof EM. Noncompliance in lifestyle intervention studies: the instrumental variable method provides insight into the bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63(8): 900–906. pmid:20189770
  7. 7. Waters L, Reeves M, Fjeldsoe B, Eakin E. Control group improvements in physical activity intervention trials and possible explanatory factors: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health 2012;9(6): 884–895. pmid:22898467
  8. 8. Mock V, Frangakis C, Davidson NE, Ropka ME, Pickett M, Poniatowski B, et al. Exercise manages fatigue during breast cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology 2005;14(6): 464–477. pmid:15484202
  9. 9. Adamsen L, Quist M, Andersen C, Moller T, Herrstedt J, Kronborg D, et al. Effect of a multimodal high intensity exercise intervention in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009;339: b3410. pmid:19826172
  10. 10. Arbane G, Tropman D, Jackson D, Garrod R. Evaluation of an early exercise intervention after thoracotomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), effects on quality of life, muscle strength and exercise tolerance: randomised controlled trial. Lung Cancer 2011;71(2): 229–234. pmid:20541832
  11. 11. Broderick JM, Guinan E, Kennedy MJ, Hollywood D, Courneya KS, Culos-Reed SN, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of a supervised exercise intervention in de-conditioned cancer survivors during the early survivorship phase: the PEACH trial. J Cancer Surviv 2013;7(4): 551–562. pmid:23749688
  12. 12. Cadmus LA, Salovey P, Yu H, Chung G, Kasl S, Irwin ML. Exercise and quality of life during and after treatment for breast cancer: results of two randomized controlled trials. Psychooncology 2009;18(4): 343–352. pmid:19242918
  13. 13. Courneya KS, Mackey JR, Bell GJ, Jones LW, Field CJ, Fairey AS. Randomized controlled trial of exercise training in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors: cardiopulmonary and quality of life outcomes. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(9): 1660–1668. pmid:12721239
  14. 14. Courneya KS, Friedenreich CM, Sela RA, Quinney HA, Rhodes RE, Handman M. The group psychotherapy and home-based physical exercise (group-hope) trial in cancer survivors: physical fitness and quality of life outcomes. Psychooncology 2003;12(4): 357–374. pmid:12748973
  15. 15. Courneya KS, Segal RJ, Mackey JR, Gelmon K, Reid RD, Friedenreich CM. Effects of aerobic and resistance exercise in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(28): 4396–4404. pmid:17785708
  16. 16. Courneya KS, Jones LW, Peddle CJ, Sellar CM, Reiman T, Joy AA, et al. Effects of aerobic exercise training in anemic cancer patients receiving darbepoetin alfa: a randomized controlled trial. Oncologist 2008;13(9): 1012–1020. pmid:18779540
  17. 17. Courneya KS, Sellar CM, Stevinson C, McNeely ML, Peddle CJ, Friedenreich CM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the effects of aerobic exercise on physical functioning and quality of life in lymphoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(27): 4605–4612. pmid:19687337
  18. 18. Daley AJ, Crank H, Saxton JM, Mutrie N, Coleman R, Roalfe A. Randomized trial of exercise therapy in women treated for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(13): 1713–1721. pmid:17470863
  19. 19. Dimeo FC, Thomas F, Raabe-Menssen C, Propper F, Mathias M. Effect of aerobic exercise and relaxation training on fatigue and physical performance of cancer patients after surgery. A randomised controlled trial. Support Care Cancer 2004;12(11): 774–779. pmid:15338385
  20. 20. Dodd MJ, Cho MH, Miaskowski C, Painter PL, Paul SM, Cooper BA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of home-based exercise for cancer-related fatigue in women during and after chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy. Cancer Nurs 2010;33(4): 245–257. pmid:20467301
  21. 21. Ergun M, Eyigor S, Karaca B, Kisim A, Uslu R. Effects of exercise on angiogenesis and apoptosis-related molecules, quality of life, fatigue and depression in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2013;22(5): 626–637. pmid:23731173
  22. 22. Galvao DA, Taaffe DR, Spry N, Joseph D, Newton RU. Combined resistance and aerobic exercise program reverses muscle loss in men undergoing androgen suppression therapy for prostate cancer without bone metastases: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(2): 340–347. pmid:19949016
  23. 23. Galvao DA, Spry N, Denham J, Taaffe DR, Cormie P, Joseph D, et al. A multicentre year-long randomised controlled trial of exercise training targeting physical functioning in men with prostate cancer previously treated with androgen suppression and radiation from TROG 03.04 RADAR. Eur Urol 2014;65(5): 856–864. pmid:24113319
  24. 24. Griffith K, Wenzel J, Shang J, Thompson C, Stewart K, Mock V. Impact of a walking intervention on cardiorespiratory fitness, self-reported physical function, and pain in patients undergoing treatment for solid tumors. Cancer 2009;115(20): 4874–4884. pmid:19637345
  25. 25. Hayes SC, Rye S, Disipio T, Yates P, Bashford J, Pyke C. Exercise for health: a randomized, controlled trial evaluating the impact of a pragmatic, translational exercise intervention on the quality of life, function and treatment-related side effects following breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;137(1): 175–186. pmid:23139058
  26. 26. Jacobsen PB, Phillips KM, Jim HS, Small BJ, Faul LA, Meade CD, et al. Effects of self-directed stress management training and home-based exercise on quality of life in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology 2013;22(6): 1229–1235. pmid:22715124
  27. 27. Kwiatkowski F, Mouret-Reynier MA, Duclos M, Leger-Enreille A, Bridon F, Hahn T. Long term improved quality of life by a 2-week group physical and educational intervention shortly after breast cancer chemotherapy completion. Results of the 'Programme of Accompanying women after breast Cancer treatment completion in Thermal resorts' (PACThe) randomised clinical trial of 251 patients. Eur J Cancer 2013;49(7): 1530–1538. pmid:23352440
  28. 28. Lin KY, Shun SC, Lai YH, Liang JT, Tsauo JY. Comparison of the effects of a supervised exercise program and usual care in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Cancer Nurs 2014;37(2): E21–E29. pmid:23357886
  29. 29. McNeely ML, Parliament MB, Seikaly H, Jha N, Magee DJ, Haykowsky MJ, et al. Effect of exercise on upper extremity pain and dysfunction in head and neck cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 2008;113(1): 214–222. pmid:18457329
  30. 30. Milne HM, Wallman KE, Gordon S, Courneya KS. Effects of a combined aerobic and resistance exercise program in breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;108(2): 279–288. pmid:17530428
  31. 31. Mutrie N, Campbell AM, Whyte F, McConnachie A, Emslie C, Lee L, et al. Benefits of supervised group exercise programme for women being treated for early stage breast cancer: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007;334(7592): 517. pmid:17307761
  32. 32. Saarto T, Penttinen HM, Sievanen H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Hakamies-Blomqvist L, Nikander R, et al. Effectiveness of a 12-month exercise program on physical performance and quality of life of breast cancer survivors. Anticancer Res 2012;32(9): 3875–3884. pmid:22993332
  33. 33. Samuel SR, Maiya GA, Babu AS, Vidyasagar MS. Effect of exercise training on functional capacity & quality of life in head & neck cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy. Indian J Med Res 2013;137(3): 515–520. pmid:23640558
  34. 34. Segal R, Evans W, Johnson D, Smith J, Colletta S, Gayton J, et al. Structured exercise improves physical functioning in women with stages I and II breast cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(3): 657–665. pmid:11157015
  35. 35. Segal RJ, Reid RD, Courneya KS, Malone SC, Parliament MB, Scott CG, et al. Resistance exercise in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(9): 1653–1659. pmid:12721238
  36. 36. Segal RJ, Reid RD, Courneya KS, Segal RJ, Kenny GP, Prud'Homme DG, et al. Randomized controlled trial of resistance or aerobic exercise in men receiving radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(3): 344–351. pmid:19064985
  37. 37. Tang MF, Liou TH, Lin CC. Improving sleep quality for cancer patients: benefits of a home-based exercise intervention. Support Care Cancer 2010;18(10): 1329–1339. pmid:19834744
  38. 38. Thorsen L, Skovlund E, Stromme SB, Hornslien K, Dahl AA, Fossa SDl. Effectiveness of physical activity on cardiorespiratory fitness and health-related quality of life in young and middle-aged cancer patients shortly after chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(10): 2378–2388. pmid:15800330
  39. 39. Wang YJ, Boehmke M, Wu YW, Dickerson SS, Fisher N. Effects of a 6-week walking program on Taiwanese women newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Cancer Nurs 2011;34(2): E1–13. pmid:20697267
  40. 40. Windsor PM, Nicol KF, Potter J. A randomized, controlled trial of aerobic exercise for treatment-related fatigue in men receiving radical external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2004;101(3): 550–557. pmid:15274068
  41. 41. Wiskemann J, Dreger P, Schwerdtfeger R, Bondong A, Huber G, Kleindienst N, et al. Effects of a partly self-administered exercise program before, during, and after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Blood 2011;117(9): 2604–2613. pmid:21190995
  42. 42. Yang CY, Tsai JC, Huang YC, Lin CC. Effects of a home-based walking program on perceived symptom and mood status in postoperative breast cancer women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. J Adv Nurs 2011;67(1): 158–168. pmid:20973811
  43. 43. Shang J, Wenzel J, Krumm S, Griffith K, Stewart K. Who will drop out and who will drop in: exercise adherence in a randomized clinical trial among patients receiving active cancer treatment. Cancer Nurs 2012;35(4): 312–322. pmid:22228393
  44. 44. Velthuis MJ, May AM, Monninkhof EM van der Wall E, Peeters PH. Alternatives for randomization in lifestyle intervention studies in cancer patients were not better than conventional randomization. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65(3): 288–292. pmid:21856119
  45. 45. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S. Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials 2012;9(1): 48–55. pmid:21948059
  46. 46. Little RJ, Long Q, Lin X. A comparison of methods for estimating the causal effect of a treatment in randomized clinical trials subject to noncompliance. Biometrics 2009;65(2): 640–649. pmid:18510650
  47. 47. Dunn G, Maracy M, Tomenson B. Estimating treatment effects from randomized clinical trials with noncompliance and loss to follow-up: the role of instrumental variable methods. Stat Methods Med Res 2005;14(4): 369–395. pmid:16178138