Dataset Information

High-intensity aerobic interval training and resistance training are feasible in rectal cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy: a feasibility randomized controlled study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There has been growing evidence of the benefits of high-intensity aerobic interval training (HIIT) and resistance training (RES) for populations with cancer. However, these two modalities have not yet been performed alone in rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR T). Therefore, this study aimed to determine the feasibility of HIIT and RES in rectal cancer patients undergoing NACR T.

Materials and methods

Rectal cancer patients set to undergo NACRT were randomly assigned to HIIT intervention, RES intervention, or the usual care. Feasibility of HIIT and RES was assessed by measuring recruitment rate, adherence (retention rate, attendance rate, and exercise sessions duration and intensity), and adverse events. Endpoints (changes in fatigue, health-related quality of life, depression, daytime sleepiness, insomnia, sleep quality, functional exercise capacity, and executive function) were assessed at baseline and at week 5.

Results

Among the 20 eligible patients, 18 subjects were enrolled and completed the study, yielding a 90% recruitment rate and 100% retention rate. Attendance at exercise sessions was excellent, with 92% in HIIT and 88% in RES. No exercise-related adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that HIIT and RES are feasible in rectal cancer patients undergoing NACR T.

Trial registration

www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03252821 (date of registration: March 30, 2017).

SUBMITTER: Piraux E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9591035 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-intensity aerobic interval training and resistance training are feasible in rectal cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy: a feasibility randomized controlled study.

Piraux Elise E Reychler Gregory G Vancraeynest David D Geets Xavier X Léonard Daniel D Caty Gilles G

Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology 20220519 2

<h4>Background</h4>There has been growing evidence of the benefits of high-intensity aerobic interval training (HIIT) and resistance training (RES) for populations with cancer. However, these two modalities have not yet been performed alone in rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR T). Therefore, this study aimed to determine the feasibility of HIIT and RES in rectal cancer patients undergoing NACR T.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Rectal cancer patients set to under ...[more]

PMID: 36299392

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoststroke guidelines recommend moderate-intensity, continuous aerobic training (MCT) to improve aerobic capacity and mobility after stroke. High-intensity interval training (HIT) has been shown to be more effective than MCT among healthy adults and people with heart disease. However, HIT and MCT have not been compared previously among people with stroke.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and justification for a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing HIT and MCT in people with chronic stroke.DesignA preliminary RCT was conducted.SettingThe study was conducted in a cardiovascular stress laboratory and a rehabilitation research laboratory.PatientsAmbulatory people at least 6 months poststroke participated.InterventionBoth groups trained 25 minutes, 3 times per week, for 4 weeks. The HIT strategy involved 30-second bursts at maximum-tolerated treadmill speed alternated with 30- to 60-second rest periods. The MCT strategy involved continuous treadmill walking at 45% to 50% of heart rate reserve.MeasurementsMeasurements included recruitment and attendance statistics, qualitative HIT acceptability, adverse events, and the following blinded outcome variables: peak oxygen uptake, ventilatory threshold, metabolic cost of gait, fractional utilization, fastest treadmill speed, 10-Meter Walk Test, and Six-Minute Walk Test.ResultsDuring the 8-month recruitment period, 26 participants consented to participate. Eighteen participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the HIT group (n=13) or the MCT group (n=5). Eleven out of the 13 HIT group participants attended all sessions. Participants reported that HIT was acceptable and no serious adverse events occurred. Standardized effect size estimates between groups were moderate to very large for most outcome measures. Only 30% of treadmill speed gains in the HIT group translated into overground gait speed improvement.LimitationsThe study was not designed to definitively test safety or efficacy.ConclusionsAlthough further protocol optimization is needed to improve overground translation of treadmill gains, a definitive RCT comparing HIT and MCT appears to be feasible and warranted.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Anthracycline-based chemotherapy is associated with reduced cardiorespiratory fitness in breast cancer patients. High intensity interval training (HIIT) induces greater benefits on cardiorespiratory fitness than moderate continuous aerobic exercise in patients with heart failure. The study purpose was to determine whether a HIIT intervention is a feasible exercise strategy for breast cancer patients undergoing anthracycline-based chemotherapy. METHODS:Thirty women were randomized to either HIIT or non-exercise control group (CON). Participants performed a maximal cycling fitness test to measure peak power output during maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). The HIIT group participated in an 8-week HIIT intervention occurring 3 times weekly. Feasibility was calculated by computing (1) the average weekly minutes of HIIT over 8 weeks and (2) the number of sessions attended and multiplied by 100 (percentage of sessions). The intervention was considered feasible if more than 50% of participants completed both an average of 70% of weekly minutes (63/90 min) and attended 70% exercise sessions (17/24 sessions). RESULTS:Participants were 46.9 ± 9.8 (mean ± SD) years old, diagnosed with clinical stage II (30%) or III (63%) breast cancer. The average weekly minutes of exercise completed was 78 ± 5.1 out of 90 min. Twelve of 15 participants met both feasibility criteria, attending 19.2 ± 2.1 out of 24 sessions (82.3%). VO2max was maintained (19.7 ± 8.7 to 19.4 ± 6.6 ml/kg/min) in HIIT group (p = 0.94) while there was a significant decrease in VO2max (18.7 ± 7.1 to 16.1 ± 6.0 ml/kg/min) in CON group from baseline to 8 weeks (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:HIIT is a feasible exercise intervention to maintain VO2max in breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The protocol and informed consent were approved by the institutional IRB (HS-12-00227) and registered ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02454777; date of registration: May 272,015).

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this paper is to share the methodological problems of an unsuccessful prospective single-arm feasibility trial conducted to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a 12-week progressive exercise intervention for adults undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer, as well as offer recommendations for future trials.MethodsThe initial plan was to recruit adults diagnosed with rectal cancer and scheduled for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over a 12-month period. The exercise intervention was to consist of supervised exercise sessions delivered three times per week by a trained exercise specialist. Feasibility (i.e., recruitment, adherence, and compliance rates) and safety (i.e., adverse events) were to be assessed throughout the trial, and patient-reported and physical health outcomes were to be assessed pre- and post-intervention. After 8 months of open recruitment, we had been unable to successfully enroll patients into our trial. We therefore modified our eligibility criteria to increase the number of patients that could be recruited into our trial, and in turn increase our recruitment rate. We also amended our recruitment procedures to ensure we could reach patients who were either awaiting treatment, receiving treatment, or had completed treatments in the past 5 years. In doing so, we added a research objective, namely to determine the optimal timing of conducting an exercise intervention with adults diagnosed with rectal cancer (i.e., during neoadjuvant treatment, after surgery, during adjuvant treatment, or post-treatment).ResultsMany problems continued to hinder the progress of our trial, particularly the low recruitment rate and the failure to enroll the required sample size that would make our results reliable.ConclusionThis led us to conclude that our trial was not feasible and that it is advisable to consider some elements carefully (e.g., recruitment strategies, communication, and trial location) before designing and conducting future trials. If one or more of these elements still proves to be problematic, trial results risk being compromised and alternative approaches should be considered.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03049124 . Registered on 02 September 2017.

Project description:High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) involves bursts of high-intensity exercise interspersed with lower-intensity exercise recovery. HIIT may benefit cardiometabolic health in people with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We aimed to examine the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of 12-weeks of supervised HIIT compared with a sham-exercise control (CON) for improving aerobic fitness and peripheral insulin sensitivity in biopsy-proven NASH. Participants based in the community [(n = 14, 56 ± 10 years, BMI 39.2 ± 6.7 kg/m2, 64% male), NAFLD Activity Score 5 (range 3-7)] were randomized to 12-weeks of supervised HIIT (n = 8, 4 × 4 min at 85-95% maximal heart rate, interspersed with 3 min active recovery; 3 days/week) or CON (n = 6, stretching; 3 days/week). Safety (adverse events) and feasibility determined as ≥ 70% program completion and ≥ 70% global adherence (including session attendance, interval intensity adherence, and duration adherence) were assessed. Changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (V̇O2peak), exercise capacity (time-on-test) and peripheral insulin sensitivity (euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp) were assessed. Data were analysed using ANCOVA with baseline value as the covariate. There were no HIIT-related adverse events and HIIT was globally feasible [program completion 75%, global adherence 100% (including adherence to session 95.4 ± 7.3%, interval intensity 95.3 ± 6.0% and duration 96.8 ± 2.4%)]. A large between-group effect was observed for exercise capacity [mean difference 134.2 s (95% CI 19.8, 248.6 s), ƞ2 0.44, p = 0.03], improving in HIIT (106.2 ± 97.5 s) but not CON (- 33.4 ± 43.3 s), and for peripheral insulin sensitivity [mean difference 3.4 mg/KgLegFFM/min (95% CI 0.9,6.8 mg/KgLegFFM/min), ƞ2 0.32, p = 0.046], improving in HIIT (1.0 ± 0.8 mg/KgLegFFM/min) but not CON (- 3.1 ± 1.2 mg/KgLegFFM/min). HIIT is safe, feasible and efficacious for improving exercise capacity and peripheral insulin sensitivity in people with NASH. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (anzctr.org.au) identifier ACTRN12616000305426 (09/03/2016).

Project description:This study compared the acute physiological responses and performance changes during an integrated high-intensity interval aerobic and power protocol. Sixteen moderately trained athletes (age: 20.1 ± 2.2 years, body height: 180.0 ± 6.5 cm, body mass: 75.7 ± 6.4 kg, VO2max: 55.8 ± 4.3 mL/kg/min) performed a 2 × 6 min interval training protocol with 2 min passive recovery between sets on two different occasions in random and counterbalanced order. Each 6 min set included repeated periods of 15 s exercise interspersed with 15 s passive rest. On one occasion (RUN), all exercise periods included running at 100% of maximal aerobic speed, while on the other occasion an integrated protocol was used (INT) in which each of the two 6 min sets included 4 × 1.5 min periods of running exercise at 100% of maximal aerobic speed in combination with jumping (i.e., 2 × 15 running with 15 s rest and 1 × 15 s drop jumping with 15 s rest). Time spent above 85% HRmax was two-fold higher in INT compared to RUN (8.5 ± 3.6 vs. 4.3 ± 3.9 min, respectively, p = 0.0014). Interestingly, heart rate increased above 95% HRmax only in INT and almost no time was spent above 95% HRmax in RUN (1.4 ± 1.9 vs. 0.1 ± 0.2 min, respectively, p = 0.008). Blood lactate concentration at the end of the second set of INT was higher than RUN (7.3 ± 3.2 vs. 4.6 ± 2.7 mmol/L, p = 0.002). Countermovement jump was higher in INT after the end of second set by 6.4% (p = 0.04), 6.7% (p = 0.04), 7.8% (p < 0.01) and 7.3% (p < 0.001), at 2, 6 and 8 min after set 2. In conclusion, the comparison between INT and RUN shows that INT not only elicits higher physiological and metabolic responses, but also acutely enhances neuromuscular performance for at least 8 min after the end of exercise. The integrated running/jumping high-intensity interval exercise approach could be a very useful and time efficient method for strength and conditioning coaches, especially in team sports, in which the time available for the improvement of physical parameters is limited.

Project description:BackgroundKidney transplant recipients (KTRs) exhibit unique elevated inflammation, impaired immune function, and increased cardiovascular risk. Although exercise reduces cardiovascular risk, there is limited research on this population, particularly surrounding novel high-intensity interval training (HIIT). The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of HIIT in KTRs.MethodsTwenty KTRs (male 14; eGFR 58±19 mL/min/1.73 m2; age 49±11 years) were randomised and completed one of three trials: HIIT A (4-, 2-, and 1-min intervals; 80-90% watts at V̇O2peak), HIITB (4×4 min intervals; 80-90% V̇O2peak) or MICT (~40 min; 50-60% V̇O2peak) for 24 supervised sessions on a stationary bike (approx. 3x/week over 8 weeks) and followed up for 3 months. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, retention, and intervention acceptability and adherence.ResultsTwenty participants completed the intervention, and 8 of whom achieved the required intensity based on power output (HIIT A, 0/6 [0%]; HIITB, 3/8 [38%]; MICT, 5/6 [83%]). Participants completed 92% of the 24 sessions with 105 cancelled and rescheduled sessions and an average of 10 weeks to complete the intervention. Pre-intervention versus post-intervention V̇O2peak (mL/kg-1/min-1) was 24.28±4.91 versus 27.06±4.82 in HIITA, 24.65±7.67 versus 27.48±8.23 in HIIT B, and 29.33±9.04 versus 33.05±9.90 in MICT. No adverse events were reported.ConclusionsThis is the first study to report the feasibility of HIIT in KTRs. Although participants struggled to achieve the required intensity (power), this study highlights the potential that exercise has to reduce cardiovascular risk in KTRs. HIIT and MICT performed on a cycle, with some modification, could be considered safe and feasible in KTRs. Larger scale trials are required to assess the efficacy of HIIT in KTRs and in particular identify the most appropriate intensities, recovery periods, and session duration. Some flexibility in delivery, such as incorporating home-based sessions, may need to be considered to improve recruitment and retention.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN17122775 . Registered on 30 January 2017.

Dataset Information

High-intensity aerobic interval training and resistance training are feasible in rectal cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy: a feasibility randomized controlled study.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

High-intensity aerobic interval training and resistance training are feasible in rectal cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy: a feasibility randomized controlled study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets