PurposeCancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) following chemotherapy is commonly reported in breast cancer survivors, even years after treatment. Data from preclinical studies suggest that exercise during chemotherapy may prevent or diminish cognitive problems; however, clinical data are scarce.MethodsThis is a pragmatic follow-up study of two original randomized trials, which compares breast cancer patients randomized to exercise during chemotherapy to non-exercise controls 8.5 years post-treatment. Cognitive outcomes include an online neuropsychological test battery and self-reported cognitive complaints. Cognitive performance was compared to normative data and expressed as age-adjusted z-scores.ResultsA total of 143 patients participated in the online cognitive testing. Overall, cognitive performance was mildly impaired on some, but not all, cognitive domains, with no significant differences between groups. Clinically relevant cognitive impairment was present in 25% to 40% of all participants, regardless of study group. We observed no statistically significant effect of exercise, or being physically active during chemotherapy, on long-term cognitive performance or self-reported cognition, except for the task reaction time, which favored the control group (β = -2.04, 95% confidence interval: -38.48; -2.38). We observed no significant association between self-reported higher physical activity levels during chemotherapy or at follow-up and better cognitive outcomes.ConclusionIn this pragmatic follow-up study, exercising and being overall more physically active during or after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer was not associated with better tested or self-reported cognitive functioning, on average, 8.5 years after treatment. Future prospective studies are needed to document the complex relationship between exercise and CRCI in cancer survivors.
MULTIFILE
PurposeThis study investigates patients’ experiences of interaction with their healthcare professionals (HCPs) during cancer treatment and identifies elements that HCPs can utilize to improve cancer care provision.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and Embase were systematically searched for relevant studies published from January 2010 until February 2022. Qualitative studies investigating adult patients’ perspectives on their interaction with HCPs during cancer treatment were included. Studies conducted during the diagnosis or end-of-life treatment phase were excluded. Duplicate removal, screening, and quality appraisal were independently performed by four reviewers using Covidence.org. We performed a thematic meta-synthesis of qualitative data extracted from studies meeting the quality criteria in three stages: excerpts coding, codes categorization, and theme identification by merging similar categories.ResultsEighty-eight studies were included for quality appraisal, of which 50 papers met the quality inclusion criteria. Three themes were identified as essential to positively perceived patient-HCP interaction: “Support, respect and agency”, “Quantity, timing, and clarity of information”, and “Confidence, honesty, and expertise”. Overall, patients experienced positive interaction with HCPs when the approach was person-centered and when HCPs possessed strong interpersonal skills. However, patients expressed negative experiences when their preferences regarding communication and the type of personal support needed were ignored.ConclusionsThis meta-synthesis emphasizes the importance for HCPs to recognize all patients’ needs, including communication and personal support preferences, to provide high-quality care. Consequently, healthcare professionals should continuously train their verbal and non-verbal communication, empathy, active listening, and collaboration skills during their undergraduate and continuing education.
MULTIFILE
This systematic review aims to get insight into the feasibility of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in patients with cancer prior to a physical exercise programme. We will focus on quality (defined as the adherence to international guidelines for methods of CPET) and safety of CPET. Furthermore, we compare the peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2peak) values of patients with cancer with reference values for healthy persons to put these values into a clinical perspective. A computer aided search with ‘cardiopulmonary exercise testing’ and ‘cancer’ using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pedro, CINAHL® and SPORTDiscus™ was carried out. We included studies in which CPET with continuous gas exchange analysis has been performed prior to a physical exercise programme in adults with cancer. Twenty studies describing 1158 patients were eligible. Reported adherence to international recommendations for CPET varied per item. In most studies, the methods of CPET were not reported in detail. Adverse events occurred in 1% of patients. The percentage V̇O2peak of reference values for healthy persons varied between 65% and 89% for tests before treatment, between 74% and 96% for tests during treatment and between 52% and 117% for tests after treatment. Our results suggest that CPET is feasible and seems to be safe for patients with cancer prior to a physical exercise programme. We recommend that standard reporting and quality guidelines should be followed for CPET methods. The decreased V̇O2peak values of patients with cancer indicate that physical exercise should be implemented in their standard care.
