Exercise and Psychosocial Interventions in Breast Cancer Survivors: Preliminary Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

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. Supported by the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center UCRF