1. Introduction
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer incidence and mortality increase each year, making it the second leading cause of death in the Americas after cardiovascular diseases. Cancer treatment can be neoadjuvant (presurgery) or adjuvant (postsurgery), which can consist of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and hematopoietic call transplantation [ 1 – 3 ]. Cancer treatment is aimed at restoring the function of the organ affected by the malignant tumor [ 4 ] or controlling the progression of neoplasia through DNA damage and mitotic spindle inhibition of cancer cells [ 5 , 6 ]. The adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment increases cancer patients' survival; however, it can generate negative side effects such as muscle atrophy, loss of functionality, reduced mobility, and fatigue related to cancer [ 7 ].
Cancer patients can present a high degree of fatigue perception that can last 5 to 6 weeks after cancer treatment and drastically affect quality of life [ 8 ]. The mechanisms involved in fatigue have been associated with the release of proinflammatory cytokines by the malignant neoplasia and cancer treatment that alters the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis [ 9 – 11 ] and generates a dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system [ 12 ]. Fatigue is defined as a “sensation of tiredness or distressing, persistent, subjective exhaustion related to cancer or cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent activity and interferes with normal functioning” [ 13 ].
Resistance training in cancer patients improves quality of life and increases adherence and success of cancer treatment, in addition to contributing to the increase in lean mass and body weight, preventing muscle mass loss, reducing its side effects, and increasing survival [ 14 – 16 ]. There are two systematic reviews that reported the effects of exercise and physical activity on fatigue levels in cancer survivors and patients with metastasis [ 17 , 18 ]; however, these studies did not include specific information regarding the dosage of resistance training and its effect during cancer treatment. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the resistance training (RT) to improve fatigue levels in people with cancer who are undergoing adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Protocol and Registration
The present systematic review of randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses was performed according to the report of elements for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) [ 19 ] and Cochrane recommendations [ 20 ]. The reference number of the International Registry of Prospective Systematic Review (PROSPERO) is CRD 42020196180.
2.2. Search Strategy and Article Selection
Studies were selected if they met the following inclusion criteria based on publication types based on the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS): (1) population: subjects over 18 years old with cancer who are undergoing cancer treatment; (2) intervention type: RT; (3) comparisons: other training type controls without intervention; (4) results: fatigue; and (5) studies: randomized clinical trials (RCT), published in English or Spanish. The articles were excluded if the sample consisted of people who were not undergoing cancer treatment.
An electronic search was performed until December 7, 2021, in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, PEDro, Cochrane, and EBSCO. The following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were included and combined for sensitive searches: “Cancer”; “radiotherapy”; “chemotherapy”; “fatigue” and “resistance exercise”. The search strategy used in the MEDLINE was as follows: ((((fatigue) AND (cancer)) AND (radiotherapy)) OR (chemotherapy)) AND (resistance exercise). The strategy was adapted according to each database and is specified in a supplementary file (available here ).
The articles were initially selected for screening of the title and the abstract, ending with a full text evaluation. Two evaluators (LB, RC) evaluated each scientific article independently. In case of disagreement or discrepancy in the inclusion or exclusion of any article, it was sent to an independent reviewer (IL), who decided in this respect to agree on its selection for the complete analysis of the article. The same process was performed to evaluate both methodological quality and level of evidence of included articles.
2.3. Data Extraction and Analyses
For data extraction, standardized forms adapted from the Cochrane Collaboration model [ 20 ] were used. The following aspects were considered to describe the characteristics of the studies: population (sex, age, number of participants per group, cancer type, and cancer treatment), intervention (type, duration, and frequency), and dosage of resistance exercise (type of external load, maximum repetition percentage (%1RM), increase load, number of sets, and repetitions). To describe the results of the selected studies, the following were considered: questionnaire type used to assess fatigue, effect size, and fatigue levels pre- and post-RT (variation percentage). The results of the perception of fatigue were evaluated according to total training time. Additionally, the effect size (ES) was calculated to determine the clinical relevance of the interventions with a 95% confidence interval, considering pre- and postintervention values. A small effect of the intervention was considered <20; a moderate effect, between 21 and 0.79; and a great effect, >0.80 [ 21 ]. The negative effect size represents a “worsening of symptoms” while the positive one represents an improvement [ 22 ]. All primary studies that presented descriptive values as mean and standard deviation were considered to ES calculation.
2.4. Quality Assessment
To evaluate the methodology quality and the risk of bias of the included RCT, we used the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale [ 23 ]. The PEDro scale allows the bias rating of articles according to a cut-off score. The studies with a 10-9 score correspond to an excellent quality methodology, those with an 8-6 score correspond to a good methodology quality, those with a 4-5 score correspond to an acceptable methodology quality, and those that had a score lower than 4 correspond to a bad methodology quality [ 24 , 25 ].
The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale was used to evaluate the level of evidence categorizing it into 4 levels: high, moderate, low, and very low [ 26 ]. GRADE considers 5 criteria: limitations in study design, indirectness of evidence, heterogeneity, imprecision of results, and publication bias. Each criterion is evaluated as follows: not serious, serious, and very serious considering a consensus between two raters [ 21 ]. The high characterization reflects that there is a high confidence in the coincidence between the real and the estimated effect; the moderate quality level corresponds to a moderate confidence in the estimate effect; that is, there is a possibility that the real effect is far from the estimated effect. On the contrary, a low and very low quality of evidence reflects that there is uncertainty regarding the intervention effects [ 26 , 27 ].
2.5. Statistical Methods
A descriptive synthesis was performed considering the mean, standard deviation, distribution by frequency, and percentage of the results of the primary studies. In addition, the meta-analysis was calculated to determine the effects of resistance training on fatigue levels. The analysis was performed using means and standard deviations from each selected clinical trial. Results of some questionnaires indicated an increase in fatigue levels while others indicated a decrease, according to the direction of questions. The mean values of a group of studies were multiplied by -1 to ensure that all instruments point in the same direction [ 20 ]. The difference in standardized means and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an inverse variance model of random effects for the meta-analysis, considering postintervention data. Heterogeneity data between studies was evaluated using the I 2 statistic, and P value was set at 0.01. The statistical analysis was performed with five revisions of RevMan management software (version 5.3).
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
The electronic search identified a total of 523 studies across 8 scientific databases, and 15 randomized clinical trials were included. Details on the selection of studies are in Figure 1 .
3.2. Study Characteristics
The characteristics of the fifteen studies selected are shown in Table 1 . The sample studied in general included 1439 adults with an age range from 18 years to 78 years old. Regarding cancer type, 6 articles were found on subjects with stage 0-III breast cancer [ 28 – 33 ], two on subjects with head-neck cancer [ 34 , 35 ], four on subjects of prostate cancer [ 36 – 39 ], two articles on subjects with hematological neoplasms (leukemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and myelodysplastic syndrome) [ 40 , 41 ], and one article on subjects of germ cell cancer [ 42 ]. According to the type of cancer treatment, in five articles, subjects were undergoing chemotherapy [ 28 – 31 , 41 ]; in seven clinical trials, the sample received radiotherapy [ 28 , 32 , 33 , 37 , 38 ]; in two articles, the subjects were undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [ 40 , 41 ]; and in two studies, the subjects underwent androgen deprivation therapy [ 36 , 39 ].
Regarding the intervention group, the duration of the RT was seven [ 34 ], six [ 40 , 41 ], eight [ 38 ], nine [ 42 ], twelve [ 28 – 31 , 35 , 36 ], and twenty-four weeks [ 37 , 39 ]. Regarding the RT characteristics, in five studies, a RT with resistance bands [ 35 , 38 – 41 ] was performed and nine articles performed a progressive RT [ 29 – 34 36 , 37 , 42 ]. With regard to the progressive training load, 60%-70% of 1RM [ 28 – 30 , 36 , 37 ], 60%-80% 1RM [ 31 – 33 ], and 15-12% RM [ 42 ] were used; Grote et al.'s study did not specify the percentage of 1RM [ 34 ]. Only the study by Cheng et al. uses traditional strength training using 60% 1RM [ 28 ] ( Table 1 ).
The control group in 12 studies did not receive any type of intervention, and the subjects continued their daily activities and medical care as usual [ 28 – 30 , 33 – 38 , 40 – 42 ]. In two articles, the control group subjects received an intervention corresponding to progressive muscular relaxation according to Jacobson [ 31 ]. Only in one study did the control group perform aerobic training [ 39 ] ( Table 1 ).
3.3. Quality Assessment
Regarding the methodological quality of the primary studies, 86.6% presented a good methodological quality and 13.3% acceptable methodological quality. According to critical criteria, the sample was randomly assigned in all the selected studies, the allocation was concealed in 66.6%, and in 33.3% of the articles, it was not concealed; the groups were similar at the baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators in all studies. Regarding the criteria for blinding the therapist and subjects, these were not met in all the selected articles; likewise and in relation to the blinded evaluators, only two study met this criterion [ 36 , 42 ]. Details of the methodological quality of the studies are presented in a supplementary file.
The effect of the intervention on fatigue levels is described in detail in Table 2 . Three articles reported lower fatigue levels in the group that underwent progressive resistance training compared to a control group [ 36 , 37 , 42 ] and compared to the group that underwent muscle relaxation [ 33 ]. In addition, only tree studies that used a resistance training with resistance bands showed to be effective to reduce the fatigue compared to the control group [ 28 , 38 , 41 ]. On the other hand, nine clinical trials that used RT as an intervention did not report significant changes in fatigue levels of the intervened subjects [ 29 – 32 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 40 ].
3.4. Results of Individual Studies
Thirteen out of the fifteen selected studies presented the mean and standard deviation to calculate the ES of the intervention [ 28 – 31 , 33 – 42 ]. The articles that demonstrated positive effects for fatigue levels have an ES between -0.47 and 1.17, with CI values of the studies ranging from -1.01 to 2.09 [ 31 , 33 , 36 – 38 , 41 , 42 ]. The effectiveness of resistance training to reduce fatigue levels based on the GRADE approach is presented in Tables 3 and 4 .
3.5. Meta-Analysis
Eight studies reported data that allowed quantifying the effects of resistance training lasting from 10 to 35 sessions [ 31 – 35 , 38 , 40 – 42 ]. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) showed a significant reduction in fatigue levels after resistance training in people with cancer compared to the control group (SMD = −0.31; CI 95% = −0.50 and -0.12; P = 0.001), without significant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0%; P = 0.65) ( Figure 2 ).
Five studies reported data that allowed quantifying the effects of resistance training that lasted more than 35 sessions [ 29 , 30 , 36 , 37 , 39 ]. The pooled SMD estimated did not show significant changes in postexercise fatigue levels in people with cancer compared to the control group (SMD = 0.52; CI 95% = −0.26 to 1.31; P = 0.19), with significantly high heterogeneity ( I 2 = 95%; P ≤ 0.00001) ( Figure 3 ).
3.6. Publication Bias
Publication bias was estimated for eight studies that performed an intervention of 10 to 35 sessions. According to the funnel plot, there is no evident asymmetry, therefore indicating an absence of publication bias in this meta-analysis ( Figure 4 ). On the other hand, five studies that carried out an intervention of more than 35 sessions have a publication bias, since all the studies are the outside area in the funnel plot ( Figure 5 ).
3.7. Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed to test the effect of studies with fair methodological quality and studies with smaller sample sizes. As for the influence of studies with regular methodological quality [ 41 ], the results did not change in favor of resistance training compared to the control groups and the SMD was reduced from -0.31 to -0.28, without significant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0%; P = 0.83). Likewise, regarding studies with a small sample size [ 34 , 35 , 41 ], these do not influence the results reported in the meta-analysis; the SMD changes from -0.31 to -0.32 without significant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0%; P = 0.95).
4. Discussion
The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of resistance training to better the fatigue levels in cancer patients that are undergoing adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment.
In relation to the quantitative analysis, the results of the meta-analysis show that resistance training with 10 to 35 sessions using elastic bands and/or an external load between 60% and 80% of the 1RM generates significant changes to reduce fatigue levels compared to a control group. On the other hand, the group intervened with resistance training with a number equal to or greater than 35 sessions did not generate significant changes in fatigue levels compared to the control group.
The findings reported in this systematic review are like those obtained in two published meta-analyses [ 17 , 18 ]. The study by Hilfiker et al. [ 17 ] reported that any type of exercise significantly reduces fatigue levels in subjects who are receiving adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy or after cancer treatment. Likewise, the study by Kessels et al. [ 18 ] reported the positives effects of aerobic exercises and combined exercises in reducing fatigue. Even though both meta-analyses [ 17 , 18 ] support exercises to reduce fatigue, they lack an analysis regarding the specificity of resistance exercise, dosage, and the level of scientific evidence. However, despite the lack of specificity in terms of dosage, exercise and physical activity have been shown to significantly reduce fatigue related to any type of cancer [ 43 ].
The etiology of fatigue related to cancer and cancer treatment is still not completely clear; however, there are multiple causal mechanisms that have been postulated, such as emotional and cognitive factors, genetic variants, proinflammatory mechanisms, immune response, and molecular mechanisms involved in cachexia that generates neuromuscular complications and that could further exacerbate fatigue [ 44 ]. Regarding proinflammatory mechanisms, it has been hypothesized that the beneficial effects of exercise are related to the release of IL-6 myokine from the muscle, which generates negative feedback on the production of proinflammatory cytokines IL1- β and TNF- α [ 45 ]. Only one study [ 32 ] included in this systematic review reported that resistance exercise reduces proinflammatory makers associated with a reduction in physical fatigue in subjects with breast cancer. However, no specific data were reported on fatigue levels. Likewise, a pervious study [ 46 ] reported an inverse correlation between improved strength/muscle mass with reduced inflammation and decreased fatigue levels in survivors of breast cancer subjects trained with resistance exercise. Therefore, resistance exercise through its benefits in reducing proinflammatory markers could reduce fatigue levels in cancer patients. However, there is a lack of more randomized clinical trials that provide more specific and categorical estimates of mechanisms involved in reducing fatigue.
Resistance exercise can play an important role in cancer patients, since through the reduction in inflammation previously mentioned, the decrease in catabolism, and the increase in satellite cells in type II muscle fibers, it allows reducing muscle atrophy related to cachexia in cancer [ 47 , 48 ]. According to the above, adequate function and muscle mass generate significant improvements in fatigue symptoms, reduce the side effects of cancer treatment, reduce depression, improves the quality of life, and increases survival in patients undergoing resistance training [ 49 , 50 ].
The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis reported an update of the kinesiology clinical practice, with a synthesis at moderate to high level of evidence according to GRADE on the effectiveness of resistance training of 10 to 35 sessions to reduce fatigue levels in cancer with a moderate to strong magnitude of the effect. Likewise, the synthesis of the evidence according to GRADE is high on the effectiveness of resistance training greater than or equal to 36 sessions to reduce fatigue levels in cancer with minimal to moderate effect magnitude.
The clinical guidelines have established that resistance exercise is safe for cancer patients either during or after cancer treatment. It is recommended at a moderate intensity and a frequency of 2-3 times a week, involving large muscle groups; however, the lack of personalization of the exercise regimes is a limitation [ 51 ]. Future clinical trials should consider for targeted planning of each patient and a more specific evaluation that considers critical variables such as physical fitness, lifestyle habits such as a sedentary lifestyle and smoking, comorbidities present in the patient, cancer type, and treatment regimens as well as possible side effects of cancer treatment. In addition, they should consider the chronic effects of resistance exercise on fatigue levels, with long-term follow-up.
The limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis are mainly related to the following: (1) different volumes of training and exercise protocols were used in the primary studies; (2) few studies greater than or equal to 36 sessions were incorporated into the meta-analysis; (3) moderate heterogeneity and publication bias of studies greater than or equal to 36 sessions may indicate variability in the estimation of the effect; (4) three included studies had a small sample size which could influence a possible overestimation; (5) two studies did not show descriptive data for the main variable; (6) different types of questionnaires were used for evaluating fatigue; (7) different cancer treatments were employed in the sample; and (8) the sample presents different types of cancer.
5. Conclusions
Based on the limitations of the current evidence mentioned above, we recommend for future research to conduct randomized clinical trials with larger sample size and duration of resistance training greater than 36 sessions in people with cancer during oncology treatment.
Despite the above limitations, it can conclude that resistance training of 10 to 35 sessions is effective in reducing fatigue levels in cancer subjects who are undergoing cancer treatment with a moderate quality level of evidence.
Data Availability
All data are presented in Results and supported by the supplemental file.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Authors' Contributions
LB Contreras was responsible for the conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, resources, validation, visualization, original draft preparation, and review and editing of the paper. CR Cid was responsible for the data curation, formal analysis, methodology, resources, and original draft preparation. LA Lorca was responsible for the formal analysis, validation, visualization, original draft preparation, and review and editing of the paper. IL Ribeiro was responsible for the conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, original draft preparation, and review and editing of the paper.
Supplementary Materials
Search strategy. Form for data collection of studies. Supplementary Table 1: identification of included studies in the review ranked according to the PEDro scale.
Click here for additional data file.
1 Baskar R. Itahana K. Radiation therapy and cancer control in developing countries: can we save more lives International Journal of Medical Sciences 2017 14 1 13 17 10.7150/ijms.17288 2-s2.0-85008693018 28138304 PMC5278654
2 Canter R. J. Chemotherapy: does neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy improve outcomes? Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America 2016 25 4 861 872 10.1016/j.soc.2016.05.013 2-s2.0-84992612713 27591503
3 Allan C. Collins V. Frydenberg M. McLachlan R. Matthiesson K. Androgen deprivation therapy complications Endocrine-Related Cancer 2014 21 119 129 10.1530/ERC-13-0467 24872511
4 Govindan R. Morgensztern D. Principios y práctica quirúrgica en el tratamiento oncológico in Manual Washington de Oncología 2016 3rd edition Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (United States: Philadelphia)
5 Sundahl N. Duprez F. Ost P. De Neve W. Mareel M. Effects of radiation on the metastatic process Molecular Medicine 2018 24 1 p. 16 10.1186/s10020-018-0015-8 2-s2.0-85057236685 PMC6016893 30134800
6 Pinedo H. Giaccone G. Chemotherapy Lancet 1997 349 Supplement 2 SII7 SII9 9164439 10.1016/s0140-6736(97)90012-x
7 Baracos V. Mazurak V. Bhullar A. Cancer cachexia is defined by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass Annals of Palliative Medicine 2019 8 1 3 12 10.21037/apm.2018.12.01 2-s2.0-85060602339 30685982
8 Yang S. Chu S. Gao Y. A narrative review of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and its possible pathogenesis Cell 2019 8 7 p. 738 10.3390/cells8070738 31323874 PMC6679212
9 O’Higgins C. Brady B. O’Connor B. Walsh D. Reilly R. The pathophysiology of cancer-related fatigue: current controversies Supportive Care in Cancer 2018 26 10 3353 3364 10.1007/s00520-018-4318-7 2-s2.0-85049226779 29961146
10 Bower J. The role of neuro-immune interactions in cancer-related fatigue: biobehavioral risk factors and mechanisms Cancer 2019 125 3 353 364 10.1002/cncr.31790 2-s2.0-85059443060 30602059 PMC6502236
11 Cuneo M. Schrepf A. Slavich G. Diurnal cortisol rhythms, fatigue and psychosocial factors in five-year survivors of ovarian cancer Psychoneuroendocrinology 2017 84 139 142 28711723 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.06.019 PMC5575993
12 Simó M. Navarro X. Yuste V. Bruna J. Autonomic nervous system and cancer Clinical Autonomic Research 2018 28 3 301 314 10.1007/s10286-018-0523-1 2-s2.0-85044470166 29594605
13 Berger A. Gerber L. Mayer D. Cancer-related fatigue Cancer 2012 118 S8 2261 2269 10.1002/cncr.27475 2-s2.0-84859639883 22488700
14 Pin F. Couch M. Bonetto A. Preservation of muscle mass as a strategy to reduce the toxic effects of cancer chemotherapy on body composition Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care 2018 12 4 420 426 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000382 2-s2.0-85055779004 30124526 PMC6221433
15 Padilha C. Marinello P. Galvão D. Evaluation of resistance training to improve muscular strength and body composition in cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis Journal of Cancer Survivorship 2017 11 3 339 349 10.1007/s11764-016-0592-x 2-s2.0-85008224690 28054255
16 Meneses J. González E. Ramírez R. Supervised exercise reduces cancer-related fatigue: a systematic review Journal of Physiotherapy 2015 61 1 3 9 10.1016/j.jphys.2014.08.019 2-s2.0-84921605041 25511250
17 Hilfiker R. Meichtry A. Eicher M. Exercise and other non-pharmaceutical interventions for cancer-related fatigue in patients during or after cancer treatment: a systematic review incorporating an indirect-comparisons meta-analysis British Journal of Sports Medicine 2018 52 10 651 658 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096422 2-s2.0-85026286168 28501804 PMC5931245
18 Kessels E. Husson O. van der Feltz-Cornelis C. The effect of exercise on cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2018 14 479 494 10.2147/NDT.S150464 2-s2.0-85042014247 29445285 PMC5810532
19 Page M. McKenzie J. Bossuyt P. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews International Journal of Surgery 2021 88 p. 105906 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 33789826
20 Higgins J. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M. J. Welch V. A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2019 John Wiley & Sons 10.1002/9781119536604 PMC10284251 31643080
21 Dominguez S. Effect size, a quick guide Educación Medica 2018 19 4 251 254 10.1016/j.edumed.2017.07.002 2-s2.0-85028544623
22 Durlak J. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2009 34 9 917 928 10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004 2-s2.0-65349127847 19223279
23 Pedro Physiotherapy Evidence Database 2018 Sydney, NSW, Australia The Center for Evidence-Based Physiotherapy http://www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au/
24 Maher G. Sherrington C. Herbert R. Moseley A. Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials Physical Therapy 2003 83 8 713 721 10.1093/ptj/83.8.713 12882612
25 Verhagen A. De Vet H. De Bie R. The delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by delphi consensus Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998 51 12 1235 1241 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00131-0 2-s2.0-0032417075 10086815
26 Aguayo J. Flores B. Soria V. GRADE system: classification of quality of evidence and strength of recommendation Cirugía Española 2014 92 2 82 88 10.1016/j.ciresp.2013.08.002 2-s2.0-84893795245 24361098
27 Neumann I. Pantoja T. Peñaloza B. Cifuentes L. Rada G. The GRADE system: a change in the way of assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations Revista Médica de Chile 2014 142 5 630 635 10.4067/S0034-98872014000500012 2-s2.0-84906826708 25427021
28 Cheng D. Wang X. Hu J. Effect of tai chi and resistance training on cancer-related fatigue and quality of life in middle-aged and elderly cancer patients Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine 2021 27 4 265 272 10.1007/s11655-021-3278-9 33420583
29 Courneya K. Segal R. Mackey J. Effects of aerobic and resistance exercise in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007 25 28 4396 4404 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.2024 2-s2.0-35348853149 17785708
30 Courneya K. Segal R. Gelmon K. Six-month follow-up of patient-rated outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of exercise training during breast cancer chemotherapy Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 2007 16 12 2572 2578 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0413 2-s2.0-38849149581 18086760
31 Schmidt M. Wiskemann J. Armbrust P. Schneeweiss A. Ulrich C. Steindorf K. Effects of resistance exercise on fatigue and quality of life in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy: a randomized controlled trial International Journal of Cancer 2015 137 2 471 480 10.1002/ijc.29383 2-s2.0-84929253175 25484317
32 Schmidt M. Meynköhn A. Habermann N. Resistance exercise and inflammation in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant radiation therapy: mediation analysis from a randomized, controlled intervention trial International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics 2016 94 2 329 337 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.10.058 2-s2.0-84953387324 26853341
33 Steindorf K. Schmidt M. Klassen O. Randomized, controlled trial of resistance training in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy: results on cancer-related fatigue and quality of life Annals of Oncology 2014 25 11 2237 2243 10.1093/annonc/mdu374 2-s2.0-84929258087 25096607
34 Grote M. Maihöfer C. Weigl M. Davies-Knorr P. Belka C. Progressive resistance training in cachectic head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy: a randomized controlled pilot feasibility trial Radiation Oncology 2018 13 1 10 30400971 10.1186/s13014-018-1157-0 PMC6219249
35 Rogers L. Anton P. Fogleman A. Pilot, randomized trial of resistance exercise during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer Head and Neck 2013 35 8 1178 1188 10.1002/hed.23118 2-s2.0-84880702737 22847995
36 Segal R. Reid R. Courneya K. Resistance exercise in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer Journal of Clinical Oncology 2003 21 9 1653 1659 10.1200/JCO.2003.09.534 2-s2.0-0038811748 12721238
37 Segal R. Reid R. Courneya K. Randomized controlled trial of resistance or aerobic exercise in men receiving radiation therapy for prostate cancer Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009 27 3 344 351 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.4963 2-s2.0-58549096519 19064985
38 Piraux E. Caty G. Renard L. Effects of high-intensity interval training compared with resistance training in prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy: a randomized controlled trial Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 2021 24 1 156 165 10.1038/s41391-020-0259-6 32719354
39 Santa Mina D. Alibhai S. Matthew A. A randomized trial of aerobic versus resistance exercise in prostate cancer survivors In Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 2013 21 4 455 478 10.1123/japa.21.4.455 23238110
40 Hacker E. Collins E. Park C. Peters T. Patel P. Rondelli D. Strength training to enhance early recovery after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 2017 23 4 659 669 10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.12.637 2-s2.0-85011588664 28042020
41 Hacker E. Larson J. Kujath A. Peace D. Rondelli D. Gaston L. Strength training following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation Cancer Nursing 2011 34 3 238 249 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181fb3686 2-s2.0-79955563787 21116175 PMC3085978
42 Christensen J. Tolver A. Andersen J. Rørth M. Daugaard G. Hojman P. Resistance training does not protect against increases in plasma cytokine levels among germ cell cancer patients during and after chemotherapy Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2014 99 8 2967 2976 10.1210/jc.2013-4495 2-s2.0-84905842940 25050898
43 Ebede C. Jang Y. Escalante C. Cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivorship Medical Clinics of North America 2017 101 6 1085 1097 10.1016/j.mcna.2017.06.007 2-s2.0-85028354508 28992856
44 Twomey R. Aboodarda S. Kruger R. Culos-Reed S. Temesi J. Millet G. La fatigue neuromusculaire au cours de l'exercice: considerations methodologiques, etiologie et role potentiel dans la fatigue chronique Neurophysiologie Clinique 2017 47 2 95 110 10.1016/j.neucli.2017.03.002 2-s2.0-85018297762 28434551
45 Wood L. Nail L. Winters K. Wood L. Nail L. Does muscle-derived interleukin-6 mediate some of the beneficial effects of exercise on cancer treatment-related fatigue Oncology Nursing Forum 2009 36 5 519 524 10.1188/09.ONF.519-524 2-s2.0-77949320723 19726392 PMC3113554
46 Hagstrom A. Marshall P. Lonsdale C. The effect of resistance training on markers of immune function and inflammation in previously sedentary women recovering from breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2016 155 3 471 482 10.1007/s10549-016-3688-0 2-s2.0-84959121022 26820653
47 Alves de Lima E. Teixeira A. Biondo L. Exercise reduces the resumption of tumor growth and proteolytic pathways in the skeletal muscle of mice following chemotherapy Cancers (Basel) 2020 12 11 p. 3466 10.3390/cancers12113466 33233839 PMC7699885
48 Møller A. Lønbro S. Farup J. Molecular and cellular adaptations to exercise training in skeletal muscle from cancer patients treated with chemotherapy Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 2019 145 6 1449 1460 10.1007/s00432-019-02911-5 2-s2.0-85065978402 30968255 PMC11810380
49 Christensen J. Simonsen C. Hojman P. Exercise training in cancer control and treatment Comprehensive Physiology 2018 9 165 205 10.1002/cphy.c180016 2-s2.0-85058760107 30549018
50 Henshall C. Allin L. Aveyard H. A systematic review and narrative synthesis to explore the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions in improving fatigue, dyspnea, and depression in lung cancer survivors Cancer Nursing 2019 42 4 295 306 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000605 2-s2.0-85068736401 29787385
51 Segal R. Zwaal C. Green E. Exercise for people with cancer: a clinical practice guideline Current Oncology 2017 24 1 40 46 10.3747/co.24.3376 2-s2.0-85014483434 28270724 PMC5330628