119
Views
27
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Tracking steps in oncology: the time is now

, &
Pages 2439-2447 | Published online: 03 Aug 2018

Abstract

Purpose

Accurate evaluation of patients’ health status is a key component of the workup, treatment, and follow-up of cancer patients. Assessments by clinicians (eg, performance status, toxicity grade) and patients (eg, quality of life) play a critical role in current practice but have significant limitations. Technological advances now provide an opportunity to track a new class of objective measures of patient activity, such as daily step counts. Here, we describe recent efforts to incorporate this technology into the field of oncology.

Design

We conducted a structured literature search using MEDLINE electronic database to identify published observational studies of tracking steps in cancer patients and trials of exercise programs for cancer survivors incorporating pedometers until February 2016.

Results

Data indicate that physical activity information may supplant existing scales for the assessment of cancer patients’ functional capacity.

Conclusion

Objective activity monitoring is poised to revolutionize the way health care providers assess cancer patients at the time of diagnosis, during treatment, and in the survivorship setting.

Assessing the cancer patient

Approximately 40% of the general population will be diagnosed with cancer,Citation1 with the number of new cases expected to rise by nearly 70% over the next two decades. Fortunately, oncologic outcomes are improving, and advances in cancer detection and management have increased 5-year survival rates to ~70%.Citation2 As the number of cancer cases and cancer survivors continues to climb, it is imperative that we explore novel methods of evaluating our patients and tracking their progress through treatment and survivorship.

In current practice, health care professionals primarily assess patients’ functional status using clinician-reported measures. Performance status (PS) is a semiquantitative score assigned by clinicians based on a patient’s apparent physical abilities and activity level. Commonly used PS scales for adult patients include the Karnofsky scale and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)/Zubrod scale. While these tools are ingrained in the clinical research arena and may be used to guide routine clinical care, they have significant limitations. Important weaknesses of these tools include large interobserver variability and difficulty in capturing changes in PS using discrete PS categories.Citation3Citation5 In a study comparing physician assessments to objective measurements, 80% of patients who were assigned ECOG PS scores of 0 or 1 actually spent >50% of waking hours resting, which corresponds to a PS score of 3.Citation6 There is a large variation within ECOG PS categories that necessitates more detailed and discriminate assessment of physical function than what is captured.

Increasingly, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are recognized as important assessment tools that may have more relevance than clinician-scored measures in certain settings.Citation7 However, self-administered instruments may suffer from recall bias, poor-quality reporting, and missing or inconsistent data.Citation8 The utility of PROs may be particularly compromised in patients with impaired cognitive function, literacy, or fluency.Citation9 Furthermore, frequent acquisition of PRO data may be burdensome for cancer patients.

Recent technological advances may be leveraged to provide objective, quantitative, and dynamic information describing our patients’ physical activity levels captured by measuring step counts. Here, we review studies that track steps in oncology. We focus on the role of step counts captured using pedometers and accelerometers in assessing the PS of cancer patients. While other forms of objective patient assessment exist, step counts can be measured using simple low-cost single-unit devices worn on the body continuously. Pedometers and accelerometers require infrequent battery replacements with low burden to patients. Data are accessible and captured in real-time as a metric that is easy to conceptualize over other forms of objective data such as pulse oximetry, heart rate, and sleep time. Patients may already be familiar with consumer grade pedometers, as well as health recommendations and goals specific to step counts that are publicized by companies such as Fitbit. We suggest steps that might help to establish step tracking as an important aspect of clinical cancer research and individual patient care.

Significance of physical activity in cancer patients

It is generally accepted that an active lifestyle is associated with health benefits in the general population. These benefits may include a reduction in the risk of developing malignancies such as colorectal and breast cancer.Citation10 The importance of physical activity may be even greater for patients who are already diagnosed with cancer.

Patients with breast cancer,Citation11 pediatric malignancies,Citation12 hematologic malignancies,Citation13 and other cancersCitation14 are significantly less active when compared to healthy controls using various measures. Among cancer patients, specific diagnoses and treatment approaches have been associated with reduced activity levels measured with an accelerometer-based activity system.Citation15 Physical activity has been linked with improved quality of life (QoL),Citation16 reduced risk of disease recurrence,Citation17,Citation18 and prolonged overall survivalCitation19Citation22 in large studies.

Existing evidence supports a causal link between physical activity and improved cancer outcomes. Physical activity improves metabolic function, enhances physical fitness and mood, and reduces fatigue in patients undergoing cancer treatment.Citation23Citation25 Randomized studies reveal an improvement in physiological and psychological function when exercise is implemented during radiation therapy (RT) for men treated for prostate cancer.Citation26Citation28 Other benefits for these men included improved overall health-related QoL with respect to physical functioning, role function, social functioning, physique, and fatigue.Citation29 A randomized trial demonstrated that resistance training during breast radiotherapy can counteract the inflammatory response to treatment and help reduce pain and fatigue.Citation30,Citation31

Serum biomarker studies may provide insight about cancer patients’ activity levels and the biochemical effects of physical activity. Exercise-induced myokines are a class of peptides and cytokines derived from muscle fiber and secreted during skeletal muscle contraction. Interleukin-6 is one such myokine whose levels in serum and muscle tissue increase after exercise.Citation31 Assessing serum biomarkers may require invasive testing with high associated costs. However, given that the effect of increased activity levels on improved outcomes is likely multifactorial, an understanding of how levels of exercise-induced myokines change with physical activity may help us to identify the underlying mechanisms that link increased activity to improved health outcomes in cancer patients.

Measuring physical activity

There are several methods to measure physical activity in the clinical setting. Subjective methods include self-reporting instruments such as questionnaires and physical activity diaries. These methods are cost effective and commonly used for cancer-related research. The Godin–Shepard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (GSLTPAQ) is a four-item self-administered questionnaire used to assess mild, moderate, and strenuous leisure time physical activity.Citation32 GSLTPAQ is widely used in oncology research and is one of the measures of physical activity recommended by the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics research program.Citation33 While the GSLTPAQ has been validated in healthy adultsCitation32,Citation34 and is often applied to cancer survivors, there are several limitations to its applicability in cancer patients undergoing treatment – many of whom in reality perform no leisure time physical activities. In a systematic review of 212 articles that reported using GSLTPAQ among cancer survivors, only three studies provided data correlating the GSLTPAQ Leisure Score Index with accelerometer or pedometer data.Citation33 There was no study in which the primary aim was to evaluate the survey’s validity in cancer survivors. Other limitations of the GSLTPAQ include the frequent use of classification systems disparate from that suggested by GodinCitation32 in oncology research, potentially introducing cut point bias.Citation33 Additionally, many studies have employed modified versions of the GSLTPAQ that have not been validated.

Technological advances now enable simple, cost- effective, objective, and direct measurement of physical activity. In the medical field, fitness trackers are increasingly used to measure physical activity in a range of patient populations. Depending on the particular device selected, a fitness tracker can offer direct measures of physical activity in the form of step counts or indirect measures of acute and chronic PA: energy expenditure, heart rate, total sleep time, and sleep efficiency.Citation35 Pedometer data have been validated against observational and self-reported dataCitation36 and correlate with theoretically related anthropometric parameters, such as age, weight, and body mass index.Citation37,Citation38 Traditional pedometers, such as Yamax digiwalker SW-200®, are low-tech and low-cost simple detectors of steps and have been shown to be accurate in detecting steps taken.Citation39 A step is recorded into the device when a vertical acceleration deflects a spring-suspended lever arm above a designated force sensitivity threshold. A major limitation of these devices is that they are not sensitive to nonambulatory physical activities, such as cycling, swimming, and fitness training.Citation40

Accelerometers have improved upon traditional pedometers and are now incorporated into numerous commercially available fitness trackers. These are small devices that record accelerations in gravitational units on one or more planes to provide an estimate of duration and intensity of movement. Common estimates of physical activity obtained from accelerometers can be divided into discrete measures: activity count-based, expenditure-based, intensity-based, posture-based, and steps.Citation41 Activity count-based measures capture the intensity and duration of accelerations measured by the device in counts/min/day and can subsequently characterize these movement signals into estimates of energy expenditure. Intensity-based measures define the hours spent in sedentary, light, moderate, or vigorous physical activity per day. Posture-based measures define the time spent per day lying, sitting, stepping, or standing. While step counts measured using accelerometers are similarly limited by a lack of sensitivity in capturing nonambulatory physical activity, pedometer- and accelerometer-derived step counts offer clinical utility in assessing the PS of patients in an oncologic setting. In this review, we focus on steps per day as estimated from the pedometer or accelerometer as it is a direct measure of physical activity.

The Fitbit™ Flex (Fitbit Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) uses a triaxial accelerometer – a measure of acceleration in three dimensions of space (vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral) – to estimate steps. This fitness tracker has been demonstrated to be reliable in healthy adultsCitation42 and people with stroke and traumatic brain injury.Citation43 The ActivPAL™ monitor (PAL Technologies Ltd., Glasgow, UK) reveals the time spent supine or sitting, standing, and stepping over a 24-hour period and can also estimate energy expenditure from activity counts. This instrument has also been validated, more specifically in hospital inpatientsCitation44 and community-dwelling older adults.Citation45 The Misfit Shine (Misfit Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) is another triaxial accelerometer that has been tested against similar tracking devices, demonstrating nearly the highest step-counting accuracy for measuring 200 steps (98.3% accuracy, SD of 7.2) to 1000 steps (99.7% accuracy, SD of 39.8).Citation46

While many older devices were limited in their use clinically because of the associated cost and technical requirements for their use, newer accelerometer-based pedometers have become extremely inexpensive compared to typical medical devices and procedures and contain longer battery lives exceeding 1 year, allowing users to wear them continuously. Unlike the ActivPAL which is worn at the hip, the Fitbit is worn on the wrist and is water proof, allowing for continuous and uninterrupted wear. Most devices now allow data to be downloaded wirelessly onto a computer or mobile device, and many companies provide a user-friendly interface for storing and analyzing data online. Patients, clinical or research staff can create individual online user accounts with easy data upload/download features allowing for real-time self-monitoring.

Fitness trackers in oncology – observational studies

Observational studies performed in healthy subjects and patients without cancer demonstrate that the use of fitness trackers is associated with increases in step counts and reduction in blood pressure and weight.Citation47 A different spectrum of associations may be expected in a cancer patient whose function is impaired by disease burden and/or treatment-related toxicities. Recent observational studies trials have explored step counting in cancer patients. Some key findings are summarized below and in .

Table 1 Observational studies of activity monitoring in cancer patients

A study conducted in patients with incurable thoracic malignancies not only demonstrated a statistical correlation between daily step counts and ECOG PS but also revealed a wide range of step counts within PS categories. These findings suggest that the ECOG scale may lack sufficient sensitivity to evaluate new supportive care treatments.Citation48 In a series of patients receiving palliative radiotherapy for brain metastases, sedentary behavior was associated with inferior scores for depression, anxiety, and QoL.Citation49 In a trial evaluating pedometers in adult patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant, reductions in patients’ step counts were highly correlated with increases in pain, fatigue, and other patient-reported toxicity scores.Citation50 Patients who undergo transplant commonly experience mucositis, characterized by painful mouth sores, as a side effect of therapy. Interestingly, in this study, patient-reported mouth sores did not correlate with daily step counts, while there was a significant link with pain scores and daily steps during the period of symptomatic mucositis. This reveals the role of step tracking in helping us to better identify which PROs correlate more reliably with the experience of symptoms and treatment side effects. A study performed in an inpatient oncology unit demonstrated that sleep parameters measured by wrist actigraphy are correlated with pain scores for patients with advanced cancer.Citation51

Two more recent studies incorporated step tracking into the evaluation of patients as they underwent curative treatment for locally advanced cancers. In one study conducted in patients with head and neck, lung, and gastrointestinal cancers treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, 3-day recent average of step counts significantly correlated with hospitalization risk during treatment such that for every 1000 steps taken per day, there was a 38% decrease in risk for hospitalization.Citation52 On the other hand, the most recent impaired ECOG PS and inferior QoL score was not associated with increased hospitalization risk. In another study conducted in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with RT after lumpectomy, pedometer step counts and distance traveled were found to decrease slightly during RT.Citation53 Although this was deemed nonrelevant clinically due to the large number of data points captured in the study, these findings certainly underpin the need to increase patients’ physical activity levels during RT. Additionally, investigators reported that sleep measured using a fitness tracker was unaffected by treatment. These studies demonstrate that step tracking, as opposed to more subjective (ECOG and QoL) and indirect measures of PA (sleep time), may more reliably predict the changes in physical activity during curative treatment that may increase the risk for poor health outcomes.

Existing data already indicate that step counts can serve as a new class of vital signs in the evaluation and management of cancer patients. Larger clinical trials and ecological studies will be required to establish the utility of step counts in clinical care and identify the most meaningful activity metrics. As pedometers and accelerometers become ubiquitous in nonclinical settings, we can expect large studies of observational data that will corroborate trial findings. We anticipate that PS scales that incorporate objective physical activity data will supplant existing scales in the next few decades.

Fitness trackers in exercise trials

A number of trials have tested exercise programs for cancer patients. Many recent trials testing exercise during treatment with chemotherapyCitation54Citation56 or radiotherapyCitation57,Citation58 or in the survivorship settingCitation24,Citation40,Citation59Citation66 have incorporated fitness trackers in their study design. Many of these have been randomized trials,Citation24,Citation54,Citation55,Citation58,Citation61Citation65,Citation67 and most have focused on breast cancer patients.Citation24,Citation54,Citation55,Citation59,Citation62,Citation64Citation67 Some key findings are summarized below and in and .

Table 2 Trials of exercise programs for cancer survivors incorporating activity monitoring

Table 3 Trials of exercise programs incorporating activity monitoring for patients undergoing active cancer therapy

Numerous types of exercise programs have been implemented successfully in cancer patients. These have involved print materials,Citation55,Citation62 in-person or telephone-based counseling,Citation24,Citation40,Citation56,Citation61,Citation64 or home-based walking,Citation54 aerobic,Citation67,Citation68 or resistance training interventions.Citation58 These studies consistently demonstrate that exercise interventions increase objectively measured physical activity using pedometry and/or accelerometryCitation24,Citation61,Citation64,Citation67,Citation68 as well as self-reported physical activity.Citation54,Citation68 They also indicate that exercise programs may meaningfully improve patient-reported QoL scores,Citation56,Citation58 fatigue scores,Citation40,Citation54,Citation58 self-esteem, and mood.Citation54 In several trials, the intervention was simply the provision of a pedometer along with print materials and/or step count goals.Citation57,Citation59,Citation60,Citation63 These studies are particularly illuminating, as the exercise programs they tested require few resources and could be implemented easily in a widespread fashion. Findings largely support the role for increasing physical activity in order to improve cancer outcomes in patients undergoing active treatment and in the survivorship period.

Future of fitness trackers in oncology

While there are several forms of objective assessment of physical activity in oncology, in this review we have focused on the role of pedometers (both traditional and accelerometer-based) in assessing the PS of cancer patients. Other forms of objective patient assessment that can be facilitated by technology include pulse oximetry, heart rate, sleep time, posture, and body temperature dynamics. These measures, which may have some relation to physical activity levels, are currently more difficult to follow than step counts. Pedometers can be single-unit devices worn on the body or clothing continuously for over a year before requiring battery replacement. Tracking steps offer the advantage of real-time accessible feedback to both patients and their care team. Data are easily recorded, downloaded wirelessly onto computers or mobile devices, and interpreted quickly offering enhanced clinical utility over other forms of objective activity assessment.

Published data already indicate that activity information may be used as motivational tools to increase physical activity or as monitoring tools that may supplement or replace existing scales for evaluation of cancer patients’ functional capacity. While fitness trackers have been studied in numerous exercise trials for patients who are likely to be cured of their malignancy, we believe that, as monitoring tools, these devices may provide particular value in patient populations who are at high risk for treatment-related toxicity and/or disease recurrence. In the future, incorporation of fitness trackers into large therapeutic trials of local or systemic therapy may reveal that activity metrics can be used to identify patients likely to benefit from specific interventions. To our knowledge, this avenue has not yet been explored.

Step counts may serve as a dynamic and objective vital sign that can be followed during aggressive treatment courses such as concurrent chemoradiotherapy to monitor for acute toxicities. In the posttreatment setting, step counts may be followed to track patients’ recovery from acute toxicities and to monitor for signs of disease recurrence or late adverse events. As the capabilities of fitness trackers improve and costs fall, tracking steps in oncology stand to provide meaningful benefits to patients with minimal resource utilization.Citation69

Conclusion

Activity metrics have advantages over both clinician assessments and PROs. Ongoing research is revealing biologic mechanisms through which physical activity may improve oncologic outcomes. Activity monitoring is now routinely incorporated into exercise studies, and we believe that step count data should be incorporated into trials of cancer therapeutics and supportive care studies as well. Tracking steps in oncology have the potential to revolutionize the way we assess and manage cancer patients in daily practice.

Author contributions

All three authors, JMP, NO and CC, made substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All three authors made a final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  • National Cancer Institute [Internet]Surveillance, epidemiology and end results programNational Cancer Institute [cited May 29, 2016]. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.htmlAccessed July 25, 2018
  • National Institutes of Health [Internet]Research portfolio online reporting tools (RePORT)National Institutes of Health [cited May 29, 2016]. Available from: https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/viewfactsheet.aspx?csid=75Accessed July 25, 2018
  • TaylorAEOlverINSivanthanTChiMPurnellCObserver error in grading performance status in cancer patientsSupport Care Cancer19997533233510483818
  • AndoMAndoYHasegawaYPrognostic value of performance status assessed by patients themselves, nurses, and oncologists in advanced non-small cell lung cancerBr J Cancer200185111634163911742480
  • HutchinsonTABoydNFFeinsteinARGondaAHollombyDRowatBScientific problems in clinical scales, as demonstrated in the Karnofsky index of performance status.J Chronic Dis1979329–10661666489706
  • BroderickJMHusseyJKennedyMO’DonnellDMPatients over 65 years are assigned lower ECOG PS scores than younger patients, although objectively measured physical activity is no differentJ Geriatr Oncol201451495624484718
  • GotayCCKawamotoCTBottomleyAEfficaceFThe prognostic significance of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trialsJ Clin Oncol20082681355136318227528
  • BernhardJCellaDFCoatesASMissing quality of life data in cancer clinical trials: serious problems and challenges.Stat Med19981757517532
  • SnyderCFAaronsonNKChoucairAKImplementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerationsQual Life Res20122181305131422048932
  • LeeIMMansonJEAjaniUPaffenbargerRSJrHennekensCHBuringJEPhysical activity and risk of colon cancer: the Physicians’ Health Study (United States)Cancer Causes Control1997845685749242472
  • YeeJDavisGMBeithJMPhysical activity and fitness in women with metastatic breast cancerJ Cancer Surviv20148464765624986228
  • WinterCMullerCBrandesMLevel of activity in children undergoing cancer treatmentPediatr Blood Cancer200953343844319415742
  • KnolsRHde BruinEDAufdemkampeGUebelhartDAaronsonNKReliability of ambulatory walking activity in patients with hematologic malignanciesArch Phys Med Rehabil2009901586519154830
  • FouladiunMKornerUGunneboLSixt-AmmilonPBosaeusILundholmKDaily physical-rest activities in relation to nutritional state, metabolism, and quality of life in cancer patients with progressive cachexiaClin Cancer Res200713216379638517975150
  • FerriolliESkipworthRJHendryPPhysical activity monitoring: a responsive and meaningful patient-centered outcome for surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy?J Pain Symptom Manage20124361025103522269181
  • PhillipsSMDoddKWSteevesJMcClainJAlfanoCMMcAuleyEPhysical activity and sedentary behavior in breast cancer survivors: new insight into activity patterns and potential intervention targetsGynecol Oncol2015138239840426026737
  • RichmanELKenfieldSAStampferMJPaciorekACarrollPRChanJMPhysical activity after diagnosis and risk of prostate cancer progression: data from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavorCancer Res201171113889389521610110
  • SternfeldBWeltzienEQuesenberryCPPhysical activity and risk of recurrence and mortality in breast cancer survivors: findings from the LACE studyCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2009181879519124485
  • HolickCNNewcombPATrentham-DietzAPhysical activity and survival after diagnosis of invasive breast cancerCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev200817237938618250341
  • HolmesMDChenWYFeskanichDKroenkeCHColditzGAPhysical activity and survival after breast cancer diagnosisJAMA2005293202479248615914748
  • MeyerhardtJAGiovannucciELHolmesMDPhysical activity and survival after colorectal cancer diagnosisJ Clin Oncol200624223527353416822844
  • BonnSESjölanderALagerrosYTPhysical activity and survival among men diagnosed with prostate cancerCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2015241576425527697
  • SpeckRMCourneyaKSMasseLCDuvalSSchmitzKHAn update of controlled physical activity trials in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysisJ Cancer Surviv2010428710020052559
  • PintoBMFriersonGMRabinCTrunzoJJMarcusBHHome-based physical activity intervention for breast cancer patientsJ Clin Oncol200523153577358715908668
  • SabistonCMBrunetJVallanceJKMeterissianSProspective examination of objectively assessed physical activity and sedentary time after breast cancer treatment: sitting on the crest of the teachable momentCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev20142371324133024753546
  • MongaUGarberSLThornbyJExercise prevents fatigue and improves quality of life in prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapyArch Phys Med Rehabil200788111416142217964881
  • CormiePGalvãoDASpryNCan supervised exercise prevent treatment toxicity in patients with prostate cancer initiating androgen-deprivation therapy: a randomised controlled trialBJU Int2015115225626624467669
  • GalvaoDASpryNDenhamJA 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 RADAREur Urol201465585686424113319
  • ChampCEFrancisLKlementRJDickermanRSmithRPFortifying the treatment of prostate cancer with physical activity.Prostate Cancer20162016946297526977321
  • SchmidtMEMeynköhnAHabermannNResistance exercise and inflammation in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant radiation therapy: mediation analysis from a randomized, controlled intervention trialInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys201694232933726853341
  • FischerCPInterleukin-6 in acute exercise and training: what is the biological relevance?Exerc Immunol Rev200612163317201070
  • GodinGThe Godin–Shephard leisure-time physical activity questionnaireHealth Fit J Can2011411822
  • AmireaultSGodinGLacombeJSabistonCMThe use of the Godin–Shephard leisure-time physical activity questionnaire in oncology research: a systematic reviewBMC Med Res Methodol201515111125555466
  • GodinGShephardRJA simple method to assess exercise behavior in the communityCan J Appl Sport Sci19851031411464053261
  • EvensonKRGotoMMFurbergRDSystematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers.Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act201512115926684758
  • Tudor-LockeCWilliamsJEReisJPPlutoDUtility of pedometers for assessing physical activity: convergent validitySports Med2002321279580812238942
  • Tudor-LockeCWilliamsJEReisJPPlutoDUtility of pedometers for assessing physical activity: construct validitySports Med200434528129115107007
  • SchmidtMDClelandVJShawKDwyerTVennAJCardiometabolic risk in younger and older adults across an index of ambulatory activityAm J Prev Med200937427828419765498
  • Tudor-LockeCAinsworthBEThompsonRWMatthewsCEComparison of pedometer and accelerometer measures of free-living physical activityMed Sci Sports Exerc200234122045205112471314
  • BlaauwbroekRBoumaMJTuinierWThe effect of exercise counselling with feedback from a pedometer on fatigue in adult survivors of childhood cancer: a pilot studySupport Care Cancer20091781041104819015892
  • MatthewsCEHagstromerMPoberDMBowlesHRBest practices for using physical activity monitors in population-based researchMed Sci Sports Exerc2012441 Suppl 1S68S7622157777
  • LeeJMKimYWelkGJValidity of consumer-based physical activity monitorsMed Sci Sports Exerc20144691840184824777201
  • FulkGDCombsSADanksKANiriderCDRajaBReismanDSAccuracy of 2 activity monitors in detecting steps in people with stroke and traumatic brain injuryPhys Ther201494222222924052577
  • TaraldsenKAskimTSletvoldOEvaluation of a body-worn sensor system to measure physical activity in older people with impaired functionPhys Ther201191227728521212377
  • GrantPMGranatMHThowMKMaclarenWMAnalyzing free-living physical activity of older adults in different environments using body-worn activity monitorsJ Aging Phys Act201018217118420440029
  • El-AmrawyFNounouMIAre currently available wearable devices for activity tracking and heart rate monitoring accurate, precise, and medically beneficial?Healthc Inform Res201521431532026618039
  • BravataDMSmith-SpanglerCSundaramVUsing pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic reviewJAMA2007298192296230418029834
  • MaddocksMWilcockAExploring physical activity level in patients with thoracic cancer: implications for use as an outcome measureSupport Care Cancer20122051113111622311375
  • LoweSSDanielsonBBeaumontCWatanabeSMBaracosVECourneyaKSAssociations between objectively measured physical activity and quality of life in cancer patients with brain metastasesJ Pain Symptom Manage201448332233224630754
  • BennettAVReeveBBBaschEMEvaluation of pedometry as a patient-centered outcome in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT): a comparison of pedometry and patient reports of symptoms, health, and quality of lifeQual Life Res201525311226267524
  • MaCLChangWPLinCCRest/activity rhythm is related to the coexistence of pain and sleep disturbance among advanced cancer patients with painSupport Care Cancer2014221879423995812
  • OhriNKabarritiRBodnerWRContinuous activity monitoring during concurrent chemoradiotherapyInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys20179751061106528332990
  • ChampCEOhriNKlementRJAssessing changes in the activity levels of breast cancer patients during radiation therapyClin Breast Cancer2018181e1e628916400
  • GokalKWallisDAhmedSBoiangiuIKancherlaKMunirFEffects of a self-managed home-based walking intervention on psychosocial health outcomes for breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a randomised controlled trialSupport Care Cancer20152431139116626275768
  • VallanceJKFriedenreichCMLavalleeCMExploring the feasibility of a broad-reach physical activity behavior change intervention for women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer: a randomized trialCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev201525239139826677207
  • von GruenigenVEFrasureHEKavanaghMBLernerEWaggonerSECourneyaKSFeasibility of a lifestyle intervention for ovarian cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapyGynecol Oncol2011122232833321600635
  • JavaheriPANekolaichukCHaennelRParliamentMBMcNeelyMLFeasibility of a pedometer-based walking program for survivors of breast and head and neck cancer undergoing radiation therapyPhysiother Can201567220521325931674
  • MustianKMPepponeLDarlingTVPaleshOHecklerCEMorrowGRA 4-week home-based aerobic and resistance exercise program during radiation therapy: a pilot randomized clinical trialJ Support Oncol20097515816719831159
  • VallanceJKCourneyaKSPlotnikoffRCYasuiYMackeyJRRandomized controlled trial of the effects of print materials and step pedometers on physical activity and quality of life in breast cancer survivorsJ Clin Oncol200725172352235917557948
  • FrenshamLJZarnowieckiDMParfittGKingSDollmanJThe experiences of participants in an innovative online resource designed to increase regular walking among rural cancer survivors: a qualitative pilot feasibility studySupport Care Cancer20142271923192924573604
  • JamesELStaceyFGChapmanKImpact of a nutrition and physical activity intervention (ENRICH: Exercise and Nutrition Routine Improving Cancer Health) on health behaviors of cancer survivors and carers: a pragmatic randomized controlled trialBMC Cancer201515111625971837
  • ShortCEJamesELGirgisAD’SouzaMIPlotnikoffRCMain outcomes of the Move More for Life Trial: a randomised controlled trial examining the effects of tailored-print and targeted-print materials for promoting physical activity among post-treatment breast cancer survivorsPsychooncology201524777177825060288
  • MayoNEMorielloCScottSCDawesDAuaisMChasenMPedometer-facilitated walking intervention shows promising effectiveness for reducing cancer fatigue: a pilot randomized trialClin Rehabil201428121198120924917586
  • MatthewsCEWilcoxSHanbyCLEvaluation of a 12-week home-based walking intervention for breast cancer survivorsSupport Care Cancer200715220321117001492
  • VallanceJKCourneyaKSPlotnikoffRCDinuIMackeyJRMaintenance of physical activity in breast cancer survivors after a randomized trialMed Sci Sports Exerc200840117318018091007
  • IrwinMLVarmaKAlvarez-ReevesMRandomized controlled trial of aerobic exercise on insulin and insulin-like growth factors in breast cancer survivors: the Yale Exercise and Survivorship studyCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev200918130631319124513
  • JonesSBThomasGAHesselsweetSDAlvarez-ReevesMYuHIrwinMLEffect of exercise on markers of inflammation in breast cancer survivors: the Yale exercise and survivorship studyCancer Prev Res201362109118
  • IrwinMLCadmusLAlvarez-ReevesMRecruiting and retaining breast cancer survivors into a randomized controlled exercise trial: the Yale Exercise and Survivorship StudyCancer200811211 Suppl2593260618428192
  • ReesGGCost-effectiveness in oncologyLancet1985326846914051408