Lifestyle changes in cancer patients undergoing curative or palliative chemotherapy: is it feasible?

Figures & data

Table 1. Lifestyle scoring system within the different lifestyle behaviors ranging from 1 (low adherence) to 5 (high adherence).

	Score 1	Score 2	Score 3	Score 4	Score 5
Physical activity	< 300 MET-min/week	300-699 MET-min/week	700-1499 MET-min/week	1500-2999 MET-min/week	> 2999 MET-min/week
Sedentary time	> 12 hours/day	10-12 hours/day	7-9 hours/day	4-6 hours/day	< 4 hours/day
Healthy diet	< 5 points	5-11 points	12-20 points	21-24 points	> 24 points
Poor diet	> 30 points	19-30 points	13-18 points	5-12 points	< 5 points
Subjective stress	> 12 points	10-12 points	7-9 points	4-6 points	< 4 points
	Score −1	Score −2	Score −3	Score −4	Score −5
Smoking frequency	< 4/month	1-6/week	1-5/day	6-10/day	>10/day

MET: Metabolic equivalent task. A physiological measure expressing the energy cost of physical activities. 1 MET is considered the resting metabolic value, while seated.

Figure 1. Flow chart of patient recruitment, dropout and completion in the I CAN study.

Table 2. Baseline socio-demographic and medical characteristics of I CAN participants, categorized by treatment intent (curative vs. palliative).^a

	All participants n = 100 (%)	Curative n = 60 (%)	Palliative n = 40 (%)	p value
Age; mean years (SD)	60 (12)	56 (12)	65 (10)	<.001
Female	69 (69)	49 (82)	20 (50)	.001
Married/living together	80 (80)	51 (85)	29 (73)	.126
College/university**	50 (52)	34 (58)	16 (42)	.135
Employment status**
Unemployed	2 (2)	2 (4)	0 (0)	.387
Disability/sick leave	41 (44)	26 (47)	15 (39)
Retired	40 (48)	20 (36)	20 (51)
Part- or full-time	11 (12)	7 (13)	4 (10)
Smokers	13(13)	5 (8)	8 (20)	.089
BMI
<18.5	3 (3)	0 (0)	3 (8)	.022
18.5–24.9	45 (45)	24 (40)	21 (53)
25–29.9	40 (40)	30 (50)	10 (25)
≥30	12 (12)	6 (10)	6 (15)
ECOG
0	82 (82)	57 (95)	25 (63)	<.001
1	16 (16)	3 (5)	13 (32)
2	2 (2)	0 (0)	2 (5)
Diagnosis
Breast cancer	46 (46)	43 (72)	3 (8)	<.001
Colorectal cancer	31 (31)	12 (20)	19 (47)
Prostate cancer	4 (4)	0 (0)	4 (10)
Other cancers#	19 (19)	5 (8)	14 (35)
QOL; mean global status (SD)	70 (22)	78 (17)	59 (24)	<.001

^a Variables are presented as frequencies and percentages, unless otherwise stated. p value indicates difference between treatment intent.

SD: standard deviation; QOL: quality of life.

** missing values.

# Pancreas cancer (n = 4), gallbladder cancer (n = 2), urinary bladder cancer (n = 2), hepatic cancer (n = 1) and origo incerta (n = 1).

Table 3 Absolute baseline lifestyle values from all participants also stratified into completers (n = 61) and dropouts (n = 39).^a

	All participants (n = 100)	Completers (n = 61)	Dropouts (n = 39)	p value
MVPA^b, min·wk^−1	776 (898)	960 (1045)	489 (486)	.010
≥ 150 min·wk^−1 MVPA^b, n (%)	86 (86%)	56 (92%)	30 (77%)	.036
Sedentary time; min·wk^−1	487 (183)	470 (179)	515 (187)	.244
Healthy diet, score	13 (6)	14 (6)	11 (5)	.038
Unhealthy diet, score	14 (7)	14 (7)	14 (7)	.778
Mental stress; IES^c-score	17 (13)	17 (12)	17 (15)	.865
Cigarette smokers, n (%)	14 (14%)	5 (8%)	9 (23%)	.036

^a Presented as mean and SD, unless otherwise stated.

^b Moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA). A minimum of 150 min·wk⁻¹ of MVPA is recommended to cancer patients and survivors by the American Cancer Society [2].

^c Impact of Event Scale (IES): a score >26 defines moderate to severe impact [30].

Figure 2. Twelve-month lifestyle changes. An improved percentage change is favorable for all lifestyle behaviors, based on the scores from Table 1. ^ǁStatistical significant difference between treatment intent groups at baseline (p < .05); ^§Statistical significant interaction between treatment intent group and visit number (p < .05); *Statistical significant improvement over time in all (p < .05) and ** (p < .001).

Rock C, Doyle C, Demark-Wahnefried W, et al. Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:243–274.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41:209–218.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar