Does resistance training ameliorate cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors? A systematic review with meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart.

Chart showing publication selection process.

Table 1. Characteristics of population and interventions of included studies.

Study	Study design	Population	Control	Sample Size	Participant characteristics (age: mean [SD] or range in yrs; gender [M = male, F = female])	Intervention	Type	Intensity	Volume (no. exercises; sets x reps)	Duration and frequancy	Primary outcome and Time Point	Methodological quality score
Gorzelitz et al. [51]	RCT	ECS	Waiting list control	40	60.9 (8.7); F = 40	RT	Resistance bands and dumbbells	50–85% 1RM	8; 2 × 10–12 > 3 × 8–10	10 weeks/ 2× per week	FACIT-F/ pre-post intervention	4
Hagstrom et al. [52]	RCT	BCS	Waiting list control	39	51.9 (8.8); F = 39	RT	Fixed machines and freeweights	>8RM	6–9; 3 × 8–10	16 weeks/ 3× per week	FACIT-F/ pre-post intervention	7
Khan et al. [53]	RCT	BCS	Exercise control (3× per week, 20–30 mins walking @ 1–6/10RPE)	60	35–55; F = 60	RT	Bodyweight	Non-descriptive	6; 2 × 8 > 3 × 10	6 weeks/ 3× per week	FACIT-F/ pre-post intervention	6
Moraes et al. [54]	RCT	BCS	Physcially inactive	26	54.6 (5.5); F = 25	RT	Fixed machines and freeweights	8–12RM	5; 3 × 8–12	8 weeks/ 1× per week	PFS-R/ pre-post intervention	5
Norris et al. [55]	RCT	PCS	Exercise control (same as experimental group, but 2× per week)	30	46–76 ; M = 30	RT	Fixed machines	60–80% 1RM	6; 1–3 × 8–12	12 weeks/ 3× per week	FACIT-F/ pre-post intervention	7
Nouri et al. [56]	RCT	BCS	Waiting list control	50	RT 46.0 (5.8), CON 46.0 (7.2); F = 50	RT	Resistance bands	3–5 > 10–12 BORG	9; 2 × 8 > 4 × 12	6 weeks/ 2× per week	PFS-R/ pre-post intervention	3
Santa Mina et al. [57]	RCT	PCS	Exercise control (3× per week, 30–60 mins walking @ 60–80% HRR)	66	RT 70.6 (9.5), CON 72.1 (8.9); M = 66	RT	Resistance bands	12–15 BORG	10; 2–3 × 8–12	26 weeks/ 3–5× per week	FACIT-F/ pre-post intervention	7
Yuen and Sword [58]	RCT	BCS	Waiting list control	14	RT 53.7 (11.3), CON 55.0 (13.4); F = 14	RT	Resistance bands & dumbbells	Non-descriptive	8; 1–3 × 8–12	12 weels/ 3× per week	PFS-R/ pre-post intervention	6

Figure 2. FACIT-F Forest Plot [above zero favours RT; below zero favours control].

Plot illustrating study effect sizes and overall mean effect size for FACIT-F.

Figure 3. FACIT-F Heterogeneity.

Table illustrating study variation in outcomes for FACIT-F.

Figure 4. FACIT-F Sensitivity analysis [above zero favours RT; below zero favours control].

Plot illustrating the effects of leaving one study out a time on the outcome.

Figure 5. PFS-R Forest Plot [below zero favours RT; above zero favours control].

Plot showing study effect sizes and overall mean effect size for PFS-R.

Figure 6. PFS-R Heterogeneity.

Table illustrating study variation in outcomes for PFS-R.

Figure 7. PFS-R Sensitivity analysis [below zero favours RT; above zero favours control].

Plot showing the effects of leaving one study out at a time on the outcome.

Table 2. Methodological quality assessment [PEDro].

	Criterion 1	Criterion 2	Criterion 3	Criterion 4	Criterion 5	Criterion 6	Criterion 7	Criterion 8	Criterion 9	Criterion 10	Criterion 11	Total
Gorzelitz et al. [51]	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	4
Hagstrom et al. [52]	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	7
Khan et al. [53]	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	6
Moraes et al. [54]	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	5
Norris et al. [55]	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	7
Nouri et al. [56]	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	3
Santa Mina et al. [57]	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	7
Yuen and Sword [58]	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	6

Criterion 1 = Eligibility Criteria; Criterion 2 = Random Allocation; Criterion 3 = Concealed Allocation; Criterion 4 = Similar at Baseline; Criterion 5 = Subject Blinding; Criterion 6 = Therapist Blinding; Criterion 7 = Assessor Blinding; Criterion 8 = >85% Key Outcome Measures; Criterion 9 = Intention-to-Treat; Criterion 10 = Between-Group Statistical Analysis; Criterion 11 = Point Measure & Measure of Variability.

Gorzelitz JS, Stoller S, Costanzo E, et al. Improvements in strength and agility measures of functional fitness following a telehealth-delivered home-based exercise intervention in endometrial cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(1):447–455. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06415-2.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hagstrom AD, Marshall PWM, Lonsdale C, et al. Resistance training improves fatigue and quality of life in previously sedentary breast cancer survivors: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer Care. 2016;25(5):784–794. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12422.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khan S, Agrawal R, Shaikh S, et al. Comparison of effect of aerobic training versus resistance training on cancer-related fatigue and quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Indian J Public Health Res Dev. 2020;11:827–833.

 Google Scholar

Moraes RF, Ferreira-Júnior JB, Marques VA, et al. Resistance training, fatigue, quality of life, anxiety in breast cancer survivors. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(5):1350–1356. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003817.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Norris MK, Bell GJ, North S, et al. Effects of resistance training frequency on physical functioning and quality of life in prostate cancer survivors: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18(3):281–287. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2015.28.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nouri R, Braumann KM, Mahmoudieh ChamPiri B, et al. Cancer related fatigue and upper limb disabilities cannot improve after 6 weeks resistance training with Thera-Band in breast cancer survivors. Int J Appl Exerc Physiol. 2018;7(2):76–84. doi: 10.22631/ijaep.v7i2.263.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Santa Mina D, Alibhai S MH, Matthew AG, et al. A randomized trial of aerobic versus resistance exercise in prostate cancer survivors. J Aging Phys Act. 2013;21(4):455–478. doi: 10.1123/japa.21.4.455.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yuen HK, Sword D. Home-based exercise to alleviate fatigue and improve functional capacity among breast cancer survivors. J Allied Health. 2007;36(4):e257-75.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar