SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • brain tumor;
  • exercise behavior;
  • patterns;
  • demographic variables

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. REFERENCES

BACKGROUND

Exercise may represent a supportive intervention that may complement existing neurooncologic therapies and address a multitude of therapy-induced debilitating side effects in patients with brain tumors. Given the limited evidence, the authors conducted a survey to examine the exercise patterns of brain tumor patients across the cancer trajectory.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional design, 386 brain tumor patients who received treatment at the Brain Tumor Center at Duke University were sent a questionnaire that assessed self-reported exercise behavior prior to diagnosis, during adjuvant therapy, and after the completion of therapy.

RESULTS

The response rate was 28% (106 of 383 patients). Descriptive analyses indicated that 42%, 38%, and 41% of participants, respectively, met national exercise prescription guidelines prior to diagnosis, during treatment, and after the completion of adjuvant therapy. Repeated measures analyses indicated no significant changes in the majority of exercise behavior outcomes over the cancer trajectory. However, exploratory analyses indicated that males and younger participants may be at the greatest risk of reducing exercise levels after a brain tumor diagnosis. These analyses remained unchanged after controlling for relevant demographic and medical covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

A relatively high percentage of brain tumor patients are exercising at recommended levels across the cancer trajectory. Moreover, these patients have unique exercise patterns that may be modified by select demographic variables. This preliminary study provides important informative data for future studies examining the potential role of exercise in patients diagnosed with neurologic malignancies. Cancer 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society.

Gliomas are the most common primary neoplasm of the central nervous system, accounting for greater than 50% of these diagnoses.1 Despite significant advancements in treatment, concomitant improvements in survival have been poor.2, 3 Currently, the ‘standard’ management includes surgical resection followed by 6 weeks of conventional fractioned radiotherapy (RT), with or without adjuvant chemotherapy. Despite these aggressive approaches, the median survival for patients with brain tumors ranges from 1 year to 5 years from the time of the initial diagnosis.1–3

Patients presenting with primary gliomas may have a broad array of debilitating neurologic symptoms.4 Typically, these symptoms arise from mass effect because of tumor growth and the associated vasogenic edema. The mass effect can be reduced by surgical resection and corticosteroid medication, most commonly dexamethasone. Corticosteroids are currently the only effective medical treatment for the long-term control of intracranial edema associated with gliomas.5, 6 Unfortunately, these pharmacologic therapies are associated with many deleterious side effects, including peripheral edema, Cushing syndrome, fatigue, hyperglycemia, thromboembolism, and, in particular, severe skeletal muscle catabolism. Collectively, these side-effects which can have a profound impact on a patient's quality of life (QOL) and physical functioning/performance status.7–10 Performance status has been consistently demonstrated to be a strong independent predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients with neurologic malignancies.11–13 Clearly, supportive interventions that attenuate therapy-induced functional declines may have substantial clinical benefits for this population.

One supportive intervention that may complement existing conventional therapies and address a multitude of therapy-induced toxicities in patients with brain tumors is physical exercise. In recent years, increased attention has focused on exercise as a rehabilitative intervention for cancer survivors both during and after the cessation of cancer therapy.14, 15 The majority of studies have reported statistically significant findings across a wide range of psychosocial (e.g., depression, anxiety, symptoms, etc.) and physiologic (e.g., muscle strength, immune and metabolic profiles, body composition, etc.) endpoints, culminating in clinically meaningful improvements in the patient's functional capacity16–19 and overall QOL.16, 20–22 However, the vast majority of studies to date have focused on breast cancer or bone marrow transplant patients, with fewer studies focusing on patients with colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. To our knowledge, no study to date has examined the potential role of exercise in patients diagnosed with primary brain cancer. Given the limited evidence, we conducted a pilot study to examine the patterns of exercise across the cancer trajectory in a cohort of patients with brain tumors. The primary objective was to examine the percentage of participants meeting national exercise prescription guidelines and examine differences in exercise behavior across the cancer trajectory (i.e., prior to diagnosis, during treatment, and after the completion of treatment). A second objective was to explore differences in exercise behavior across the cancer trajectory based on select medical (e.g., disease grade and adjuvant therapy) and demographic (e.g., age and gender) variables.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. REFERENCES

Participants and Procedures

The study was conducted at the Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center (BTC) at Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) in Durham, North Carolina. Potential participants consisted of all brain tumor patients seen at the BTC between August 2003 and February 2005. Additional inclusion criteria were 1) histologically confirmed primary brain cancer, 2) the patient being of legal age, 3) approval of the patient's primary treating oncologist, and 4) the patient's ability to understand and provide written informed consent in English. Institutional review board approval was obtained before commencement of the study. Using a cross-sectional design, potential participants were identified and screened through the BTC cancer database at DUMC and oncologist approval to contact patients was pursued. After approval, each potential participant was sent a questionnaire package that contained a detailed cover letter; 2 copies of a consent form; a questionnaire; and a stamped, self-addressed return envelope. Survey methods known to increase response rates were used, including multiple reminders (e.g., telephone calls), stamped return envelopes, personalized cover letters, colored paper, assurances of confidentiality, a small incentive of 3 commemorative postage stamps, and BTC sponsorship.23 The study was conducted between May and October of 2005.

Study Instruments

Exercise behavior

Exercise behavior was assessed by the Leisure Score Index (LSI) of the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire.24, 25 The LSI contains 3 questions that assess the average frequency of mild (minimal effort, no perspiration), moderate (not exhausting, light perspiration), and strenuous intensity (heart beats rapidly, sweating) exercise during free time in a typical week. In the current study, participants reported their average weekly exercise for the 3 cancer-related time periods (before their brain tumor diagnosis, during active treatment, and after the completion of treatment). We also asked for the average duration of exercise within each exercise intensity. Separate scores were calculated for total exercise minutes and strenuous, moderate, and mild intensity exercise minutes, as well as the percentage of participants meeting current national exercise guidelines (i.e., at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity or higher exercise per week).26 Finally, we also assessed the percentage of participants reporting no exercise behavior across the 3 cancer-related time periods.

Demographic and Medical Information

Demographic and medical information were collected using self-report measures and via medical chart review. Self-report data included marital status, educational level attained, current employment status, and smoking history. Medical data were abstracted from the most recent chart notes and included age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI) (calculated as weight divided by height squared, [kg/m2]), months since diagnosis, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), tumor grade, brain tumor subtype, prior/current treatment (i.e., surgery, RT, or chemotherapy), and current treatment status (on active therapy, off therapy with active disease, or off therapy without active disease). We also calculated comorbidity status using the Charlson index, a comorbidity index commonly used in health research.27

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive analyses are presented for the demographic/medical characteristics, the patterns of exercise behavior across the cancer trajectory, and the percentage of participants meeting national exercise prescription guidelines. Differences in exercise behavior (total exercise minutes; strenuous, moderate, and mild exercise minutes; percentage of participants meeting national guidelines; and those reporting no exercise behavior) across the cancer trajectory (i.e., prior to diagnosis, during active treatment, and after the completion of treatment) were analyzed using repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (RM-MANOVA) followed by repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) and pairwise comparisons when appropriate. We used 1-way ANOVA to examine changes in exercise behavior across the cancer trajectory by age, gender, BMI, disease grade, treatment status, and KPS. Finally, we also repeated analyses using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age, gender, marital status, employment status, smoking history, KPS, comorbidity score, months since diagnosis, and treatment status as covariates. Data are presented as the mean (± the standard deviation) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). All statistical tests were 2-sided (α = .05). Data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 12.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. REFERENCES

Approximately 771 patients were seen at the BTC at DUMC between 2003 and 2005. Of these patients, 560 met inclusion criteria (211 patients were deceased) and 3 oncologists representing these patients were contacted. Approval was granted to contact all the patients. Each of the 560 potential participants were sent a questionnaire package. A total of 177 questionnaires were returned unopened (167 patients were deceased and 10 of the envelopes were marked “return to sender”), leaving a sample of 383 participants. We received 106 completed questionnaires, for a response rate of 28% (106 of 383 patients).

Participant Characteristics

Details of the demographic and medical characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. In summary, the mean age of the participants was 44.8 ± 12.0 years;, 50.9% were female, 76.5% were married, 82.1% had completed university/college, 38.7% were currently employed, and 40.6% had smoked >100 cigarettes in their lifetime. Clinical treatment characteristics indicated that 54.7% of the patients were overweight or obese (with a BMI of >25 kg/m2), 75.5% had Grade 3/intravenous disease, and the majority were diagnosed with either glioblastoma multiforme (38.7%) or anaplastic astrocytoma (43.4%) brain tumor subtypes. Approximately 47% of patients were currently receiving active treatment whereas approximately 100%, 80.2%, and 75.5%, respectively, had received prior surgery, chemotherapy, and RT. The mean KPS and Charlson index score of the patients was 89% (range, 50-100%) and 2.3 (range, 2–4), respectively. Finally, the average time since diagnosis was 28 months (range, 6-178 mos).

Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients, Tumors, and Primary Treatments (n = 106)*
VariableNo. (%)
  • SD: standard deviation; BMI: body mass index.

  • *

    Because of rounding, not all percentages may total 100%.

Demographic 
Age in y 
 <4551 (48.1)
 >4549 (46.2)
 Missing data6 (5.7)
Mean age in y44.8 ± 12.0
Gender 
 Male52 (49.1)
 Female54 (50.9)
 Missing data0 (0)
Marital status 
 Married/common law81 (76.5)
 Divorced/separated6 (5.6)
 Widowed1 (1.0)
 Never married16 (15.1)
 Missing data2 (1.9)
Education 
 Some high school3 (2.9)
 Completed high school15 (14.2)
 Completed university/college87 (82.1)
 Missing data1 (1.0)
Employment status 
 Retired12 (11.3)
 Disability41 (38.7)
 Employed full/part-time41 (38.7)
 Temporarily unemployed10 (9.4)
 Missing data2 (1.9)
Smoked >100 lifetime cigarettes 
 Yes43 (40.6)
 No62 (58.5)
 Missing data1 (1.0)
Current smoker 
 Yes12 (11.3)
 No91 (85.8)
 Missing data1 (1.0)
Medical information 
Mean (SD) weight in kg78.9 ± 17.9
BMI, no. (%) 
 <25 kg/m246 (43.4)
 25–30 kg/m239 (36.8)
 >30 kg/m219 (17.9)
 Missing data2 (1.9)
Mean time since diagnosis in mo28.4 ± 28.6
 Range in mo6–178
Tumor grade 
 I7 (6.6)
 II17 (16.0)
 III36 (34.0)
 IV44 (41.5)
 Missing data2 (1.9)
Tumor subtype 
 Glioblastoma multiforme41 (38.7)
 Anaplastic astrocytoma46 (43.4)
 Astrocytoma/glioma12 (11.3)
 Pilocytic astrocytoma4 (3.8)
 Cerebellar medulloblastoma1 (1.0)
 Meningioma1 (1.0)
 Oligodendroglioma1 (1.0)
 Missing data0 (0)
Treatment status 
 Receiving active therapy50 (47.2)
 Off therapy55 (51.9)
 Missing data1 (1.0)
Surgery for primary tumor 
 Yes105 (99.0%)
 No0 (0)
 Missing data1 (1.0)
Type of surgery 
 Total macroscopic resection77 (72.6)
  Subtotal resection28 (26.4)
 Missing data1 (1.0)
Treatment with chemotherapy 
 Yes85 (80.2)
 No21 (19.8)
 Missing data0 (0)
Treatment with radiotherapy 
 Yes80 (75.5)
 No26 (24.5)
 Missing data0 (0)
Mean (SD) Karnofsky performance score, %88.8 ± 8.7
 Range in %50–100
Mean (SD) Charlson comorbidity score2.3 ± 0.6
 Range2–4

Exercise Behavior across the Cancer Trajectory

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for exercise behavior across the cancer trajectory and between cancer-related time period comparisons. Analyses indicated that 42%, 38%, and 41% of participants, respectively, met national exercise prescription guidelines before their brain tumor diagnosis, during active treatments, and after the completion of treatment, whereas 41%, 41%, and 31% of participants, respectively, reported no exercise behavior over the same cancer-related time periods. The overall RM-MANOVA for all exercise behavior outcomes was not found to be significant (Wilks lambda of .867; F(10, 96) = 1.474 [P = .161]). Although exercise behavior was found to be lower during active and off-treatment periods compared with prior to diagnosis, exploratory RM-ANOVAs indicated no significant changes across the cancer-specific time periods for any exercise behavior outcome except moderate minutes between prediagnosis and off treatment (mean difference of -20.6 mins/wk; 95% CI, -38.0 mins/wk to -3.2 mins/wk) and the percentage of patients reporting no exercise between active and off-treatment periods (mean difference of 10%; 95% CI, 2-19% [P = .021]). Pairwise comparisons indicated that participants reported significantly more moderate intensity weekly exercise minutes while they were off treatment compared with prior to diagnosis, whereas significantly fewer participants reported no physical exercise while off treatment compared with during therapy.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Participants' Exercise Patterns across the Cancer Trajectory
Variable*PrediagnosisOn TreatmentOff TreatmentPrediagnosis vs. On TreatmentP ValuePrediagnosis vs. Off TreatmentP ValueOff Treatment vs. On TreatmentP Value
Between-Group Difference [95% CI]Between-Group Difference [95% CI]Between-Group Difference [95% CI]
  • 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; ACSM: American College of Sports Medicine.

  • *

    Data are presented as the mean ± the standard deviation (exercise min per week) for continuous variables and frequency % for categoric variables.

  • % meeting American College of Sports Medicine/Centers of Disease Control Guidelines of accumulating at least 150 minutes of vigorous to moderate intensity exercise per week.

Total minutes160.8 ± 224.9154.5 ± 222.2177.0 ± 226.5−6.3 [−62.6 to 49.9].82416.1 [−42.7 to 75.0].58822.5 [−12.1 to 57.2].202
Strenuous minutes88.5 ± 134.667.9 ± 120.672.6 ± 109.4−20.6 [−54.9 to 13.7].236−15.9 [−49.8 to 8.1].3554.7 [−13.3 to 22.7].604
Moderate minutes27.5 ± 77.136.1 ± 72.848.1 ± 82.58.7 [−9.0 to 6.3].33220.6 [−3.2 to −38.0].02011.9 [3.5 to −27.4].129
Mild minutes44.9 ± 88.250.5 ± 88.256.3 ± 86.15.6 [−16.2 to 27.5].61111.4 [−10.1 to 32.9].2945.8 [−8.9 to 20.5].434
% meeting ACSM guidelines42 ± 5038 ± 4941 ± 49−4 [−17 to 9].558−1.0 [−15 to −13].8953.0 [−6 to 12].534
% reporting no exercise41 ± 4941 ± 5031 ± 470 [12 to −12].99210 [−3 to 22].141−10 [−8 to 18].032

Changes in Exercise Behavior by Select Demographic and Medical Variables

We also explored differences in exercise behavior across the cancer trajectory based on gender (52 males and 54 females), age (<45 yrs [51 patients] and ≥45 yrs [49 patients]), BMI (<25 kg/m2 [46 patients] and ≥25 kg/m2 [58 patients]), disease grade (Grade I/II [24 patients] and Grade III/intravenous [80 patients]), treatment status (on active treatment [50 patients] and off treatment [55 patients]), and KPS (<90% [24 patients] and ≥90% [75 patients]). Given the lack of differences noted in exercise behavior between patients receiving active treatment and those off treatment in our prior analyses, potential differences in exercise behavior between these time periods by the selected demographic and medical variables were not examined.

We found statistically significant gender by time interactions for total minutes (mean difference of -109.0 mins/wk; 95% CI, -220.1 mins/wk to 2.2 mins/wk [P = .053]), moderate minutes (mean difference of -42.5 mins/wk; 95% CI, -77.1 mins/wk to -8.0 mins/wk [P = .016]), and mild minutes (mean difference of -33.6 mins/wk; 95% CI, -86.7 mins/wk to -0.6 mins/wk [P = .047]) from prior to diagnosis to active treatment. There were no other significant interactions noted with regard to exercise behavior outcome (Table 3). Overall, univariate analyses indicated that the significant time by gender interactions were driven primarily by a decrease in exercise behavior by male participants and an increase in exercise behavior by female participants across the cancer trajectory (Table 3).

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Between-Group Comparisons for Participants' Exercise Patterns across the Cancer Trajectory by Gender (52 Males and 54 Females)
Variable*PrediagnosisOn TreatmentOff TreatmentPrediagnosis vs. On TreatmentP valuePrediagnosis vs. Off TreatmentP value
ChangeBetween-Group Difference [95% CI]ChangeBetween-Group Difference [95% CI]
  • 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; ACSM: American College of Sports Medicine.

  • *

    Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables and frequency % for categorical variables.

  • Denotes P value for time x gender interaction.

  • Percentage meeting American College of Sports Medicine/Centers of Disease Control Guidelines of accumulating at least 150 minutes of vigorous to moderate intensity exercise per week.

Total minutes        
Male172.7 ± 231.3110.9 ± 182.8165.1 ± 216.8−61.8  −7.6 
Female149.4 ± 220.2196.6 ± 249.0188.4 ± 236.947.1−109.0 [−220.1 to 2.2].05339.0−46.6 [−164.6 to 71.4].436
Strenuous minutes         
Male81.4 ± 111.149.2 ± 85.562.2 ± 88.0−32.2  −19.2 
Female95.4 ± 154.685.9 ± 145.282.6 ± 126.6−9.4−22.8 [−91.5 to 6.0].513−12.7−6.5 [−74.8 to 61.7].849
Moderate minutes        
Male39.2 ± 94.726.2 ± 62.546.5 ± 84.2−13.0  7.3 
Female16.1 ± 53.745.6 ± 81.049.5 ± 81.529.5−42.5 [−77.1 to −8.0].01633.4−26.1 [−60.7 to 8.4].137
Mild minutes        
Male52.0 ± 94.235.4 ± 76.956.3 ± 82.2−16.6  4.3 
Female38.0 ± 82.365.0 ± 96.456.2 ± 90.427.0−33.6 [−86.7 to −0.6].04718.2−13.9 [−57.0 to 29.2].523
% meeting ACSM        
Male44 ± 5031 ± 4738 ± 4913  −6 
Female39 ± 4944 ± 5042 ± 50−5−18 [−44 to 6].1393−9 [−38 to 19].511
% reporting no exercise        
Male42 ± 5047 ± 5031 ± 46−5  11 
Female39 ± 4935 ± 4831 ± 474−9 [−16 to 31].53283 [−21 to 29].747

With regard to the influence of age on exercise behavior across the cancer trajectory, we found significant age by time interactions for total minutes (mean difference of -134.9 mins/wk; 95% CI, -244.6 mins/wk to -25.0 mins/wk [P = 0.017]) and strenuous minutes (mean difference of -85.5 mins/wk; 95% CI, -154.2 mins/wk to -14.6 mins/wk [P = .021]), whereas moderate minutes (mean difference of -30.9 mins/wk; 95% CI, -65.5 mins/wk to 3.7 mins/wk [P = .079]) and the percentage of participants meeting national exercise prescription guidelines (mean difference of -24%; 95% CI, -49% to 2% [P = .067]) approached statistical significance (Table 4) from prediagnosis to active treatment. With regard to prediagnosis to off-treatment comparisons, we found statistically significant age by time interactions for strenuous minutes (mean difference of -78.0 mins/wk; 95% CI, -147.4 mins/wk to -8.6 mins/wk [P = .028]) and percentage meeting national exercise prescription guidelines (mean difference of -34%; 95% CI, -62% to -5 [P = .020]), whereas the percentage of participants reporting no exercise (mean difference of -22%; 95% CI, -48% to 3% [P = .067]) approached statistical significance. Subsequent univariate analyses indicated that participants age < 45 years substantially decreased exercise behavior whereas older participants (age ≥45 yrs) substantially increased exercise behavior over the cancer trajectory (Table 4).

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics and Between-Group Comparisons for Participants' Exercise Patterns across the Cancer Trajectory by Age (45 Patients Were Age < 45 Yrs and 49 Patients Were Age ≥ 45 Yrs)
Variable*PrediagnosisOn TreatmentOff TreatmentPrediagnosis vs. On TreatmentP valuePrediagnosis vs. Off TreatmentP value
ChangeBetween-Group Difference [95% CI]ChangeBetween-Group Difference [95% CI]
  • 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; ACSM: American College of Sports Medicine.

  • *

    Data are presented as the mean ± the standard deviation for continuous variables and frequency % for categoric variables.

  • Percentage meeting American College of Sports Medicine/Centers of Disease Control Guidelines of accumulating at least 150 minutes of vigorous to moderate intensity exercise per week.

Total minutes         
< 45 y218.3 ± 257.2135.9 ± 184.7174.1 ± 248.8−82.6  −44.2  
≥45 y110.0 ± 179.4162.3 ± 238.3164.2 ± 182.252.3−134.9 [−244.6 to −25.0].01754.2−98.4 [−216.3 to 19.5].101
Strenuous minutes         
<45 y119.7 ± 166.452.9 ± 92.160.1 ± 98.3−66.8  −59.6  
≥45 y6+1.7 ± 91.079.4 ± 143.380.1 ± 117.818.7−85.5 [−154.2 to −14.6].01818.4−78.0 [−147.4 to −8.6].028
Moderate inutes         
<45 y37.9 ± 96.930.2 ± 60.854.8 ± 93.4−7.7  16.9  
≥45 y17.1 ± 51.840.3 ± 77.039.3 ± 63.223.2−30.9 [−65.5 to 3.7].07922.1−5.2 [40.1 to 29.6].764
Mild minutes         
<45 y60.7 ± 105.752.7 ± 76.959.2 ± 93.8−7.9  −1.5  
≥45 y31.1 ± 67.542.7 ± 96.244.8 ± 72.111.5−19.4 [−63.6 to 24.6].38313.7−15.2 [−58.4 to 28.1].489
% meeting ACSM         
<45 y57 ± 5039 ± 4935 ± 48−18  −22  
≥45 y29 ± 4635 ± 4840 ± 496−24 [−49 to 2].06712−34 [−62 to −5].020
% reporting no exercise         
<45 yrs29 ± 4638 ± 4933 ± 48−8  −4  
≥45 yrs49 ± 5045 ± 5031 ± 474−12 [−36 to 12].32518−22 [−48 to 3].089

With regard to the influence of BMI, disease grade, treatment status, and KPS on exercise behavior across the cancer trajectory, we found that overweight/obese patients, patients with Grade III/intravenous disease, patients who were not currently undergoing treatment, and patients with a lower KPS generally reported a greater decrease in exercise behavior across the cancer trajectory. However, none of these differences reached statistical significance for any exercise outcome (data not shown). Finally, repetition of all analyses using ANCOVAs was not found to substantially alter any unadjusted analysis.

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. REFERENCES

In light of the promising evidence of exercise as a supportive therapy for cancer patients, the current study sought to examine and describe the exercise patterns of brain tumor patients using an institution-based, cross-sectional survey. To our knowledge, this is the first report to examine this question and adds to a growing body of literature investigating the potential role of exercise as a supportive therapeutic intervention for patients with cancer.

An unexpected finding in the current study was the relatively high number of participants who reported meeting Centers of Disease Control/American College of Sports Medicine national exercise prescription guidelines of achieving at least 150 minutes of weekly strenuous/moderate exercise minutes.26 Specifically, 42%, 38%, and 41% of participants, respectively, reported meeting these guidelines prior to diagnosis, during active treatment, and after the completion of treatment. Although the number of participants meeting these guidelines is slightly lower than that reported for the general population (45%),28 these numbers are substantially higher than those reported for other cancer populations across similar cancer-related time periods. For example, in a series of studies examining the exercise patterns of patients with multiple myeloma,29 breast cancer,30, 31 colorectal cancer,32 non-Hodgkin lymphoma,33 and endometrial cancer,34 researchers have reported that 5% to 16% and 20% to 31% of participants, respectively, met national exercise guidelines during active treatment and off-treatment periods.

Although the reasons for these contrasting findings are not clear, differences in the medical treatments and demographic profiles of brain tumor patients in comparison with the other cancer populations sampled may partially explain this incongruence. The mean age of the participants in the current study was 44 years, compared with ages 60 years to 65 years in our prior investigations.29, 33, 34 Given that advancing age is associated with lower levels of exercise, the higher percentage of brain tumor patients meeting national exercise guidelines in the current study is not surprising. In addition, conventional chemotherapeutic agents for brain cancer, such as temozolomide, are well tolerated compared with the toxicity profiles of the cytoxic therapies commonly used to treat the aforementioned malignancies (e.g., doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and platinum-containing regimens). As such, brain tumor patients may simply be more capable of exercising during adjuvant therapy.

In concordance with previous investigations in cancer patients, participants in the current study reported lower levels of exercise during active treatments than before their diagnosis of brain cancer. In addition, participants also reported higher levels of exercise during off-treatment periods than during adjuvant therapy, a finding that also is consistent with prior reports. Given the aggressive nature of adjuvant therapy in any cancer population, decreases in exercise behavior during this time are not surprising. However, although the trend in exercise behavior patterns appears to be similar across different cancer populations, the magnitude and changes in the intensity at which exercise is performed is distinct. Specifically, prior surveys in patients with multiple myeloma,29 endometrial cancer,34 and non-Hodgkin lymphoma33 have reported total exercise minute decreases of approximately 100 minutes per week from before diagnosis to during adjuvant therapy compared with only 6 minutes per week noted in the current study over the same time period. Interestingly, although prior investigations have reported that there is a substantial decrease in participation in all exercise intensities (i.e., strenuous, moderate, and mild) for cancer patients, brain tumor patients appear to have decreased participation exclusively in strenuous intensity exercise (Table 2). However, this decrease is partially compensated by a small increase in moderate intensity exercise, resulting in a comparably higher proportion of patients still achieving national exercise prescription guideline requirements (i.e., at least 150 mins/wk of moderate-to-strenuous intensity exercise).

Numerous studies have demonstrated that undergoing cancer treatment has a significantly negative impact on a patient's exercise levels.29, 30, 33 However, these levels tend to recover during off-treatment periods but still remain significantly lower than before the diagnosis. As previously stated, adjuvant therapy does appear to negatively impact exercise levels in patients with brain tumors. This population appears to be unique because brain tumor patients were able to fully recover their exercise habits to prediagnosis levels. In fact, total, moderate, and mild exercise minutes and the percentage of patients meeting national exercise prescription guidelines remained essentially unchanged between the prediagnosis and off-treatment periods, whereas the percentage of participants reporting no physical exercise decreased 10% (from 41% to 31%). In other words, participants actually reported more exercise after the completion of adjuvant therapy than before their cancer diagnosis. The one caveat is that participation in strenuous intensity exercise failed to recover fully to prediagnosis levels.

A secondary purpose of the current study was to explore differences in exercise behavior across the cancer trajectory based on several medical and demographic variables. Accordingly, although the exercise patterns of patients with brain tumors appear to be similar across the selected medical characteristics, there did appear to be statistically significant different patterns based on the patient's age and gender. Specifically, older (age ≥45 yrs) and female participants generally increased their exercise levels during active and off-treatment periods compared with before their diagnosis, whereas younger and male participants tended to decrease their exercise levels over these periods (Tables 3 and 4). It is not clear at the current time why these differences exist. Prior studies generally have reported a lack of association between medical/demographic variables and exercise behavior patterns in cancer patients.29, 33, 34 Clearly, larger studies are required to explore the potential interaction between demographic/medical variables and exercise behavior patterns further in this population.

From an applied perspective, the results of the current investigation may have several important implications for exercise professionals who are designing exercise rehabilitative programs and exercise scientists who are conducting clinical exercise trials in cancer patients. First, the results of the current study suggest that a relatively high percentage of brain tumor patients may be capable of exercising at the currently recommended exercise guidelines both during and after the cessation of adjuvant therapy. Second, despite the lack of evidence, brain tumor patients appear to represent a ‘proactive’ group of patients who are motivated to engage in exercise behavior practices after their diagnosis. Third, although a relatively high percentage of patients adhered to recommended exercise guidelines, 60% still were not meeting these minimum requirements and greater than 30% reported no exercise behavior. Collectively, these findings suggest that future investigations examining the potential efficacy of exercise training interventions on clinically meaningful outcomes in this population are appropriate and timely. Finally, male and younger patients appear to be at the greatest risk of reducing their exercise levels across the brain cancer trajectory. As such, different behavioral and clinical approaches may be required to encourage patients within these subgroups to maintain their exercise behavior practices during the cancer experience.

Although the current study has several strengths, including a well-validated measure of exercise behavior and the abstraction of accurate medical chart data, there are several limitations that need to be considered when interpreting the results and planning future research. One obvious limitation is that selection biases are likely to exist because of the transparent purpose of the study. In addition, the relatively low response rate (28%) and the exclusion of patients with a KPS of < 70 may limit the generalizability of our findings. It is not uncommon to have such biases when conducting exercise surveys. Consequently, patients with brain tumors who were more interested in exercise and had less advanced disease were probably more likely to participate in the study. Nevertheless, the response rate noted in the current study is respectable given that a high percentage of brain tumor patients diagnosed in 2003 were likely deceased when this study was conducted. Moreover, our response rate also compares favorably with previous cancer patient surveys conducted in this population,35 and our mailed survey represented approximately 72% of brain tumor patients seen at the BTC at DUMC between 2003 and 2005. Second, the reliance on self-report rather than objective measures of exercise behavior (e.g., pedometers) may be imprecise. Future studies should strive to use objective measures to verify exercise levels. Finally, the current study used a retrospective observational design, which provides the weakest evidence in terms of causality. Future research that applies prospective experimental designs is warranted.

To our knowledge, the current study is the first to investigate the potential role of exercise in an institution-based sample of brain tumor patients. Overall, brain tumor patients have unique exercise patterns across the cancer trajectory that may be modified by select demographic variables. Moreover, a comparably high percentage of patients are exercising at recommended levels both during active treatment and after treatment has ended. Finally, this patient population appears motivated to engage in exercise behavior practices shortly after their diagnosis. Information gained from this preliminary study will provide critical information for future studies examining the potential clinical value of exercise training interventions in this population.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A, Ghafoor A, Ward E, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003; 53: 526.
  • 2
    Tsao MN, Mehta MP, Whelan TJ, et al. The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based review of the role of radiosurgery for malignant glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 63: 4755.
  • 3
    Prados MD, Scott CB, Rotman M, et al. Influence of bromodeoxyuridine radiosensitization on malignant glioma patient survival: a retrospective comparison of survival data from the Northern California Oncology Group (NCOG) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials (RTOG) for glioblastoma multiforme and anaplastic astrocytoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998; 40: 653659.
  • 4
    Wrensch M, Minn Y, Chew T, Bondy M, Berger MS. Epidemiology of primary brain tumors: current concepts and review of the literature [review]. Neuro-oncol. 2002; 4: 278299.
  • 5
    Nahaczewski AE, Fowler SB, Hariharan S, Hempen C, Weiss E, Hess CF. Dexamethasone therapy in patients with brain tumors–a focus on tapering [review] J Neurosci Nurs. 2004; 36: 340343.
  • 6
    Hempen C, Weiss E, Hess CF. Dexamethasone treatment in patients with brain metastases and primary brain tumors: do the benefits outweigh the side-effects? Support Care Cancer. 2002; 10: 322328.
  • 7
    Gupta T, Sarin R. Poor-prognosis high-grade gliomas: evolving an evidence-based standard of care. Lancet Oncol. 2002; 3: 557564.
  • 8
    Hahn CA, Dunn RH, Logue PE, King JH, Edwards CL, Halperin EC. Prospective study of neuropsychologic testing and quality-of-life assessment of adults with primary malignant brain tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 55: 992999.
  • 9
    Heimans JJ, Taphoorn MJ. Impact of brain tumour treatment on quality of life. J Neurol. 2002; 249: 955960.
  • 10
    Klein M, Taphoorn MJ, Heimans JJ, et al. Neurobehavioral status and health-related quality of life in newly diagnosed high-grade glioma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 40374047.
  • 11
    Bussiere M, Hopman W, Day A, Pombo AP, Neves T, Espinosa F. Indicators of functional status for primary malignant brain tumour patients. Can J Neurol Sci. 2005; 32: 5056.
  • 12
    Yeh SA, Ho JT, Lui CC, Huang YJ, Hsiung CY, Huang EY. Treatment outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with supratentorial low-grade gliomas. Br J Radiol. 2005; 78: 230235.
  • 13
    Laws ER, Parney IF, Huang W, et al. Survival following surgery and prognostic factors for recently diagnosed malignant glioma: data from the Glioma Outcomes Project. J Neurosurg. 2003; 99: 467473.
  • 14
    Knols R, Aaronson NK, Uebelhart D, Fransen J, Aufdemkampe G. Physical exercise in cancer patients during and after medical treatment: a systematic review of randomized and controlled clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 38303842.
  • 15
    Galvao DA, Newton RU. Review of exercise intervention studies in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 899909.
  • 16
    Courneya KS, Mackey JR, Bell GJ, Jones LW, Field CJ, Fairey AS. Randomized controlled trial of exercise training in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors: cardiopulmonary and quality of life outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 16601668.
  • 17
    Dimeo F, Fetscher S, Lange W, Mertelsmann R, Keul J. Effects of aerobic exercise on the physical performance and incidence of treatment-related complications after high-dose chemotherapy. Blood. 1997; 90: 33903394.
  • 18
    Dimeo F, Schwartz S, Fietz T, Wanjura T, Boning D, Thiel E. Effects of endurance training on the physical performance of patients with hematological malignancies during chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 2003; 11: 623628.
  • 19
    Segal R, Evans W, Johnson D, et al. Structured exercise improves physical functioning in women with stages I and II breast cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 657665.
  • 20
    Courneya KS, Friedenreich CM, Quinney HA, Fields AL, Jones LW, Fairey AS. A randomized trial of exercise and quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2003; 12: 347357.
  • 21
    Courneya KS, Friedenreich CM, Sela RA, Quinney HA, Rhodes RE, Handman M. The group psychotherapy and home-based physical exercise (group-hope) trial in cancer survivors: physical fitness and quality of life outcomes. Psychooncology. 2003; 12: 357374.
  • 22
    Segal RJ, Reid RD, Courneya KS, et al. Resistance exercise in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 16531659.
  • 23
    Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
  • 24
    Godin G, Jobin J, Bouillon J. Assessment of leisure time exercise behavior by self-report: a concurrent validity study. Can J Public Health. 1986; 77: 359362.
  • 25
    Godin G, Shephard RJ. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1985; 10: 141146.
  • 26
    Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, et al. Physical activity and public health. A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA. 1995; 273: 402407.
  • 27
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 45: 613619.
  • 28
    Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Bowman BA, et al. Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity-related health risk factors, 2001. JAMA. 2003; 289: 7679.
  • 29
    Jones LW, Courneya KS, Vallance JK, et al. Association between exercise and quality of life in multiple myeloma cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 2004; 12: 780788.
  • 30
    Irwin ML, McTiernan A, Bernstein L, et al. Physical activity levels among breast cancer survivors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004; 36: 14841491.
  • 31
    Irwin ML, Crumley D, McTiernan A, et al. Physical activity levels before and after a diagnosis of breast carcinoma: the Health, Eating, Activity, and Lifestyle (HEAL) study. Cancer. 2003; 97: 17461757.
  • 32
    Courneya KS, Friedenreich CM. Relationship between exercise pattern across the cancer experience and current quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors. J Altern Complement Med. 1997; 3: 215226.
  • 33
    Vallance JK, Courneya KS, Jones LW, Reiman T. Differences in quality of life between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors meeting and not meeting public health exercise guidelines. Psychooncology. 2005; 14: 979991.
  • 34
    Courneya KS, Karvinen KH, Campbell KL, et al. Associations among exercise, body weight, and quality of life in a population-based sample of endometrial cancer survivors. Gynecol Oncol. 2005; 97: 422430.
  • 35
    Cantor KP, Lynch CF, Johnson D. Reproductive factors and risk of brain, colon, and other malignancies in Iowa (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 1993; 4: 505511.