Background
Materials and methods
Inclusion criteria
Data extraction
Statistical significance and clinical relevance
Combining the results of different QOL instruments
Questionnaire | Scale | |
---|---|---|
Global QOL | EORTC QLQ-C30 [45] | Overall QOL/ global health |
SF-36 [46] | General health and global health composite score | |
EQ-5D [47] | Overall health related quality of life (HRQOL) | |
Physical functioning | EORTC QLQ-C30 | Physical functioning |
SF-36 | Physical functioning and physical health composite score | |
FACT-C [48] | Physical well-being | |
PROMIS [49] | Physical HRQOL | |
Role functioning | EORTC QLQ-C30 | Role functioning |
SF-36 | Role physical | |
FACT-C | Functional well-being | |
Social functioning | EORTC QLQ-C30 | Social functioning |
SF-36 | Social functioning | |
FACT-C | Social well-being | |
Emotional functioning | EORTC QLQ-C30 | Emotional functioning |
SF-36 | Mental health | |
FACT-C | Emotional well-being |
First author year (ref.) country | Potential Limitations |
---|---|
Blanchard 2004 [35] USA | - No validated PA questionnaire used |
- Possible response bias due to self-reported PA | |
- Sample size < 100 | |
- Cross-sectional study design | |
Blanchard 2008 [30]a USA | - Possible response bias due to self-reported PA |
- Only assessment of leisure-time PA | |
- Cross-sectional study design | |
Blanchard 2010 [31]a USA | - Possible response bias due to self-reported PA |
- Only assessment of leisure-time PA | |
- Cross-sectional study design | |
Chambers 2012 [38] Australia | - Possible response bias due to self-reported PA |
- Only assessment of leisure-time PA | |
Husson 2015 [34]b The Netherlands | - Possible response bias due to self-reported PA |
Mols 2015 [9]b The Netherlands | - Possible response bias due to self-reported PA |
- Cross-sectional study design | |
Rodriguez 2015 [36] USA | - Possible response bias due to self-reported PA |
- Cross-sectional study design | |
Thraen-Borowski 2013 [37] USA | - Possible response bias due to self-reported PA |
- Only assessment of leisure-time PA | |
- Cross-sectional study design | |
Van Roekel 2015 [32]c The Netherlands | - Possible response bias due to self-reported PA |
- Cross-sectional study design | |
Van Roekel 2016 [33]c The Netherlands | - Cross-sectional study design |
Results
Literature search
Study characteristics
Participants’ characteristics
First author year (ref.) country | Study design | Sample size | Age at survey | Time since diagnosisa | Cancer treatment | Cancer stage | PA instrument | QOL instrument | Meeting ACS PA guideline |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blanchard 2004 [35] USA | Cross-sectional, population-based | 86 | Mean(SD) 69.22(12.5) | ≥2 years 33.7% ≥5 years 30.2% ≥10 years 36.0% | Surgery Radiation Chemotherapy | I-IV | Adherence to ACS PA guideline | SF-36 | 69.8% |
Blanchard 2008 [30]b USA | Cross-sectional, population-based | 1918 | Mean(SD) 70.2(11.0) | ≥2 years 33.4% ≥5 years 35.3% ≥10 years 31.3% | Surgery Radiation Chemotherapy Hormone therapy Immuno therapy BMT | I-IV | GLTEQ | SF-36 | 35% |
Blanchard 2010 [31]b USA | Cross-sectional, population-based | 668 | Mean(SD) 70.2(11.1) | ≥2 years 26.8% ≥5 years 40.5% ≥10 years 32.0% | In treatment (not further specified) | I-IV | GLTEQ | SF-36 | HW 20.0% OW 30.0% OB 24.4% |
Chambers 2012 [38] Australia | Cross-sectional & longitudinal, population-based | 632 | Mean 69.02 | ≥5 years Mean(SD) 5(6.1) | Surgery Chemotherapy | I-III | AAS | FACT-C SWLS | – |
Husson 2015 [34]c The Netherlands | Cross-sectional & longitudinal, population-based | 1739 | Mean(SD) 68.4(9.4) | ≥2 years Mean(SD) 5.1(2.8) | Radiation Chemotherapy | I-IV | EPIC | EORTC QLQ-C30 | 82% |
Mols 2015 [9]c The Netherlands | Cross-sectional, population-based | 1648 | Mean(SD) Chemotherapy: 66.7(9.8) No chemotherapy: 70.6(9.0) | 1–11 years Mean(SD) Chemotherapy: 5.6(2.8) No chemotherapy: 6.1(2.8) | Surgery Radiation | I-IV | EPIC | EORTC QLQ-C30 CIPN20 | Chemotherapy: 93% No Chemotherapy: 89% |
Rodriguez 2015 [36] USA | Cross-sectional, population-based | 593 | Mean 73.8 | Only ≥5 years Mean 6.2 | Number of treatments | I-III | GLTEQ | PROMIS EQ-5D | – |
Thraen-Borowski 2013 [37] USA | Cross-sectional, population-based | 832 | Mean(SD) 81.5(5.8) | Only ≥5 years Mean(SD) 8.2(1.7) | – | – | CHAMPS | SF-36 | 52% |
Van Roekel 2015 [32]d The Netherlands | Cross-sectional, mono-centric | 151 | Mean(SD) 69.8(8.7) | 2–10 years Mean(SD) 5.7(1.8) | Surgery Radiation Chemotherapy | I-III | SQUASH | EORTC QLQ-C30 WHODAS II CIS HADS | 71% |
Van Roekel 2016 [33]d The Netherlands | Cross-sectional, mono-centric | 145 | Mean(SD) 70.0(8.7) | 2–10 years Mean(SD) 5.7(1.9) | Surgery Radiation Chemotherapy | I-III | MMOXX1 | EORTC QLQ-C30 WHODAS II CIS HADS | – |
Study design
Response rate and follow-up rate
Assessment and categorization of PA
QOL assessment
Analysis, statistical methods, and clinical relevance
Study findings regarding the association between PA and QOL
Statistical significance (p <0.05) and clinical relevance | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+/−: significant positive/negative association ns: not statistically significant .: not reported | a,b,cclinical relevance | |||||||||||
Study | C30 | QL | PF | RF | EF | SF | CF | |||||
Husson 2015 [34] | Meeting vs. not meeting ACS PA guideline, Interindividuald | +b | +b | +b | +b | +b | + | |||||
Meeting vs. not meeting ACS PA guideline, Intraindividuale | + | + | + | ns | ns | ns | ||||||
Mols 2015 [9] | Meeting vs. not meeting ACS PA guideline | +c | +c | +c | +c | +c | +c | |||||
Study | SF-36 | PF | RP | BP | SF | MH | RE | VT | GH | GCS | PCS | MCS |
Blanchard 2004 [35] | Meeting vs. not meeting ACS PA guideline | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | +c | . | . |
Blanchard 2008 [30] | Meeting vs. not meeting ACS PA guideline | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | +c | . | . |
Thraen-Borowski 2013 [37] | Meeting vs. not meeting ACS PA guideline | +a | +a | + | +a | ns | ns | +a | +a | . | . | . |
Study | FACT-C/ SWLS | PWB | SWB | EWB | FWB | CCS | SWLS | |||||
Chambers 2012 [38] | Sedentary - Ref. Insufficiently active (1–149 min/wk) | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |||||
Sufficiently active (≥150 min/wk) | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||||||
Study | PROMIS/ EQ-5D | Physical HRQOL | Mental HRQOL | Overall HRQOL | ||||||||
Rodriguez 2015 [36] | PA min/wk No PA - Ref. ≤60, 61–149, 150–249, 250+ | +c (≤60, 61–149, 150–249) | ns | +c (≤60, 61–149, 150–249) |
Statistical significance (p <0.05) and clinical relevance | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Different levels of PA | +/−: significant positive/negative association ns: not statistically significant .: not reported | a,b,cclinical relevance | ||||||||||
Study | C30 | QL | PF | RF | EF | SF | CF | |||||
Van Roekel 2015 [32] | >LPA (Q4 = ≥23.0 h/wk) vs. <LPA (Q1 = ≤2.0 h/wk) | ns | +b | +b | . | ns | . | |||||
>LPA (Q3 = 10.0-22.0 h/wk) vs. <LPA (Q1 = ≤2.0 h/wk) | . | . | . | . | . | . | ||||||
>MVPA (Q4 = ≥15.5 h/wk) vs. <MVPA (Q1 = ≤4.3 h/wk) | ns | +b | ns | . | ns | . | ||||||
>MVPA (Q3 = 8.7-15.0 h/wk) vs. <MVPA (Q1 = ≤4.3 h/wk) | ns | . | +b | . | +b | . | ||||||
Study | SF-36 | PF | RP | BP | SF | MH | RE | VT | GH | GCS | PCS | MCS |
Thraen-Borowski 2013 [37] | >MVPA (Q4 = ≥11.3 h/wk) vs. <MVPA (Q1 = 0.0 h/wk) | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | +b | ns |
>LPA (Q4 = ≥13.0 h/wk) vs. <LPA (Q1 = ≤1.5 h/wk)d | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ns | ns | |
>LPA (Q4 = ≥9.0 h/wk) vs. <LPA (Q1 = 0.0 h/wk)e | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | +b | +b | |
>Planned exercisef (Q4 = ≥9.5 h/wk) vs. <Planned exercise (Q1 = 0.0 h/wk) | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | +b | ns | |
>Non-exerciseg (Q4 = ≥16.5 h/wk) vs. <Non-exercise (Q1 = ≤1.6 h/wk) | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | + | ns | |
Study | WHODAS/ CIS/ HADS | DIS | FA | DIST | ||||||||
Van Roekel 2015 [32] | >LPA (Q4 = ≥23.0 h/wk) vs. <LPA (Q1 = ≤2.0 h/wk) | –c | ns | ns | ||||||||
>LPA (Q3 = 10.0-22.0 h/wk) vs. <LPA (Q1 = ≤2.0 h/wk) | ns | –c | ns | |||||||||
>MVPA (Q4 = ≥15.5 h/wk) vs. <MVPA (Q1 = ≤4.3 h/wk) | ns | ns | ns | |||||||||
>MVPA (Q3 = 8.7-15.0 h/wk) vs. <MVPA (Q1 = ≤4.3 h/wk) | –c | –c | –c | |||||||||
Study | PROMIS/ EQ-5D | Physical HRQOL | Mental HRQOL | Overall HRQOL | ||||||||
Rodriguez 2015 [36] | MVPA min/wk. No MVPA - Ref. ≤60, 61–149, 150+ | ns | ns | +c (61–149, 150+) ns (≤ 60) | ||||||||
Linear association PA and QOL (continuous results) | ||||||||||||
Study | C30 | QL | PF | RF | EF | SF | CF | |||||
Hussonn 2015 [34] | Continuous: Additional hour of MVPA/wk., Interindividualh | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||
Continuous: Additional hour of MVPA/wk., Intraindividuali | ns | + | ns | ns | ns | + | ||||||
Van Roekel 2016 [33] | Single-variable model, PAj | ns | + | ns | . | ns | . | |||||
Partition model, PAk | ns | + | ns | . | ns | . | ||||||
Substituting 1 h/day of sedentary time with PA | ns | +a | ns | . | ns | . | ||||||
Substituting 1 h/day of standing time with PA | ns | ns | ns | . | ns | . | ||||||
Study | WHODAS/ CIS/ HADS | DIS | FA | ANX | DEP | |||||||
Van Roekel 2016 [33] | Single-variable model PAj | –c | ns | ns | ns | |||||||
Partition model PAk | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||||||||
Substituting 1 h/day of sedentary time with PA | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||||||||
Substituting 1 h/day of standing time with PA | ns | ns | ns | ns |