# Can a physical activity program improve functional capacity and fatigue in people with cancer? A retrospective analysis

Aline Reinmann, Edouard Edouard Laré, Anne-Violette Bruyneel, Joseph Gligorov, Alexandre Bodmer, Thibaud Koessler

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Aline Reinmann, Edouard Edouard Laré, Anne-Violette Bruyneel, Joseph Gligorov, Alexandre Bodmer, et al.. Can a physical activity program improve functional capacity and fatigue in people with cancer? A retrospective analysis. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2025, 17 (1), pp.21. 10.1186/s13102-025-01066-w. http://hal-05213317

HAL Id: hal-05213317

https://hal.science/hal-05213317v1

Submitted on 18 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Can a physical activity program improve functional capacity and fatigue in people with cancer? A retrospective analysis

Aline Reinmann<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />* , Edouard Laré<fnref n="3" />, Anne-Violette Bruyneel<fnref n="1" /> , Joseph Gligorov<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="4" /> , Alexandre Bodmer<fnref n="3" />† and Thibaud Koessler<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="5" />†

**Abstract**

**Purpose** The primary aim was to determine the effect of a physical activity (PA) program with education sessions on walking capacity and fatigue in people with cancer. The secondary objective was to assess the factors that moderated the program's effect on walking capacity and fatigue among sociodemographic, physical capacity and symptom-related factors. Satisfaction with the program was also evaluated.

**Method** A retrospective, observational study of data from a 12-week program of twice-weekly group PA sessions combined with education sessions was conducted. The 6-min walk test (6MWT), the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) and program satisfaction were assessed. Paired t-tests were applied to assess changes in 6MWT and MFI-20. Multiple linear regressions were applied to determine the influence of age, gender, initial walking capacity and fatigue on the effects of the program.

**Results** Among the 264 participants (age 57.36 ± 12.43 years; 189 women; 134 with breast cancer), 125 (47%) completed the program. Walking capacity (+41.63 ± 91.00 m) and fatigue (-2.01 ± 3.77) were improved after the program (*p* < 0.001). Age and gender did not influence the program's effect; however, lower initial walking capacity and higher fatigue scores were associated with larger improvements after the program. Satisfaction with the program was high among participants who completed it.

**Conclusions** Walking capacity and fatigue improved significantly after the PA program, but the drop-out rate was high. The program could be individualized based on an individual's initial walking capacity or fatigue score to enhance its effectiveness.

**Keywords** Cancer, Physical activity, Exercise therapy, Walking, Fatigue, Education

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

BMC

© The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

<footnote>†Alexandre Bodmer and Thibaud Koessler contributed equally to this work.</footnote>

<footnote>*Correspondence:</footnote>

<footnote>Aline Reinmann
aline.reinmann@hesge.ch</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹Geneva School of Health Sciences, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Rue Des Caroubiers 25, CH-1227 Carouge, Geneva, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²INSERM, Centre de Recherche Saint Antoine, Sorbonne University, CRSA, 75012 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Service of Oncology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Department of Oncology, Sorbonne University, Tenon Hospital, AP-HP Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland</footnote>
## Introduction

Diminished physical fitness and fatigue are frequent consequences of cancer and cancer treatments [1, 2]. Physical fitness is defined as “a set of attributes that people have or achieved that relates to the ability to perform physical activity” [3]. It includes health-related fitness (e.g. cardiorespiratory endurance and muscular strength) and skill-related fitness (e.g. postural control). Both these types of fitness are affected by cancer. Maximal oxygen uptake is decreased up to 20% in people with breast cancer compared to women of the same age not affected by cancer [2]. Loss of muscle mass and function cause impairment of force production [4]. Treatment-related somatosensory deficits can cause postural control disorders [5]. These physical fitness disorders can alter physical function, which is the “physical capacity to perform a functional activity required in daily life” [6], such as walking [7, 8]. Thus, people with cancer adopt a conservative gait pattern that includes decreased gait speed, stride/step length, and power output as well as increased stride/step time, double support time, and step width variability [5, 9]. Diminished physical function associated with other negative cancer-related side effects like fatigue are problematic as they can restrict participation in PA, which in turn leads to general physical deconditioning, loss of independence in activities of daily living and reduced quality of life [9, 10].

PA is essential to counteract the repercussions of altered physical fitness. It has been extensively evaluated in phase I to III studies with different contexts (hospital, rehabilitation center, outpatient clinic; supervised or unsupervised), diverse interventions (aerobic, resistance, combined), protocols (frequency, intensity, time, type of activity [FITT]), and timings of delivery [11]. The results revealed that whatever the FITT modalities or timing of PA delivery, PA effectively improved physical function [12–14], quality of life [13] and fatigue [15]. By enhancing physical fitness components such as strength, power, balance, and maximal oxygen uptake [16–18], physical activity can improve walking capacity, as evidenced by increased distances on the 6-min walk test (6MWT) following participation in exercise programs [16]. PA can also enhance empowerment and reduce stress as well as reducing recurrence rate and increasing survival [19].

Despite the established benefits of PA, 78% of people with cancer are not sufficiently active [20]. Only 15% of people with cancer reached the PA cancer guidelines of at least 150 min of moderate to vigorous PA per week [21]. The American College of Sports Medicine guidelines recommend performing aerobic or combined training three times weekly at moderate intensity, for 12 weeks, to improve physical function and fatigue [22].

Combining therapeutic education sessions with the PA program is also suggested [23]. Despite these recommendations, people with cancer decrease their PA by up to two hours per week after the diagnosis [24]. Barriers to PA are multiple and include physiological factors (relating to the cancer and side effects of treatment), psychosocial and cultural factors (self-efficacy and motivation), and economic and environmental factors (cost, weather and access to facilities) [25].

To facilitate access to PA, many hospitals, clinics, and community-based centers offer specific supervised programs that include aerobic and resistance exercises [26, 27]. Implemented in everyday practice, these programs face the realities of clinical settings (more heterogeneous populations, practical challenges) that can influence their effectiveness. Therefore, the effectiveness of programs conducted in clinical practice should also be assessed through phase IV studies [28]. These studies aim to evaluate existing practices to identify necessary adaptations and propose effective, evidence-based, and specific interventions. To achieve this, they focus on identifying program moderators. Moderators are defined as factors present before the therapeutic intervention that can impact the treatment [29]. These factors help determine for whom and under what conditions the intervention will be effective [29]. Regarding rehabilitation programs, the effectiveness of these programs could depend on a variety of factors such as sociodemographic factors (age, gender, body mass index [BMI] and marital status), cancer-related factors (type of cancer, timing of interventions and treatment), and initial levels of fatigue and physical capacity. A lower initial PA level may result in greater benefits from the PA program (larger increase in 6MWT distance) [30] but further studies are needed to confirm this [13]. Similarly, further studies are needed to assess whether initial fatigue level influences PA response [13]. Sociodemographic and cancer-related factors seem to have only small influences on the effects of PA [13–15]. Defining moderators that promote better outcomes in PA programs will help to better target programs, better individualize future PA programs, and thus improve supportive care for people with and after cancer.

The primary aim of this retrospective study was to assess the effect of a PA program associated with educational sessions on walking capacity and fatigue in people with cancer. The secondary aim was to evaluate moderators of the program's effect on walking capacity and fatigue among sociodemographic (age and gender), physical capacity (walking capacity) and symptom-related (fatigue) factors. We also assessed participant satisfaction at the end of the program.
# Methods

## Participants

To participate in the PA program, participants had to be at least 18 years old and have or have had an oncological disease with a medical prescription from the oncologist authorizing participation in the rehabilitation program at the Geneva University Hospital (HUG). They were excluded if they had medical conditions restricting participation in the program, such as bone metastasis or osteoporosis with a risk of fracture, verified by an oncologist. Active cancer treatments (chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, radiotherapy) were not exclusion criteria.

## Design, data source and variables

We conducted a retrospective study of data collected from September 2017 to July 2019 by physiotherapists for all the people who attended the rehabilitation program. Sociodemographic variables (age, gender, weight, height, BMI, type of cancer and treatment) were collected before the program, while clinical data (walking capacity, fatigue, and satisfaction) were collected both before and after the program.

## Rehabilitation program description

The program consisted of twice-weekly group physiotherapy sessions and three education sessions held at the HUG. Groups consisted of 10–15 participants with a diagnosis of cancer. The group program lasted 12 weeks and was supervised by two physiotherapists specialized in oncology. The education sessions consisted of presentations by healthcare professionals followed by discussions with participants. Topics covered included: PA, cancer and treatment, and nutrition. Concerning the PA program, one weekly session consisted of circuit training to work on strength, coordination, and balance, and the second weekly session involved endurance training. Circuit training sessions lasted one hour and included a 15 min warm-up and a 15 min cool down. The circuit training was composed of 15 stations of 1 min exercise and 1 min rest. The exercises, which included body-weight, elastic band, and free weight training, varied each week to enhance motivation. Three difficulty levels were offered for each exercise. The endurance sessions involved either an easy to moderate 60-min outdoor walk or a moderate to difficult 90-min walk, or indoor training on endurance equipment (stationary bicycle ergometer, treadmill, elliptical machine), depending on each participant's abilities. The target was to reach moderate to vigorous exercise intensity (5/10 on the BORG scale) during all sessions (0-no effort to 10-maximum effort) as recommended [22]. Each participant adapted their effort to their state of health and skills on the day. Thus,

the starting level of exercise and progression were established according to the perceived exertion. Adherence rate was not monitored. Any adverse events would have been reported to the oncologist in charge of the patient.

## Evaluations

During the first and the last weeks of the program, participants took part in an evaluation session during which walking capacity and fatigue were assessed by the physiotherapists who also performed the rehabilitation.

### The 6-min walk test (6MWT)

6MWT is a very common test of exercise capacity used in oncology [31]. It is moderately to strongly correlated with other walking capacity tests such as the 2-min walking test and the 10-m walk test in individuals with cancer ($0.61<r>0.84$, $p<0.001$) [32] and has excellent test–retest reliability (ICC=0.96) [33].

The 6MWT was conducted according to the guidelines of the European Respiratory Society / American Thoracic Society [34]. The participants had to walk back and forth along a 30 m corridor aiming to walk 'as far as possible in six minutes'. No incentives were given. After six minutes, participants were asked to stop, and the distance walked was measured by means of markers on the wall. Heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation ($SpO^2$) measured by a fingerpulse oximeter, perceived exertion (BORG) and the walking distance were collected before, every two minutes, and at the end of the test. The time to recover HR and $SpO^2$ (return to baseline values) was also recorded.

### The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) questionnaire

The MFI-20 is a 20-item questionnaire that assesses the influence of cancer on general physical and mental fatigue, activity, and motivation [35]. Subscale scores range from 4 to 20 with higher scores indicating higher fatigue. This questionnaire is validated in French ($r=0.83$) and is highly reliable (Cronbach's alpha coefficient=0.80) [35, 36]. It is recommended in an oncological context where assessment of fatigue is an important aspect of patient monitoring [36].

### Satisfaction questionnaire

The satisfaction questionnaire was designed by the HUG to assess participant satisfaction with the rehabilitation program (Supplementary file). It includes questions about hospital choice, the program admission process, the program, and facilities that are rated on a Likert scale from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor) and 6 (don't know) (range 14–82) (Table 3). This questionnaire was completed at the end of the program.
## Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were expressed as frequencies and percentages for qualitative variables (sex, type of cancer, treatment, and satisfaction) and mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables (age, height, body weight, BMI, functional capacities, and fatigue results).

For the primary objective, paired t-tests were used to assess change in 6MWT distance and change in fatigue from the start to the end of the PA program after confirming the normality of the distribution of the differences with an exploratory data analysis. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated.

To assess whether sociodemographic factors, baseline level of PA, and baseline fatigue moderated the effects of the PA program, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. In these models, the evolution of the dependent variable (DV, either walking capacity or fatigue) was considered as a function of the initial parameter values (IV), with age and gender included as covariates. The assumptions of the model, including linearity of the DV vs. IV, normality and homoscedasticity of residuals, were verified. Multiple linear regression analyses were preferred over mixed models because the mixed models had non-significant likelihood ratio tests, minimal variances of the random effects, and higher Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) values compared to the multiple linear regressions.

Analyses were conducted with Stata software (v.15, Stata Corporation, USA; v.25) and a *p*-value < 0.05 was considered significant for all analyses.

## Results

### Socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 264 participants, mean age 57.36 ± 12.43 years underwent the baseline assessment (Table 1). Breast cancer was by far the most represented cancer (51%, *n* = 134) followed by lung (9%, *n* = 23) and colorectal cancers (7%, *n* = 18).

### Study completion

Among the 264 participants, 47% finished the program. Data of 139 persons were missing (drop-out or methodological reasons). The reasons for drop out were not monitored. No major adverse events occurred during the program.

The initial walking distance of individuals who did not complete the program was not different from the initial walking distance of those who finished it (mean ± SD (min-max): 475.88 ± 120.82 (120 - 720) vs. 487.98 ± 100.30 (120-780), *p* = 0.389). The same result was found for general fatigue (13.33 ± 3.74 (4 - 20) vs. 12.88 ± 3.74 (4 - 20), *p* = 0.335).

### Changes in 6MWT distance

6MWT distance improved by 41.63 ± 91.00 m (+9%, *p* < 0.001, *d* = 0.41, *n* = 121) from the start to the end of the program (Table 2). BORG, HR, SpO² values, and recovery time did not change.

### Changes in fatigue

All the dimensions of the MFI20 questionnaire were improved after the program (Table 2). General and physical fatigue, reduced PA, reduced motivation, and mental fatigue were decreased by -2.01 ± 3.77 (-16%, *p* < 0.001, *d* = -0.55, *n* = 121), -2.54 ± 4.05 (-20%, *p* < 0.001, *d* = -0.58, *n* = 121), -2.03 ± 3.89 (-18%, *p* < 0.001, *d* = 0.48, *n* = 121), -0.79 ± 3.10 (-9%, *p* = 0.008, *d* = -0.24, *n* = 121), and -1.07 ± 3.63 (-11%, *p* = 0.003, *d* = -0.24, *n* = 121).

### Changes in the 6MWT according to age, gender, and initial walking distance

The change in walking distance was not influenced by age (*p* = 0.415) or gender (*p* = 0.093) but did vary based on the initial walking distance value (*p* < 0.001, Table 3). Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that for each additional meter of initial walking distance, the change in walking distance after the program would decrease by 0.43 m. The *p*-value of the multiple linear regression was significant (*p* < 0.001).

### Changes in general fatigue according to age, gender, and initial fatigue

Change in general fatigue did not differ according to age (*p* = 0.627) or gender (*p* = 0.739) but it did differ according to the initial general fatigue value (*p* < 0.001, Table 3). The change in fatigue score after the program would decrease by 0.51 points for each additional point in the initial fatigue score.

### Satisfaction

Participants were particularly satisfied, both in terms of the location of the program and the program itself (Table 4): 91% stated they would recommend it “without a doubt” and 9% “probably”.

### Discussion

This retrospective study showed that at the end of a PA exercise program combined with education sessions, walking distance and all dimensions of fatigue in people with different types of cancer had improved (small to moderate effect sizes [37]). However, the drop-out rate was high. Low walking capacity and high fatigue levels were associated with greater benefits from the program, while age and gender had no influence on the results.
<table><caption>**Table 1** Participant characteristics</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Characteristics</th><th colspan="2">All participants</th><th colspan="2">Participants who completed the program</th><th colspan="2">Participants who dropped out of the program</th><th rowspan="2">p-value finishers vs. drop-out</th></tr><tr><th>Values</th><th>n</th><th>Values</th><th>n</th><th>Values</th><th>n</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Age, (years)</strong></td><td>57.36±12.43 (18–89)</td><td>263</td><td>58.21±11.49 (31–89)</td><td>125</td><td>56.59±13.22 (18–88)</td><td>138</td><td>0.292</td></tr><tr><td>Age women</td><td>56.22±12.17 (18–88)</td><td>188</td><td>56.63±11.13 (31–81)</td><td>99</td><td>55.76±13.28 (18–88)</td><td>89</td><td>0.629</td></tr><tr><td>Age men</td><td>60.21±12.69 (23–89)</td><td>75</td><td>64.23±11.00 (40–89)</td><td>26</td><td>58.08±13.11 (23–74)</td><td>49</td><td><strong>0.045</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gender, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td>264</td><td></td><td>125</td><td></td><td>139</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>189 (72)</td><td>189</td><td>99 (79)</td><td>99</td><td>90 (65)</td><td>90</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>75 (28)</td><td>75</td><td>26 (21)</td><td>26</td><td>49 (35)</td><td>49</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Height, (cm)</strong></td><td>164.93±9.61 (147–202)</td><td>149</td><td>163.17±8.17 (147–186)</td><td>69</td><td>166.45±10.51 (150–202)</td><td>80</td><td><strong>0.037</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Height women</td><td>160.76±6.56 (147–178)</td><td>106</td><td>160.67±6.43 (147–176)</td><td>55</td><td>160.84±6.76 (150–178)</td><td>51</td><td>0.895</td></tr><tr><td>Height men</td><td>175.23±8.05 (163–202)</td><td>43</td><td>173.00±6.82 (163–186)</td><td>14</td><td>176.31±8.48 (163–202)</td><td>29</td><td>0.210</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Weight, (kg)</strong></td><td>73.63±18.09 (42–174)</td><td>150</td><td>71.57±16.42 (42–120)</td><td>69</td><td>75.38±19.33 (43–174)</td><td>81</td><td>0.199</td></tr><tr><td>Weight women</td><td>69.29±16.24 (42–105)</td><td>107</td><td>67.80±14.96 (42–102)</td><td>55</td><td>70.88±17.50 (43–105)</td><td>52</td><td>0.330</td></tr><tr><td>Weight men</td><td>84.41±18.14 (60–174)</td><td>43</td><td>86.36±13.62 (67–120)</td><td>14</td><td>83.47±20.12 (60–174)</td><td>29</td><td>0.630</td></tr><tr><td><strong>BMI, (kg/m2)</strong></td><td>27.04±5.97 (16.16–58.14)</td><td>149</td><td>26.74±5.13 (16.16–39.35)</td><td>69</td><td>27.30±6.64 (17.16–58.14)</td><td>80</td><td>0.569</td></tr><tr><td>BMI women</td><td>26.85±6.02 (16.16–45.33)</td><td>106</td><td>26.21±5.31 (16.16–39.35)</td><td>55</td><td>27.54±6.70 (17.16–45.33)</td><td>51</td><td>0.259</td></tr><tr><td>BMI men</td><td>27.52±5.88 (19.82–58.14)</td><td>43</td><td>28.83±3.82 (20.68–34.69)</td><td>14</td><td>26.89±6.63 (19.82–58.14)</td><td>29</td><td>0.317</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Cancer type, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td>264</td><td></td><td>125</td><td></td><td>139</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Appendix</td><td>1 (&lt;1)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bladder</td><td>2 (1)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bone</td><td>1 (&lt;1)</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Breast</td><td>134 (51)</td><td></td><td>76 (61)</td><td></td><td>58 (42)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Brain</td><td>9 (3)</td><td></td><td>3 (2)</td><td></td><td>6 (4)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Brain lymphoma</td><td>1 (&lt;1)</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Colorectal</td><td>18 (7)</td><td></td><td>9 (7)</td><td></td><td>9 (7)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gall bladder</td><td>2 (1)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gynecological</td><td>14 (5)</td><td></td><td>4 (3)</td><td></td><td>10 (7)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Kidney</td><td>3 (1)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td>2 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Leukemia</td><td>4 (2)</td><td></td><td>3 (2)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Liver</td><td>3 (1)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td>2 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lung</td><td>23 (9)</td><td></td><td>8 (6)</td><td></td><td>15 (11)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lymphoma</td><td>8 (3)</td><td></td><td>2 (2)</td><td></td><td>6 (4)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mediastinum</td><td>1 (&lt;1)</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Oesophagus</td><td>2 (1)</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td>2 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ORL</td><td>6 (2)</td><td></td><td>2 (2)</td><td></td><td>4 (3)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pancreas</td><td>6 (2)</td><td></td><td>2 (2)</td><td></td><td>4 (3)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prostate</td><td>11 (4)</td><td></td><td>6 (6)</td><td></td><td>5 (4)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Skin</td><td>4 (2)</td><td></td><td>2 (2)</td><td></td><td>2 (2)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Small intestine</td><td>1 (&lt;1)</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spleen</td><td>1 (&lt;1)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Stomach</td><td>7 (3)</td><td></td><td>2 (2)</td><td></td><td>5 (4)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thyroid</td><td>2 (1)</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td>2 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Therapy, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td>232</td><td></td><td>105</td><td></td><td>127</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>39 (15)</td><td></td><td>15 (14)</td><td></td><td>24 (19)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C+S</td><td>26 (10)</td><td></td><td>10 (10)</td><td></td><td>16 (13)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C+S+H</td><td>2 (1)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td>1 (1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C+S+H+R</td><td>9 (3)</td><td></td><td>6 (6)</td><td></td><td>3 (2)</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>All participants</th><th>Participants who completed the program</th><th>Participants who dropped out of the program</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C+S+I</td><td>2 (1)</td><td>1 (1)</td><td>1 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>C+S+I+R</td><td>5 (2)</td><td>2 (2)</td><td>3 (2)</td></tr><tr><td>C+S+R</td><td>34 (13)</td><td>19 (18)</td><td>15 (12)</td></tr><tr><td>C+H</td><td>4 (2)</td><td>2 (2)</td><td>2 (2)</td></tr><tr><td>C+H+I</td><td>1 (&lt; 1)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>C+H+R</td><td>10 (4)</td><td>5 (5)</td><td>5 (4)</td></tr><tr><td>C+I</td><td>4 (2)</td><td>0</td><td>4 (3)</td></tr><tr><td>C+I+R</td><td>2 (1)</td><td>1 (1)</td><td>1 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>C+R</td><td>26 (10)</td><td>8 (8)</td><td>18 (14)</td></tr><tr><td>S</td><td>13 (5)</td><td>9 (9)</td><td>4 (3)</td></tr><tr><td>S+H</td><td>6 (2)</td><td>4 (4)</td><td>2 (2)</td></tr><tr><td>S+H+I+R</td><td>1 (&lt; 1)</td><td>1 (1)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>S+H+R</td><td>14 (5)</td><td>9 (9)</td><td>5 (4)</td></tr><tr><td>S+I</td><td>1 (&lt; 1)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>S+R</td><td>12 (5)</td><td>4 (4)</td><td>8 (6)</td></tr><tr><td>H</td><td>4 (2)</td><td>2 (2)</td><td>2 (2)</td></tr><tr><td>H+R</td><td>5 (2)</td><td>1 (1)</td><td>4 (3)</td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td>8 (3)</td><td>3 (3)</td><td>5 (4)</td></tr><tr><td>R</td><td>1 (&lt; 1)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>3 (1)</td><td>2 (2)</td><td>1 (1)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Socio-demographics and clinical characteristics of participants. Data are mean ± SD (Min–Max) or n (%)

BMI Body Mass Index, C Chemotherapy, H Hormone therapy, I Immune therapy, ORL Otorhinolaryngological, R Radiation therapy, S Surgery

In bold, *p*-value < 0.05

Participants who completed the program were highly satisfied with it.

The improvement in walking capacity following the PA program is consistent with previous work. Systematic reviews found that PA can improve aspects of physical fitness, such as strength, power, balance and maximal oxygen uptake, in people with different types of cancer [16–18], as well as walking capacity, with improvements in the 6MWT, 400 m walk, 6 m or 10 m walk tests [17, 18, 38]. However, the improvement in the 6MWT distance did not always exceed the minimum clinically significant difference (MCID) [30, 39] established at 42.7 m [40], 42 m or 9.5% improvement [41], 63.2 m [42], or 62.5 m [39] in studies of people with prostate, lung, and breast cancer. In the study by Soucy et al. (2022), the MCID was reached in only 28% of participants [30]. Similarly, in our study, the improvement in 6MWT distance was close to, but did not exceed the MCID, suggesting that providing more individualized PA programs, particularly regarding the participant's initial condition, could improve its effectiveness.

The participants with a shorter baseline 6MWT distance had greater improvements in walking capacity than those with a longer baseline 6MWT distance. It is possible that these results are related to the greater

sensitivity of the test to functional changes in cases of lower initial capacities [43]. Another explanation concerns the margin for progress. Individuals starting from a lower physical capacity likely have a greater potential for improvement [44]. Thus, in a previous study evaluating the effects of a community program in women with breast cancer, an improvement in walking capacity, assessed using the 6MWT, was observed in individuals with lower initial capacities [30]. This confirms the necessity of providing individualized PA programs designed according to the individual's physical capacities, such as walking capacity, rather than according to sociodemographic factors, since these factors did not influence the improvement in walking distance in this study. A similar lack of influence was also found in a meta-analysis [13].

In addition to considering initial condition, an objective assessment of maximal capacities could enhance program effectiveness by accurately prescribing the appropriate starting load and progression. Individuals with high initial capacities, whose range of gains is consequently more limited, could benefit from more individualized stimuli, either in a more objective manner [44] or more frequently, as recommended [22]. This would address the principles of progression, overload,
<table><caption>**Table 2** Descriptive characteristics, functional, and fatigue values</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Values pre</th><th>n</th><th>Values post</th><th>n</th><th>Differences</th><th>n</th><th>Cohen's<br>d effect<br>size</th><th>p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="9"><em>Walking capacity with the 6MWT</em></td></tr><tr><td>Distance 2 min, (m)</td><td>163.40 ± 29.10 (90—250)</td><td>119</td><td>176.72 ± 33.89 (90—290)</td><td>118</td><td>13.46 ± 26.61 (—75—90)</td><td>118</td><td>0.43</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Distance 4 min, (m)</td><td>323.57 ± 64.15 (100—500)</td><td>119</td><td>349.25 ± 67.99 (150—540)</td><td>118</td><td>25.98 ± 60.74 (—180—210)</td><td>118</td><td>0.39</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Distance 6 min, (m)</td><td>487.98 ± 100.30 (120—780)</td><td>121</td><td>529.60 ± 102.56 (180—835)</td><td>121</td><td>41.63 ± 91.00 (—330—375)</td><td>121</td><td>0.41</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>BORG 6 min</td><td>3.87 ± 1.92 (0.5—9)</td><td>108</td><td>3.95 ± 1.87 (1—10)</td><td>57</td><td>-0.12 ± 2.18 (—5—6)</td><td>52</td><td>-0.06</td><td>=0.704</td></tr><tr><td>SpO<sup>2</sup> pre, (%)</td><td>97.45 ± 1.35 (93—100)</td><td>121</td><td>97.18 ± 1.51 (93—100)</td><td>120</td><td>-0.25 ± 1.62 (—6—3)</td><td>120</td><td>-0.18</td><td>=0.094</td></tr><tr><td>SpO<sup>2</sup> 2 min, (%)</td><td>96.02 ± 1.79 (90—99)</td><td>121</td><td>95.59 ± 2.59 (85—100)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.41 ± 2.69 (—13—6)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.18</td><td>=0.099</td></tr><tr><td>SpO<sup>2</sup> 4 min, (%)</td><td>95.93 ± 2.15 (86—100)</td><td>121</td><td>95.50 ± 2.86 (81—100)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.43 ± 3.19 (—17—12)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.17</td><td>=0.141</td></tr><tr><td>SpO<sup>2</sup> 6 min, (%)</td><td>96.18 ± 1.88 (90—100)</td><td>121</td><td>95.74 ± 2.47 (87—100)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.44 ± 2.76 (—12—8)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.20</td><td>=0.083</td></tr><tr><td>HR pre, (bpm)</td><td>81.64 ± 13.60 (51—123)</td><td>121</td><td>86.60 ± 13.49 (57—120)</td><td>121</td><td>4.96 ± 12.71 (—21—56)</td><td>121</td><td>0.37</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>HR 2 min, (bpm)</td><td>112.02 ± 19.42 (62—171)</td><td>120</td><td>111.65 ± 19.80 (48—153)</td><td>120</td><td>-0.49 ± 23.56 (—78—61)</td><td>119</td><td>-0.03</td><td>=0.822</td></tr><tr><td>HR 4 min, (bpm)</td><td>114.05 ± 19.25 (60—173)</td><td>119</td><td>115.43 ± 19.59 (62—156)</td><td>120</td><td>0.92 ± 19.26 (—77—59)</td><td>118</td><td>0.05</td><td>=0.603</td></tr><tr><td>HR 6 min, (bpm)</td><td>116.65 ± 19.44 (63—165)</td><td>121</td><td>118.02 ± 20.27 (63—165)</td><td>121</td><td>1.37 ± 17.60 (—86—58)</td><td>121</td><td>0.07</td><td>=0.393</td></tr><tr><td>Recuperation SpO<sup>2</sup><br>6 min, (s)</td><td>48.27 ± 57.40 (0—265)</td><td>115</td><td>43.23 ± 49.10 (0—180)</td><td>115</td><td>-3.62 ± 73.62 (—185—150)</td><td>109</td><td>-0.18</td><td>=0.608</td></tr><tr><td>Recuperation HR 6 min,<br>(s)</td><td>123.54 ± 59.83 (0—360)</td><td>115</td><td>109.19 ± 54.22 (0—180)</td><td>115</td><td>-9.91 ± 74.05 (—360—180)</td><td>109</td><td>-0.07</td><td>=0.165</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><em>Fatigue with the MFI-20</em></td></tr><tr><td>General fatigue</td><td>12.88 ± 3.74 (4—20)</td><td>121</td><td>10.87 ± 3.74 (4—20)</td><td>121</td><td>-2.01 ± 3.77 (—11—6)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.55</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Physical fatigue</td><td>12.45 ± 4.32 (4—20)</td><td>121</td><td>9.91 ± 4.07 (4—20)</td><td>121</td><td>-2.54 ± 4.05 (—14—11)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.58</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Reduced PA</td><td>11.51 ± 4.33 (4—20)</td><td>121</td><td>9.48 ± 3.81 (4—20)</td><td>121</td><td>-2.03 ± 3.89 (—13—8)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.48</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Reduced motivation</td><td>8.58 ± 3.26 (4—18)</td><td>121</td><td>7.79 ± 3.05 (4—16)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.79 ± 3.10 (—8—7)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.24</td><td><strong>=0.008</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Mental fatigue</td><td>10.11 ± 4.29 (4—20)</td><td>121</td><td>9.03 ± 4.24 (3—20)</td><td>121</td><td>-1.07 ± 3.63 (—9—11)</td><td>121</td><td>-0.24</td><td><strong>=0.003</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Descriptive characteristics, functional, and fatigue values

Data are mean ± SD (Min–Max)

HR Heart Rate, SpO² Oxygen saturation, 6MWT 6-min walk test

In bold, p-value < 0.05

<table><caption>**Table 3** Linear regressions</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Simple linear<br>regression coefficient</th><th>95% CI</th><th>p-value</th><th>Multiple linear<br>regression coefficient</th><th>95% CI</th><th>p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><em>Walking model</em></td></tr><tr><td>Initial walking distance</td><td>-0.389</td><td>-0.54 to -0.24</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>-0.429</td><td>-0.59 to -0.27</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>0.900</td><td>-0.55 to 2.35</td><td>0.222</td><td>-0.601</td><td>-2.06 to 0.86</td><td>0.415</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>14.739</td><td>-27.10 to 56.58</td><td>0.487</td><td>34.272</td><td>-5.78 to 74.33</td><td>0.093</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><em>Fatigue model</em></td></tr><tr><td>Initial general fatigue</td><td>-0.509</td><td>-0.67 to -0.35</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>-0.505</td><td>-0.67 to -0.34</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>0.039</td><td>-0.02 to 0.10</td><td>0.198</td><td>0.014</td><td>-0.04 to 0.07</td><td>0.627</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>0.464</td><td>-1.22 to 2.15</td><td>0.586</td><td>-0.260</td><td>-1.80 to 1.28</td><td>0.739</td></tr></tbody></table>

Coefficients of linear regressions n = 121

CI Confidence interval

In bold, p-value < 0.05
<table><caption>**Table 4** Satisfaction questionnaire</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="7">Choice</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Me</th><th>My doctor</th><th>Advice from a relative</th><th>Fair</th><th>Poor</th><th>I don't know</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hospital choice for your rehabilitation (n = 111)</td><td>18 (16.22)</td><td>90 (81.08)</td><td>3 (2.7)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Facilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Easy access to the Physiotherapy Department (n = 116)</td><td>69 (59.48)</td><td>38 (32.76)</td><td>7 (6.03)</td><td>1 (0.86)</td><td>1 (0.86)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Ease of orientation around and in buildings (n = 114)</td><td>63 (55.26)</td><td>38 (33.33)</td><td>13 (11.4)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Comfort, cleanliness, lighting, temperature of room in which you were treated (n = 116)</td><td>69 (59.48)</td><td>30 (25.86)</td><td>14 (12.07)</td><td>3 (2.59)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Calm, intimacy, relaxing atmosphere of the rehabilitation rooms (n = 113)</td><td>59 (52.21)</td><td>38 (33.63)</td><td>16 (14.16)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Admission</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ease of formalities and time to get your first appointment (n = 114)</td><td>76 (66.67)</td><td>33 (28.95)</td><td>5 (4.39)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Friendliness, willingness of staff to answer your questions, expectations (n = 116)</td><td>69 (59.48)</td><td>37 (31.9)</td><td>8 (6.9)</td><td>2 (1.72)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Your treatment</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ability of your physiotherapist to make you feel comfortable and, if necessary, reassure you (n = 115)</td><td>79 (68.7)</td><td>33 (28.7)</td><td>3 (2.61)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Explanations you received about what would be done to you and what was expected of you (n = 116)</td><td>70 (60.34)</td><td>34 (29.31)</td><td>10 (8.62)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2 (1.72)</td></tr><tr><td>At the end of your physiotherapy, the quality of information you received about your future (n = 116)</td><td>49 (42.24)</td><td>37 (31.9)</td><td>18 (15.52)</td><td>1 (0.86)</td><td>0</td><td>11 (9.48)</td></tr><tr><td>Your sense of security at each stage of rehabilitation (n = 117)</td><td>78 (66.67)</td><td>33 (28.21)</td><td>6 (5.13)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Tailoring your rehabilitation to the specificity of your problem (n = 113)</td><td>55 (48.67)</td><td>40 (35.4)</td><td>18 (15.93)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Summary word</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>If you had to summarize your physiotherapy treatment in one word (n = 111)</td><td>65 (58.56)</td><td>40 (36.04)</td><td>6 (5.41)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Recommendation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Would you recommend our service to someone close to you? (n = 116)</td><td>Yes, without any doubt<br>105 (90.52)</td><td>Yes, probably<br>11 (9.48)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Results of the satisfaction questionnaire. Data expressed in n (%). n = 111—117

and specificity, that must be adhered to for the effective implementation of rehabilitation programs [44].

The addition of education sessions by trained caregivers, as was done in this program, is another method to increase the effectiveness of PA programs by supporting and guiding cancer patients in their engagement with physical activity [25, 45].

The results for fatigue were similar to most results of the latest systematic reviews and meta-analyses that found that PA improved cancer-related fatigue in people with breast [10, 46], gynecological [47], lung [48], colon [49–51], and pancreatic [18] cancer. PA induces anti-inflammatory effects on IL-6 that may reduce the activity of pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1B and TNF-a, positively affecting cancer-related fatigue [52]. All the dimensions evaluated by the fatigue questionnaire were improved, namely general fatigue, physical fatigue, PA,

motivation, and mental fatigue, but only the change in physical fatigue exceeded the MCID (2.54 > 2.04), although the change in general fatigue was very close to the MCID (2.01 < 2.06) [53]. A meta-analysis found that during cytotoxic treatment, general fatigue and physical fatigue were also improved by PA [54]. Therefore, PA may specifically improve these fatigue dimensions.

PA seemed particularly beneficial for people with high initial level of fatigue. Participants with higher level of fatigue had greater improvements in their MFI20 scores at the end of the program than those with lower levels of baseline fatigue. On the opposite, age and gender had no influence on the program's effect on fatigue in this retrospective study, contrary to what was observed in Covington's scoping review (2019) [26]. Knowing that a PA program with education sessions can reduce cancer-related fatigue, particularly high levels of fatigue could
encourage people with cancer to participate in PA [25]. Indeed, treatment-related side effects, medical complications, and cancer progression are among the main barriers to PA, along with time conflicts [26]. The fact that some participants were receiving active oncological therapy such as chemotherapy at the same time as the PA program could partly explain the high dropout rate found in this study. As many of the adverse effects of disease and treatment can be ameliorated by PA [55], there is a need to find ways to facilitate adherence to PA to help people to achieve the recommendations. Quality therapeutic education provided by trained caregivers, the implementation of PA as an integral part of cancer treatment, the reorganization of health-care facilities or the diversification of the modalities of the individualized program offered (at home, with different types of PA, etc.), could be possible solutions [25].

## Limitations

This study was based on retrospective data, with the disadvantages that this entails. Thus, some demographic and outcome data were missing. Additional information on the participants, e.g. cancer stage, PA practiced outside the program, adherence in terms of quantity and intensity of exercise performed during PA, and other physical fitness capacities affected by cancer, such as strength or postural control, would have provided additional information on the effects of a PA program. Similarly, the addition of a control group would have allowed confirmation that the observed improvements were due to the program. Evaluations at several time points would have increased the accuracy of the results by knowing how they evolve throughout the program [30, 44]. Knowledge on missing data and reasons of drop-out would have been of great interest to set up future physical activity programs. As the physiotherapists in charge of the program administered the satisfaction questionnaire, this may have led to a social desirability bias and thus overestimating program satisfaction. Finally, the small number of participants who completed the program prevented further analyses, for example by type of cancer. However, previous studies did not demonstrate any influence of cancer type on PA program effects on physical function [13] or fatigue [15].

## Practical implications and conclusions

This retrospective study found improvements in walking capacity and fatigue among people with cancer who completed the hospital-based PA program. To enhance its effectiveness, the program could be individualized based on the individual's initial condition, specifically their initial walking capacity and fatigue levels. Lower walking

capacity and higher fatigue levels resulted in greater benefits. Particular attention should be paid to reducing missing data and drop-out rates when developing a PA program. The high level of satisfaction reported by participants who completed the program demonstrated the potential to offer appropriate exercise programs during the active phase of treatment.

## Abbreviations

6MWT 6-min walk test

BMI Body Mass Index

FITT Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type of activity

HR Heart Rate

HUG Geneva University Hospital

IL-1B Interleukine-1 beta

MCID Minimal Clinically Important Difference

MFI-20 Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory

PA Physical Activity

SpO² Oxygen saturation

TNF-a Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha

## Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-025-01066-w.

Supplementary Material 1.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the physiotherapy team that was involved in this program. We would like to thank Johanna Robertson PT, PhD for language editing. We would like to thank Florian Stern, PhD for statistical support.

## Authors' contributions

AR contributed to data analyses, and drafted and revised the manuscript. EL contributed to data acquisition and drafted and revised the manuscript. AVB contributed to data analyses, and drafted and revised the manuscript. JG drafted and revised the manuscript. AB conceived and designed the program, and drafted and revised the manuscript. TK conceived and designed the program, and drafted and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the submitted version.

## Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Geneva No funding was received for conducting this study.

## Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study will be made available by the authors upon reasonable request.

## Declarations

### Ethics approval and consent to participate

This retrospective chart review study involving human participants was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of Geneva approved this study (Geneva CCER - 2020-00402). Verbal informed consent for the participation in the rehabilitation program and the use of the data was obtained prior to inclusion in the program.

### Consent for publication

Not applicable.

### Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
Received: 18 July 2024 Accepted: 22 January 2025

Published online: 06 February 2025

## References

1. Nyrop KA, Deal AM, Shachar SS, Basch E, Reeve BB, Choi SK, Lee JT, Wood WA, Anders CK, Carey LA, Dees EC, Jolly TA, Reeder-Hayes KE, Kimmick GG, Karuturi MS, Reinbolt RE, Speca JC, Muss HB. Patient-reported toxicities during chemotherapy regimens in current clinical practice for early breast Cancer. Oncologist. 2019;24:762–71. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0590.

2. Smoot B, Johnson M, Duda JJ, Krasnoff J, Dodd M. Cardiorespiratory fitness in women with and without lymphedema following breast cancer treatment. Cancer Clin Oncol. 2012;1:21–31. https://doi.org/10.5539/ccov.1n1p21.

3. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100:126–31.

4. Mallard J, Hucteau E, Hureau TJ, Pagano AF. Skeletal Muscle Deconditioning in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: Current Knowledge and Insights From Other Cancers. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.719643

5. Wang AB, Housley SN, Flores AM, Kircher SM, Perreault EJ, Cope TC. A review of movement disorders in chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2021;18:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00818-2.

6. Cheng I-F, Kuo L-C, Tsai Y-J, Su F-C. The comparisons of physical functional performances between older adults with and without regular physical activity in two different living settings. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:3561. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073561.

7. Monfort SM, Pan X, Patrick R, Ramaswamy B, Wesolowski R, Naughton MJ, Loprinzi CL, Chaudhari AMW, Lustberg MB. Gait, balance, and patient-reported outcomes during taxane-based chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164:69–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4230-8.

8. Toth MJ, Miller MS, Callahan DM, Sweeny AP, Nunez I, Grunberg SM, Der-Torossian H, Couch ME. Dittus K. Molecular mechanisms underlying skeletal muscle weakness in human cancer: reduced myosin-actin cross-bridge formation and kinetics. J Appl Physiol Bethesda Md. 2013;114:858–68. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01474.2012.

9. Duregon F, Vendramin B, Bullo V, Gobbo S, Cugusi L, Di Blasio A, Neunhaeuserer D, Zaccaria M, Bergamin M, Ermolao A. Effects of exercise on cancer patients suffering chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy undergoing treatment: A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018;121:90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.11.002.

10. Gebruers N, Camberlin M, Theunissen F, Tjalma W, Verbelen H, Van Soom T, van Breda E. The effect of training interventions on physical performance, quality of life, and fatigue in patients receiving breast cancer treatment: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. 2019;27:109–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4490-9.

11. Salam A, Woodman A, Chu A, Al-Jamea LH, Islam M, Sagher M, Sager M, Akhtar M. Effect of post-diagnosis exercise on depression symptoms, physical functioning and mortality in breast cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Cancer Epidemiol. 2022;77:102111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2022.102111.

12. Andersen HH, Vinther A, Lund CM, Paludan C, Jørgensen CT, Nielsen D, Juhl CB. Effectiveness of different types, delivery modes and effectiveness of exercise in patients with breast cancer receiving systemic treatment - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2022;178:103802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103802.

13. Buffart LM, Kalter J, Sweegers MG, Courneya KS, Newton RU, Aaronson NK, Jacobsen PB, May AM, Galvão DA, Chinapaw MJ, Steindorf K, Irwin ML, Stuiver MM, Hayes S, Griffith KA, Lucia A, Mesters I, van Weert E, Knoop H, Goedendorp MM, Mutrie N, Daley AJ, McConnachie A, Bohus M, Thorsen L, Schulz K-H, Short CE, James EL, Plotnikoff RC, Arbane G, Schmidt ME, Potthoff K, van Beurden M, Oldenburg HS, Sonke GS, van Harten WH, Garrod R, Schmitz KH, Winters-Stone KM, Velthuis MJ, Taaffe DR, van Mechelen W, Kersten M-J, Nollet F, Wenzel J, Wiskemann J, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Brug J. Effects and moderators of exercise on

quality of life and physical function in patients with cancer: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 34 RCTs. Cancer Treat Rev. 2017;52:91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.11.010.

14. Sweegers MG, Altenburg TM, Chinapaw MJ, Kalter J, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Courneya KS, Newton RU, Aaronson NK, Jacobsen PB, Brug J, Buffart LM. Which exercise prescriptions improve quality of life and physical function in patients with cancer during and following treatment? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:505–13. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjspo rts-2017-097891.

15. Oberoi S, Robinson PD, Cataudella D, Culos-Reed SN, Davis H, Duong N, Gibson F, Götte M, Hinds P, Nijhof SL, Tomlinson D, van der Torre P, Cabral S, Dupuis LL, Sung L. Physical activity reduces fatigue in patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018;122:52–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.12.011.

16. Lahart IM, Metsios GS, Nevill AM, Carmichael AR. Physical activity for women with breast cancer after adjuvant therapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011292.pub2.

17. Lopez P, Taaffe DR, Newton RU, Galvão DA. Resistance exercise dosage in men with prostate cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021;53:459–69. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.00000000000002503.

18. Luo H, Galvão DA, Newton RU, Lopez P, Tang C, Fairman CM, Spry N, Taaffe DR. Exercise medicine in the management of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review. Pancreas. 2021;50:280–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.00000000000001753.

19. Molina-Montes E, Ubago-Guisado E, Petrova D, Amiano P, Chirlaque M-D, Agudo A, Sánchez M-J. The role of diet, alcohol, BMI, and physical activity in cancer mortality: summary findings of the EPIC study. Nutrients. 2021;13:4293. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13124293.

20. Frikkel J, Götte M, Beckmann M, Kasper S, Hense J, Teufel M, Schuler M, Tewes M. Fatigue, barriers to physical activity and predictors for motivation to exercise in advanced Cancer patients. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00542-z.

21. Titz C, Hummler S, Schmidt ME, Thomas M, Steins M, Wiskemann J. Exercise behavior and physical fitness in patients with advanced lung cancer. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. 2018;26:2725–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4105-5.

22. Campbell KL, Winters-Stone K, Wiskemann J, May AM, Schwartz AL, Courneya KS, Zucker D, Matthews C, Ligibel J, Gerber L, Morris S, Patel A, Hue T, Perna F, Schmitz KH. Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51:2375–90. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.000000000000020116.

23. Beuchat-Mamie S, Sperisen N, Molnar P, Koçer S. Physical Activity and Cancer. Praxis. 2018;107:965–70. https://doi.org/10.1024/1661-8157/a003064.

24. Irwin ML, Crumley D, McTiernan A, Bernstein L, Baumgartner R, Gilliland FD, Kriska A, Ballard-Barbash R. Physical activity levels before and after a diagnosis of breast carcinoma: the Health, Eating, Activity, and Lifestyle (HEAL) study. Cancer. 2003;97:1746–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11227.

25. Elshahat S, Treanor C, Donnelly M. Factors influencing physical activity participation among people living with or beyond cancer: a systematic scoping review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01116-9.

26. Covington KR, Hidde MC, Pergolotti M, Leach HJ. Community-based exercise programs for cancer survivors: a scoping review of practice-based evidence. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27:4435–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05022-6.

27. Ezenwankwo EF, Nnate DA, Usoro GD, Onyeso CP, Anieto IB, Ibeneme SC, Albertus Y, Lambert VE, Ezeukwu AO, Abaraogu UO, Shamley D. A scoping review examining the integration of exercise services in clinical oncology settings. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:236. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07598-y.

28. Onken LS, Carroll KM, Shoham V, Cuthbert BN, Riddle M. Reenvisioning clinical science: unifying the discipline to improve the public health. Clin Psychol Sci J Assoc Psychol Sci. 2014;2:22–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702613497932.
29. Duriez N. L'étude intensive de cas dans la recherche sur les modérateurs et les médiateurs du changement activé par une thérapie familiale. Thérapie Fam. 2009;30:251-73. https://doi.org/10.3917/tf.092.0251.

30. Soucy C, Bouchard DR, Hrubeniuk T, Sénéchal M. Variability in physical function for patients living with breast cancer during a 12-week exercise program. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. 2022;30:69-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06394-4.

31. Peddle-McIntyre CJ, Singh F, Thomas R, Newton RU, Galvão DA, Cavalheri V. Exercise training for advanced lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;2:1-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012685.pub2.

32. Reinmann A, Koessler T, Bodmer A, Baud-Grasset A, Mentha G, Gligorov J, Bruyneel A-V. Feasibility, criterion and construct convergent validity of the 2-minute walk test and the 10-meter walk test in an oncological context. Heliyon. 2023;9:e22180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023. e22180.

33. Eden MM, Tompkins J, Verheijde JL. Reliability and a correlational analysis of the 6MWT, ten-meter walk test, thirty second sit to stand, and the linear analog scale of function in patients with head and neck cancer. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018;34:202-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0959 985.2017.1390803.

34. Holland AE, Spruit MA, Troosters T, Puhan MA, Pepin V, Saey D, McCormack MC, Carlin BW, Sciurba FC, Pitta F, Wanger J, MacIntyre N, Kaminsky DA, Culver BH, Revill SM, Hernandes NA, Andrianopoulos V, Camillo CA, Mitchell KE, Lee AL, Hill CJ, Singh SJ. An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J. 2014;44:1428-46. https://doi.org/ 10.1183/09031936.00150314.

35. Smets EM, Garssen B, Cull A, de Haes JC. Application of the multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-20) in cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 1996;73:241-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1996.42.

36. Gentile S, Delarozière JC, Favre F, Sambuc R, Marco JLS. Validation of the French 'multidimensional fatigue inventory' (MFI 20). Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2003;12:58-64. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2354.2003.00295.x

37. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge; 1988.

38. But-Hadzic J, Dervisevic M, Karpljuk D, Videmsek M, Dervisevic E, Paravic A, Hadzic V, Tomazin K. Six-minute walk distance in breast cancer survivors—a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:2591. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052591.

39. Foley MP, Hasson SM. Effects of a community-based multimodal exercise program on health-related physical fitness and physical function in breast cancer survivors: a pilot Study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2016;15:446-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735416639716.

40. Davies C, Colon G, Geyer H, Pfalzer L, Fisher M. Oncology EDGE task force on prostate cancer outcomes: a systematic review of outcome measures for functional mobility. Rehabil Oncol. 2016;34:1-44.

41. Granger CL, Denehy L, Parry SM, Martin J, Dimitriadis T, Sorohan M, Irving L (2015) Which field walking test should be used to assess functional exercise capacity in lung cancer? an observational study. BMC Pulm Med 15: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-015-0075-2

42. Foley MP, Barnes VA, Hasson SM. Effects of a community-based multimodal exercise program on physical function and quality of life in cancer survivors: a pilot study. Physiother Theory Pract. 2015;31:303-12. https:// doi.org/10.3109/09593985.2015.1004390.

43. Neder JA, Berton DC, O'Donnell DE. Getting the most out of the six-minute walk test. J Bras Pneumol. 2023;49:e20230028. https://doi.org/10.3641/1806-3756/e20230028

44. Neil-Sztramko SE, Winters-Stone KM, Bland KA, Campbell KL. Updated systematic review of exercise studies in breast cancer survivors: attention to the principles of exercise training. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53:504-12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098389.

45. Avancini A, Tregnago D, Rigatti L, Sartori G, Yang L, Trestini I, Bonaiuto C, Milella M, Pilotto S, Lanza M. Factors influencing physical activity in cancer patients during oncological treatments: a qualitative study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2020;19:1534735420971365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735420971365.

46. Montaño-Rojas LS, Romero-Pérez EM, Medina-Pérez C, Reguera-García MM, de Paz JA. Resistance training in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review of exercise programs. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:6511. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186511.

47. Maqbali M, Hughes C, Dunwoody L, Rankin JP, Hacker ED, Gracey J. Exercise Interventions to Manage Fatigue in Women With Gynecologic Cancer: A Systematic Review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2019;46:71-82. https:// doi.org/10.1188/19.ONF.71-82.

48. Yang M, Liu L, Gan C-E, Qiu L-H, Jiang X-J, He X-T, Zhang J-E. Effects of home-based exercise on exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life in patients with lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Eur J Oncol Nurs Off J Eur Oncol Nurs Soc. 2020;49:101836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2020. 101836.

49. Dun L, Xian-Yi W, Xiao-Ying J. Effects of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity on cancer-related fatigue in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Med Res. 2020;51:173-9. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2019.12.015.

50. Lund CM, Dolin TG, Mikkelsen MK, Juhl CB, Vinther A, Nielsen DL. Effect of exercise on physical function and psychological well-being in older patients with colorectal cancer receiving chemotherapy-a systematic review. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2020;19:e243-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. clcc.2020.05.012.

51. McGettigan M, Cardwell CR, Cantwell MM, Tully MA. Physical activity interventions for disease-related physical and mental health during and following treatment in people with non-advanced colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;5:CD012864. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 14651858.CD012864.pub2

52. Zhu C, Ma H, He A, Li Y, He C, Xia Y. Exercise in cancer prevention and anti-cancer therapy: Efficacy, molecular mechanisms and clinical information. Cancer Lett. 2022;544:1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2022.215814.

53. Purcell A, Fleming J, Bennett S, Burmeister B, Haines T. Determining the minimal clinically important difference criteria for the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a radiotherapy population. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:307-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0653-z.

54. Penna GB, Otto DM, da Silva TC, Pedroni AS, Macagnan FE. Physical rehabilitation for the management of cancer-related fatigue during cytotoxic treatment: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2023;31:129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07549-7.

55. Rodríguez-Canamero S, Cobo-Cuenca AI, Carmona-Torres JM, Pozuelo-Carrascosa DP, Santacruz-Salas E, Rabanales-Sotos JA, Cuesta-Mateos T, Laredo-Aguilera JA. Impact of physical exercise in advanced-stage cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med. 2022;11:3714-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4746.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.