# Effects of a Short-Term Supervised Exercise Program in Women with Breast Cancer
## 3 Results  
After completing the training program, significant differences were observed in SBP in both the Time and Group factors (\(p<0.05\)), but not in the Time \(\times\) Group interaction (\(p=0.956\)) (Table 2). Analyzing pairwise comparisons, significant differences were found in SBP between pre-test and post-test, both pre-exercise and post-exercise (\(p<0.001\)). However, statistical significance in SBP was only found in the pre-test after the implementation of an exercise program (\(p=0.011\)). For DBP, significant differences were found in both the Time and Group factors and the Time \(\times\) Group interaction (\(p<0.05\)). Pairwise analysis revealed significant differences in DBP in the pre-test after the implementation of an exercise program (\(p=0.002\)). Additionally, significant differences were observed between pre-test and post-test measurements of DBP post-exercise (\(p<0.001\)). Upon analyzing the results of functional capacity variables, significant improvements are observed in all variables following the implementation of the exercise program (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 3). Regarding the results of the FACIT-F questionnaire, significantly higher scores were obtained in fatigue scores after the exercise program (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 4). Since each of the 13 items on the scale ranges from 0 to 4, the possible score range is from 0 to 52, with 0 being  
the worst and 52 being the best. Therefore, before the exercise program, they had a score of 62.5% of the maximum score, and after, 70.8%. Regarding the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire (Table 5), significantly higher scores were observed in the global health status scale (\(p<0.05\)), as well as in the functional scale in the role functioning, emotional functioning, and cognitive functioning items (\(p<0.05\)), indicating a higher quality of life and overall health level. Conversely, significantly lower scores were found in the fatigue, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, and loss of appetite items (\(p<0.05\)). Additionally, there were significantly higher scores in the financial difficulties items (\(p<0.05\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & **Pre-Exercise** & **Post-Exercise** & **Post-Exercise** & **Post-Exercise–Pre-Exercise (\%)** \\  & **(M \(\pm\) SD, 95\% CI)** & **(M \(\pm\) SD, 95\% CI)** & **\(p\)** & **Post-Exercise–Pre-Exercise (\%)** \\ \hline FACIT-Fatigue & 32.5 \(\pm\) 8.0 & 36.8 \(\pm\) 7.3 (29.5–35.5) & (34.1–39.6) & 0.002 * & 13.2\% \\ \hline FACIT & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & FACIT = Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy; * = significant difference between pre-exercise and post-exercise (\(p<0.05\)); M = mean \(\pm\) SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval. & 0.001 * & 9.4\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Fatigue FACIT questionnaire results before and after the exercise program. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & **Pre-Exercise** & **Post-Exercise** & **Post-Exercise** & **Post-Exercise–Pre-Exercise** \\  & **(M \(\pm\) SD, 95\% CI)** & **(M \(\pm\) SD, 95\% CI)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline
6 MWT & 527.5 \(\pm\) 66.3 (502.7–552.2) & 577.1 \(\pm\) 79.0 (547.6–606.6) & \textless{}0.001 * & 9.4\% \\ \hline RPE 6 MWT & 5.0 \(\pm\) 1.7 (4.4–5.7) & 4.3 \(\pm\) 1.5 (3.7–4.9) & 0.003 * & \(-\)14\% \\ \hline
30s-STST (repetitions) & 12.2 \(\pm\) 3.0 (11.0–13.3) & 14.2 \(\pm\) 3.1 (13.0–15.3) & \textless{}0.001 * & 16.4\% \\ \hline HGT & 20.2 \(\pm\) 9.8 (16.5–23.8) & 22.9 \(\pm\) 9.4 (19.4–26.3) & \textless{}0.001 * & 13.4\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Analysis of variables indicating functional capacity before and after implementation of the exercise program.