Moderators of Physical Activity and Quality of Life Response to a Physical Activity Intervention for Breast Cancer Survivors

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1855141/v1

Purpose

Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) can improve quality of life (QoL) for breast cancer survivors (BCS); yet most do not achieve 150 + weekly minutes of MVPA. This study investigated moderators of response to a physical activity (PA) behavior change intervention for BCS.

Methods

BCS (N = 222) were randomized to the 3-month intervention (BEAT Cancer) or usual care. Measurements occurred at baseline, post-intervention, and 3 months post-intervention. Measures included accelerometry, self-reported MVPA, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-General, FACT-Breast, physical well-being [PWB], social well-being [SWB], emotional well-being [EWB], functional well-being [FWB], additional concerns [AC], and Trial Outcome Index (TOI).

Results

Adjusted linear mixed-model analyses indicated individuals ≤ 24 months post-diagnosis who were single reported smaller increases in weekly MVPA than those > 24 months (44.07 vs 111.93) and partnered (-16.24 vs. 49.16 min), all p’s < 0.05. As for QoL, participants < 12 months post-diagnosis who received chemotherapy experienced smaller improvements than those ≥ 12 months in FACT-General, FACT-Breast, PWB, SWB scores. Survivors with a history of chemotherapy had smaller improvements in FACT-General, FACT-Breast, PWB, SWB, TOI, and AC scores, all p’s < 0.05.

Conclusion

These findings indicate that being < 2 years post-diagnosis, single, and having history of chemotherapy may limit MVPA and QOL responses to a physical activity intervention. Further studies are needed to determine if and/or what additional PA supports and resources these subgroups of BCS might find beneficial and effective.

Trial Registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00929617

Breast Cancer Survivors

Exercise

Survivorship

Oncology

Quality of Life

There is an increasing number of women who are living beyond their breast cancer diagnosis into survivorship, as the relative five-year survival rate (all breast cancer stages combined) is 90% (1). While women with breast cancer are living longer, they often have unmet quality of life (QoL) needs and face a range of symptoms and side effects, such as fatigue, decreased physical function, and cognitive impairment (2–5). Strong evidence indicates that physical activity is safe for breast cancer survivors and can enhance their physical well-being and overall QoL (6–11), yet most breast cancer survivors are sedentary and in need of lifestyle intervention (12, 13).

A recent meta-analysis identified multiple interventions which successfully promoted physical activity in cancer survivors, yet the sample-weighted effect size was small (i.e., d₊ = .35) (14). Identifying factors influencing breast cancer survivors’ responses to physical activity behavior change interventions will be imperative to enhancing these effects and the expected downstream benefits related to health and well-being. Understanding for whom and/or under what conditions interventions are most effective can be used to better individualize and tailor future interventions for the specific needs of various breast cancer survivor subpopulations. Only eight physical activity and cancer intervention studies have reported factors moderating intervention response (15–22). Most (six of the eight studies) identified moderators (i.e. age, marital status, education, body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, disease stage, history of chemotherapy, history of radiation, time since treatment), but results have been inconsistent and more research is need in this area.

Thus, the current study involves secondary analyses for potential demographic, medical, and cancer-related moderators of treatment efficacy in a multicenter physical activity randomized controlled trial for breast cancer survivors, which previously reported significant improvements in physical activity and QoL following a 3-month multicomponent physical activity behavior change intervention (i.e., Better Exercise Adherence after Treatment for Cancer [BEAT Cancer]) (10). Identifying cancer or treatment related moderators associated with a change in QoL following BEAT Cancer was the primary focus, analyses of demographic and medical related moderators were exploratory and included based on previous literature findings. Courneya et al., (16, 17) were early to examine age, marital status, BMI, disease stage, and treatment history as moderating variables to their intervention effects among breast (16) and lymphoma (17) patients. Following those trials, other researchers further investigated the same moderators with the addition of education (19), co-morbidities (15, 19), time since diagnosis (15), and baseline value of the outcome (20, 22). Additional moderators were selected due to a need for further investigation acknowledged by previous studies which included annual income, race, rural residency, prior physician exercise counseling, joint function (WOMAC) and hormone therapy (11, 16, 17).

Given past studies demonstrating associations between physical activity and social support (23–26), socioeconomic status (24, 27), and geographic region (24, 27, 28), our hypotheses were older breast cancer survivors who are married, educated, living in more urban areas, more than 12 months post-diagnosis, and did not have a history of chemotherapy would have a greater response to the BEAT Cancer intervention.

Study Design

The current study involved secondary analyses of potential moderators of treatment efficacy for the BEAT Cancer intervention. Data are taken from the parent physical activity randomized controlled trial (N=222 breast cancer survivors) (10). Potential moderator variables (e.g., demographic, medical, and intervention outcome) were measured at baseline. Treatment response was determined by changes in physical activity and QoL from baseline (M0) to month 3 (M3), as measured by accelerometer monitoring, self-reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and QoL questionnaires. The parent multicenter randomized controlled trial has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00929617) and described in detail in a previous report (10, 11, 29).

Participants

Women ages 18-70 years old with a history of ductal carcinoma in situ or stage I-IIIA breast cancer, who self-reported a sedentary lifestyle (engaging in ≤ 30 minutes of vigorous or ≤ 60 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week on average over six months) were recruited into the trial. Eligible participants must have completed primary cancer treatment, be ≥ 8 weeks post-surgery, English speaking, and received medical clearance by their physician. Exclusion criteria included conditions that contraindicated physical activity or would interfere with assessments, and current participation in another physical activity study. Additional details regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria were reported by Rogers et al. (29) Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained, and all participants provided written informed consent.

Better Exercise Adherence after Treatment for Cancer (BEAT Cancer) Intervention

The 3-month social cognitive theory-based BEAT Cancer intervention included 12 supervised individual exercise sessions tapered over six weeks, followed by independent home-based exercise sessions with three face-to-face exercise counseling sessions every two weeks with an exercise specialist. Additionally, during the first 8 weeks, six group sessions led by trained facilitators provided behavioral counseling (e.g., time management, stress management, behavioral modification strategies etc.). The goal of the exercise prescription was to gradually progress participants to 150 weekly minutes of moderate intensity physical activity, although participants were advanced to higher intensity if interested and able. An educational notebook and heart rate monitor were also provided to participants. A detailed description of the BEAT Cancer intervention was provided in prior publications (10, 11, 29).

Usual Care (UC) Intervention

The UC group received written materials from the American Cancer Society describing physical activity recommendations for cancer survivors (see Rogers et al. (29) for additional details regarding the UC group intervention).

Measures

Measurements were taken at baseline (M0), immediately post-intervention (M3) and 3 months after intervention completion (M6). Assessment and data entry staff were blinded to study group allocation.

Physical Activity

Physical activity was measured by 7-day accelerometer monitoring (MTI/ActiGraph; model numbers GT1M and GT3X). Participants received the same accelerometer for all assessments. Participants were given an exercise log and instructions to wear the motion sensor during waking hours for seven consecutive days, apart from bathing and swimming. Participants were asked to perform their usual activities within the seven consecutive days. Activity counts were used to determine activity durations (minutes/day) in specific intensity levels with a focus on moderate [1952–5724 counts/min] and vigorous [5725+counts/min]) (30, 31). Additionally, self-reported physical activity was obtained using a modified version of the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (32, 33). Self-reported activity duration was multiplied by frequency to determine minutes per week spent in each of the three activity levels: light, moderate, vigorous. For accelerometer and self-report physical activity, vigorous minutes were doubled before adding to moderate minutes when calculating moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA).

Quality Of Life

Quality of life was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-Breast) (34). The 37-item FACT-Breast questionnaire includes the subscales of physical well-being, social well-being, emotional well-being, functional well-being, and additional concerns (34). The sums of the Likert scale items were calculated for each subscale and also for FACT-Breast (sum of all subscales combined), FACT-General (sum of all subscales except for additional concerns), and Trial Outcome Index (sum of physical well- being, functional well-being, and breast additional concerns subscales) (35). Higher scores represent better QoL.

Moderators

Potential moderator variables were identified from the literature and selected based on relevance and plausibility for the breast cancer population and included demographic (age (16, 20, 21), marital status (17, 19), annual income, education (19), race, and rural residence), medical (BMI (17, 22), co-morbidities (17), breast cancer stage (16), history of chemotherapy (19, 20), history of radiation (19), hormone therapy (36), time since diagnosis (15)) and intervention outcome (baseline value of the outcome (20), joint function (WOMAC) (20)) related factors. Demographic moderators (e.g., age, marital status, annual income, and rurality) were assessed with a demographics questionnaire, rurality was determined by using the United States Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (i.e., RUCC, analyzed as continuous variable) (37). A medical history questionnaire was used to assess cancer-related factors; time since diagnosis, treatment history, and inquire if any doctor had advised physical activity since their breast cancer diagnosis (yes, no, or I do not know as possible responses). Participants also completed the Comorbidity Index to quantify the number of comorbid conditions (38) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) to assess lower extremity pain (5 items), stiffness (2 items), and physical dysfunction (17 items) using a 5-point Likert scale (i.e., 1 = none to 5 = extreme) (39). Finally, BMI was assessed via anthropometric measurements obtained from a scale and stadiometer (Continental Health-O-Meter #400 DML medical and Seca 763 Digital Column Scale). BMI was calculated from the height and weight [weight (kg)/height (m²)].

Statistical Analysis

We used intent-to-treat and adjusted linear mixed model ANOVA with interaction terms analyses to assess the intervention effect on MVPA, and QoL from immediately post-intervention (M3) and 3 months after intervention completion (M6), by each hypothesized moderator. Moderators were dichotomized and grouped as follows: age (<55 vs. ≥55), marital status (married or living with significant other vs. other), annual income (<$50,000 vs. ≥$50,000), education (≤high school degree or equivalent vs. >high school degree), rurality (RUCC Code 1,3,6), BMI (<30 vs. ≥30), co-morbidities (median Comorbidity Index score used as cutpoint), cancer stage (DCIS or stage I vs. stage II or III), time on hormonal therapy (none vs. ≤1 year vs. >1 year), months since diagnosis (≤12 vs. >12), baseline value of the outcome (median scores used as cutpoint), and WOMAC (median score used as cutpoint). The change over time across the intervention–moderator interaction term was modeled.

All models adjusted for previously identified covariates including baseline value of the outcome, study site, marital status, breast cancer stage, history of chemotherapy, history of radiation therapy, hormone therapy treatment and comorbidities (10). Statistical analyses were performed using SAS® statistical software (Cary, NC). Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Participant Characteristics

The sample consisted of primarily White (84%) women with a mean age of 54 ± 9 years and 16 ± 3 years of education. Cancer stages were as follows: DCIS (11%), stage I (42%), stage II (35%), and stage III (12%). The average time since cancer diagnosis was 54 ± 55 months, with 58 and 68% reporting a history of chemotherapy and radiation therapy, respectively. Approximately half (49%) of all participants reported current hormone therapy. There were no significant baseline group differences with the exception that a greater percentage of participants in the UC group had been on hormonal therapy for less than or equal to one year (p = 0.02) (10). See prior reports for more details on demographic characteristics (10).

Moderators of Physical Activity (i.e., primary outcome in the parent efficacy study)

Adjusted linear mixed-model analyses revealed that participation in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in response to the BEAT Cancer intervention was moderated by several factors (Table 1. See below). Greater improvements in MVPA were seen for those who were >24 months vs. ≤24 months post-diagnosis (111.93 vs. 44.07 weekly minutes of self-reported MVPA, p = 0.008) (Figure 1.). As shown in Figure 2, participants who were married or partnered responded more favorably to the intervention, increasing their accelerometry measured MVPA by 49 minutes per week compared to single/divorced participants (49.16 vs. -16.24 weekly minutes of accelerometer MVPA, p=0.028). The following did not moderate accelerometer or self-reported MVPA response to the intervention: age, race, BMI, employment status, education, RUCC Code, prior physician physical activity counseling, co-morbidities, WOMAC, baseline value of the outcome, cancer stage, history of chemotherapy, radiation, and hormonal therapy.

Moderators of Fitness and QoL Response (i.e., secondary outcomes in the parent efficacy study)

Greater improvements in several QoL measures were reported by participants who were >12 months post-diagnosis. Specifically, participants >12 months vs. ≤12 months from diagnosis reported larger increases in the following QoL measures, FACT-G (6.22 vs. -2.31, p= 0.005), FACT-Breast (7.18 vs. -3.36, p= 0.006) and FACT physical and social well-being sub-scales (1.76 vs. -0.87, p= 0.012; 1.68 vs. -1.81, p= 0.01, respectively; Figure 3). In addition, improvements in the QoL Trial Outcome Index favored participants who were >12 months post-diagnosis, who had greater increases in the index score (4.75 vs. -1.83, p= 0.013). Presented in Figure 4, breast cancer survivors reporting annual household income greater than $50,000/ year also reported a more favorable FACT physical well-being sub-scale response to the intervention (2.57 vs. 0.72, p= 0.048). Illustrated in Figure 5, participants with a history of chemotherapy treatment reported less favorable QoL response to the intervention in several domains: FACT-G (1.59 vs. 8.60, p= 0.003), FACT-Breast (1.27 vs. 10.39, p= 0.002), physical well-being (0.25 vs. 2.60, p= 0.004), social well-being (0.08 vs. 2.26, p= 0.043), additional concerns pertaining to the breast (-0.29 vs. 1.90, p = 0.02) and QoL Trial Outcome Index (0.87 vs. 7.00, p= 0.003). Participants who had lower baseline physical well-being scores observed greater physical well-being improvements (2.67 vs. 0.12, p = 0.009; Figure 6). Additionally, lower baseline QoL Trial Outcome Index scores moderated greater improvements following the intervention (6.60 vs. 0.95, p = 0.03). The following did not moderate QoL: age, race, BMI, marital status, employment status, education, RUCC Code, prior physician counseling, co-morbidities, WOMAC, cancer stage, radiation, and hormonal therapy.

This study demonstrates that cancer-related and demographic factors moderate physical activity and QoL outcomes in response to a physical activity behavior change intervention. Participants who were further out from their cancer diagnosis and those who were married/partnered experienced greater increases in MVPA. Also, improvements in various QoL domains favored participants who were further from diagnosis, reported higher income, had not received chemotherapy, reported lower physical well-being, and had a lower Trial Outcome Index at baseline. Of clinical relevance, the moderating effect of time since diagnosis (e.g., > 12 months post-diagnosis) exceeded the minimally important difference defined by Yost et al. (40) for FACT-General, FACT-Breast, physical well-being, social well-being, and QoL Trial Outcome Index (35). Minimally important differences also were exceeded for history of chemotherapy on FACT-General, FACT-Breast, and QoL Trial Outcome Index response.

Notably, time since diagnosis was the only moderator that influenced both MVPA and QoL outcomes, a finding consistent with the known effects of physical activity on QoL and the parallel increase in both MVPA and QoL in the original efficacy trial (10). We found being 24 months or more from diagnosis yielded greater improvements in weekly minutes of MVPA. Contrary to our results, Buffart et al. (15) found that the further from diagnosis when initiating a physical activity intervention the less response on global QoL, and physical, emotional, cognitive, and social function sub categories. Similarly, breast cancer survivors who started supervised aerobic plus resistance exercise within 2 years after treatment experienced greater improvements in QoL than the delayed group initiating the exercise 3 months later (41). Both studies initiated physical activity immediately post-treatment, while our initiation varied with regard to time since treatment completion, which could have also contributed to these inconsistent findings. Additionally, both studies were supervised efficacy trials with health outcomes as the primary outcomes, which differs from the present study in terms of theoretical models adopted, nature of the exercise and behavioral support interventions, and interpretation of trial results (42).

Two factors (i.e., time since diagnosis and marital status) were found to moderate weekly minutes of MVPA. To our knowledge this is the first study to find time since diagnosis as a moderator of MVPA response. While current literature has shown that marital status can influence QoL response in efficacy trials^18,21 to our knowledge no other behavior change studies have shown marital status moderating MVPA outcomes (42). The BEAT Cancer behavior change intervention encouraged participants to find their own exercise social support and, as such, having a partner/spouse could have made it easier to find someone to exercise with and motivate the participants. This finding could be supported by previous literature which found through social interactions and observations, participants were more likely to exercise because others around them were also exercising (25, 43).

A history of chemotherapy moderated QoL response but not MVPA response, suggesting potential explanations for the differential QoL response other than lack of MVPA increase. This is supported by Kalter et al. (19) who reported that a history of chemotherapy did not moderate their exercise training outcomes unless it was combined with cognitive behavioral therapy. Also, Pinto et al. (20) found that those who received chemotherapy had better improvements in self-reported physical function with a physical activity behavior change intervention, possibly due to lower self-reported physical function baseline values than those who did not have a history of chemotherapy. Potential reasoning for there being a moderating effect on self-reported physical and functional well-being yet not on MVPA could be the perception of treatment side effects. Specifically, perception that chemotherapy will cause long term physical limitations may bias breast cancer survivors to perceive their physical function as lower (44). A few studies have found perception of treatment can affect QoL, but these studies do not assess objectively measured physical function and fitness (44–46). Further research using an objective measure of physical function is needed to better understand these potential relationships with history of chemotherapy. Moreover, Courneya et al. (16) found breast cancer patients receiving nontaxane-based chemotherapies experienced better improvements in muscular strength compared to those receiving taxane-based therapies. While the present study did not collect data on the type of chemotherapy received, specific chemotherapy agents may be a potential moderating factor due to higher toxicities associated with taxane-based chemotherapies that limit muscular strength and blunt the training effect, as well as, taxanes inhibiting the interaction of tublin with myosin filaments and myocyte development seen in animal models (16) and should be included in future relevant studies.

Annual income greater than $50,000 was associated with greater physical well-being response. Having a higher income may facilitate access to more QoL enhancing experiences, resources, etc. To our knowledge, no other physical activity and cancer study has analyzed income as a moderator, an understudied yet important factor to consider during intervention design. With regard to other moderators, our nonsignificant findings are also notable. By identifying moderators that were not significant, we can better prioritize future intervention targeting and research directions.

Our analyses showed that those who had lower baseline FACT-Breast subscale physical well-being and QoL Trial Outcome Index scores saw greater improvements post-intervention. Conversely, Pinto et al. (20) also examined the moderator effect of baseline values and found mixed results, with some significant effects for those with lower baseline values and some with higher baseline values, depending on the measure. While the FACT-Breast survey was used in both studies, Pinto et al. (20) did not find a significant moderator effect of baseline values. Previous literature has proposed that targeting populations with the greatest need through physical activity interventions aimed to improve psychosocial outcomes will see the greatest impact (20, 47). This proposed phenomenon could be possible reasoning for the observed baseline value moderating effect.

Our study strengths include the randomized controlled study design, high retention rate, large sample size, and significant intervention efficacy. Moreover, to our knowledge, this study is the first in cancer survivors to investigate annual income, race, rural residency, prior physician exercise counseling, joint function (WOMAC) and hormone therapy as potential moderators. There were, however, limitations within the present study. It is unclear whether the identified moderators of QoL exerted their influence through the behavior change component of the BEAT Cancer intervention or the physical activity itself. Hence, had the study examined a physical activity intervention solely the results may have been different than what was currently presented. Statistical corrections for multiple testing were not made due to the exploratory nature of the present study, thus may be limiting. Also, there was limited variability among the rurality of the sample, participants lived in RUCC Code 1, 3 and 6 (37). Thus, the majority lived in counties in metro areas of fewer than 250,000 population (3) and counties in metro areas of 1 million population or more (1) and may have better access to resources than breast cancer survivors in a more rural or urban location. Finally, our findings may not be generalizable to cancer types other than breast or to resistance exercise interventions.

In summary, our moderator analyses revealed QoL and physical activity responses to a physical activity behavior change intervention may be influenced by multiple demographic and cancer-related factors and provides meaningful clinical relevance to better support breast cancer survivors. Our intervention was most effective for helping breast cancer survivors who were married, greater than 12 months post-diagnosis, and did not receive chemotherapy. Additionally, our intervention was effective for breast cancer survivors regardless of age, race, BMI, employment status, education, rurality, prior physician exercise counseling, co-morbidities, WOMAC, cancer stage, history of radiation, and hormonal therapy. Physical activity behavior change interventions that target the needs and barriers of single, low-income breast cancer survivors and/or those who are within 1 to 2 years of diagnosis are warranted. Future research should consider using technology-based delivery (48) and/or tools, such as social media (49, 50), to increase social support (51), as well as utilizing low-cost resources and/or home-based strategies to minimize expense, schedule conflicts, child/elderly care, and transportation needs (52). Additionally, breast cancer survivors should be educated on the benefits of physical activity following their diagnosis (53) and learn strategies to overcome barriers and concerns regarding long-term impact of treatment on QoL (e.g., physical functioning) (7). Our study also identifies areas for further research, such as understanding why chemotherapy moderated the intervention effects on QoL and if certain types of chemotherapies moderate these effects differently than others. Further, future studies should aim to recruit a large enough sample size to conduct multivariate analyses exploring more complex interrelationships among moderators. The moderating effect on the intervention response provides meaningful insight on subpopulations potentially requiring targeted physical activity behavior change interventions to effectively improve breast cancer survivors’ lifestyle behaviors, QoL, and overall health.

QoL Quality of Life

BCS Breast Cancer Survivor

PA Physical Activity

PWB Physical Well-being

SWB Social Well-being

EWB Emotional Well-being

FWB Functional Well-being

AC Additional Concerns

TOI Trial Outcome Index

BMI Body Mass Index

BEAT Cancer Better Exercise Adherence after Treatment for Cancer

IRB Institutional Review Board

UC Usual Care

MVPA Moderate-to-vigorous Physical Activity

WOMAC Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis

FACT-Breast Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast

FACT-G Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General

RUCC Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Codes

Acknowledgments

The authors are exceptionally grateful for the efforts of the 222 survivors of breast cancer who participated in this study.

Funding

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grants (grant numbers [R01CA136859], [P30DK056336], [R25CA47888] and [CA047888]).

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Additionally, the results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation.

Author Contributions

Edward McAuley, Kerry S Courneya, Phillip Anton, Diane K. Ehlers, Siobhan M. Phillips, and Laura Q Rogers contributed to the study conception, design, material preparation, and data collection. Statistical Analyses were conducted by Robert Oster, Laura Q Rogers, and Erica Schleicher. Erica Schleicher wrote the manuscript and all co-authors reviewed and revised. Final approval was given by all authors before submitting for publication.

Ethics Approval and Consent

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (June 2009). Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained.

Consent to Participate

All participants provided written informed consent to participant in this study.

Consent to Publish

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of their data.

Availability of Data and Materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7–33.
Bower JE, Wiley J, Petersen L, Irwin MR, Cole SW, Ganz PA. Fatigue after breast cancer treatment: Biobehavioral predictors of fatigue trajectories. Health Psychol. 2018;37(11):1025–34.
Hamer J, McDonald R, Zhang L, Verma S, Leahey A, Ecclestone C, et al. Quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden (SB) in patients with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(2):409–19.
Joly F, Lange M, Dos Santos M, Vaz-Luis I, Di Meglio A. Long-Term Fatigue and Cognitive Disorders in Breast Cancer Survivors. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(12).
Sabiston CM, Lacombe J, Faulkner G, Jones J, Trinh L. Profiling sedentary behavior in breast cancer survivors: Links with depression symptoms during the early survivorship period. Psychooncology. 2018;27(2):569–75.
Campbell KL, Winters-Stone KM, Wiskemann J, May AM, Schwartz AL, Courneya KS, et al. Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(11):2375–90.
Cormie P, Zopf EM, Zhang X, Schmitz KH. The Impact of Exercise on Cancer Mortality, Recurrence, and Treatment-Related Adverse Effects. Epidemiol Rev. 2017;39(1):71–92.
Hong F, Ye W, Kuo CH, Zhang Y, Qian Y, Korivi M. Exercise Intervention Improves Clinical Outcomes, but the "Time of Session" is Crucial for Better Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(5).
Mishra SI, Scherer RW, Snyder C, Geigle PM, Berlanstein DR, Topaloglu O. Exercise interventions on health-related quality of life for people with cancer during active treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(8):CD008465.
Rogers LQ, Courneya KS, Anton PM, Hopkins-Price P, Verhulst S, Vicari SK, et al. Effects of the BEAT Cancer physical activity behavior change intervention on physical activity, aerobic fitness, and quality of life in breast cancer survivors: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149(1):109–19.
Rogers LQ, Courneya KS, Carter SJ, Anton PM, Verhulst S, Vicari SK, et al. Effects of a multicomponent physical activity behavior change intervention on breast cancer survivor health status outcomes in a randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;159(2):283–91.
Gavin KL, Welch WA, Conroy DE, Kozey-Keadle S, Pellegrini C, Cottrell A, et al. Sedentary behavior after breast cancer: motivational, demographic, disease, and health status correlates of sitting time in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Causes Control. 2019;30(6):569–80.
Phillips SM, Dodd KW, Steeves J, McClain J, Alfano CM, McAuley E. Physical activity and sedentary behavior in breast cancer survivors: New insight into activity patterns and potential intervention targets. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(2):398–404.
Buffart LM, Kalter J, Sweegers MG, Courneya KS, Newton RU, Aaronson NK, et al. 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.
Buffart LM, Newton RU, Chinapaw MJ, Taaffe DR, Spry NA, Denham JW, et al. The effect, moderators, and mediators of resistance and aerobic exercise on health-related quality of life in older long-term survivors of prostate cancer. Cancer. 2015;121(16):2821–30.
Courneya KS, McKenzie DC, Mackey JR, Gelmon K, Reid RD, Friedenreich CM, et al. Moderators of the effects of exercise training in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2008;112(8):1845–53.
Courneya KS, Sellar CM, Stevinson C, McNeely ML, Friedenreich CM, Peddle CJ, et al. Moderator effects in a randomized controlled trial of exercise training in lymphoma patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(10):2600–7.
Griffith K, Wenzel J, Shang J, Thompson C, Stewart K, Mock V. Impact of a walking intervention on cardiorespiratory fitness, self-reported physical function, and pain in patients undergoing treatment for solid tumors. Cancer. 2009;115(20):4874–84.
Kalter J, Buffart LM, Korstjens I, van Weert E, Brug J, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, et al. Moderators of the effects of group-based physical exercise on cancer survivors' quality of life. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(9):2623–31.
Pinto B, Stein K, Dunsiger S. Peer mentorship to promote physical activity among cancer survivors: effects on quality of life. Psychooncology. 2015;24(10):1295–302.
Speck RM, Gross CR, Hormes JM, Ahmed RL, Lytle LA, Hwang WT, et al. Changes in the Body Image and Relationship Scale following a one-year strength training trial for breast cancer survivors with or at risk for lymphedema. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121(2):421–30.
Steindorf K, Schmidt ME, Klassen O, Ulrich CM, Oelmann J, Habermann N, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of resistance training in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy: results on cancer-related fatigue and quality of life. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(11):2237–43.
Gudina AT, Cheruvu VK, Gilmore NJ, Kleckner AS, Arana-Chicas E, Kehoe LA, et al. Health related quality of life in adult cancer survivors: Importance of social and emotional support. Cancer Epidemiol. 2021;74:101996.
Mama SK, Bhuiyan N, Smyth JM, Schmitz KH. Stress and Physical Activity in Rural Cancer Survivors: The Moderating Role of Social Support. The Journal of Rural Health. 2020;36(4):543–8.
McDonough MH, Beselt LJ, Kronlund LJ, Albinati NK, Daun JT, Trudeau MS, et al. Social support and physical activity for cancer survivors: a qualitative review and meta-study. J Cancer Surviv. 2021;15(5):713–28.
Pekmezi D, Martin MY, Kvale E, Meneses K, Demark-Wahnefried W. Enhancing Exercise Adherence for the Breast Cancer Survivors. ACSMs Health Fit J. 2012;16(4):8–13.
Pruitt SL, McQueen A, Deshpande AD, Jeffe DB, Schootman M. Mediators of the effect of neighborhood poverty on physical functioning among breast cancer survivors: a longitudinal study. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23(9):1529–40.
Pekmezi D, Marcus B, Meneses K, Baskin ML, Ard JD, Martin MY, et al. Developing an intervention to address physical activity barriers for African-American women in the deep south (USA). Womens Health (Lond). 2013;9(3):301–12.
Rogers LQ, McAuley E, Anton PM, Courneya KS, Vicari S, Hopkins-Price P, et al. Better exercise adherence after treatment for cancer (BEAT Cancer) study: rationale, design, and methods. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(1):124–37.
Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(5):777–81.
Sirard JR, Melanson EL, Li L, Freedson PS. Field evaluation of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. physical activity monitor. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(3):695–700.
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(5):359–62.
Godin G, Shephard RJ. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Canadian journal of applied sport sciences Journal canadien des sciences appliquees au sport. 1985;10(3):141–6.
Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, Bonomi AE, Tulsky DS, Lloyd SR, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1997;15(3):974–86.
Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1993;11(3):570–9.
Niravath P. Aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia: a review. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(6):1443–9.
SeeR Rural-Urban Continuum Code—SEER Datasets. In: Service UDoAER, editor. 2013.
Groll DL, To T, Bombardier C, Wright JG. The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(6):595–602.
Rogers JC, Holm MB, Beach S, Schulz R, Cipriani J, Fox A, et al. Concordance of four methods of disability assessment using performance in the home as the criterion method. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49(5):640–7.
Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):172–91.
Milne HM, Wallman KE, Gordon S, Courneya KS. Effects of a combined aerobic and resistance exercise program in breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108(2):279–88.
Courneya KS. Efficacy, effectiveness, and behavior change trials in exercise research. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:81.
McDonough MH, Beselt LJ, Daun JT, Shank J, Culos-Reed SN, Kronlund LJ, et al. The role of social support in physical activity for cancer survivors: A systematic review. Psychooncology. 2019;28(10):1945–58.
Russo S, Cinausero M, Gerratana L, Bozza C, Iacono D, Driol P, et al. Factors affecting patient's perception of anticancer treatments side-effects: an observational study. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014;13(2):139–50.
Jansen SJ, Otten W, van de Velde CJ, Nortier JW, Stiggelbout AM. The impact of the perception of treatment choice on satisfaction with treatment, experienced chemotherapy burden and current quality of life. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(1):56–61.
Silva SM, Moreira HC, Canavarro MC. Examining the links between perceived impact of breast cancer and psychosocial adjustment: the buffering role of posttraumatic growth. Psychooncology. 2012;21(4):409–18.
Buffart LM, Galvao DA, Brug J, Chinapaw MJ, Newton RU. Evidence-based physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors: current guidelines, knowledge gaps and future research directions. Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40(2):327–40.
Williams VA, Brown NI, Johnson R, Ainsworth MC, Farrell D, Barnes M, et al. A Web-based Lifestyle Intervention for Cancer Survivors: Feasibility and Acceptability of SurvivorSHINE. J Cancer Educ. 2021.
Houghton LC, Gibbons MP, Shekelle J, Oakley-Girvan I, Watterson JL, Magsamen-Conrad K, et al. Free Time For Wellness: a co-designed intervention utilizing social networks to encourage physical activity for cancer prevention among low resourced mothers. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1805.
Key KV, Adegboyega A, Bush H, Aleshire ME, Contreras OA, Hatcher J. #CRCFREE: Using Social Media to Reduce Colorectal Cancer Risk in Rural Adults. Am J Health Behav. 2020;44(3):353–63.
Pope Z, Lee JE, Zeng N, Lee HY, Gao Z. Feasibility of smartphone application and social media intervention on breast cancer survivors' health outcomes. Transl Behav Med. 2019;9(1):11–22.
Adams JL, Martin MY, Pisu M, Oster RA, Qu H, Shewchuk RM, et al. Determining patient needs to enhance exercise program implementation and uptake in rural settings for women after a cancer diagnosis. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(8):4641–9.
Schmitz KH, Speck RM. Risks and benefits of physical activity among breast cancer survivors who have completed treatment. Womens Health (Lond). 2010;6(2):221–38.

Table 1. Moderators of Physical Activity, and Quality of Life Response.

Outcome Variable	Moderator Variable	Estimate (Standard Error)	95% Confidence Interval		p Value
			Lower Limit	Upper Limit
Self-Reported MVPA^a
	Time since Diagnosis
	≤24 Months	44.07(19.75)	5.13	83.02	0.008
	>24 Months	111.93(16.62)	79.15	144.70	0.008
Accelerometer MVPA^a
	Marital Status
	Married/Partnered	49.16(15.62)	18.35	79.98	0.028
	Single	-16.24(25.10)	-65.73	33.25	0.028
FACT-General
	Time since Diagnosis
	≤12 Months	-2.31(2.73)	-7.69	3.07	0.005
	>12 Months	6.22(1.34)	3.58	8.86	0.005
	History of Chemotherapy
	Yes	1.59(1.57)	-1.51	4.69	0.003
	No	8.60(1.83)	4.99	12.20	0.003
FACT-Breast
	Time since Diagnosis
	≤12 Months	-3.36(3.42)	-10.12	3.39	0.006
	>12 Months	7.18(1.68)	3.86	10.50	0.006
	History of Chemotherapy
	Yes	1.27(1.97)	-2.61	5.15	0.002
	No	10.39(2.29)	5.88	14.90	0.002
Physical Well-being
	Time since Diagnosis
	≤12 Months	-0.87(0.94)	-2.72	0.98	0.012
	>12 Months	1.76(0.46)	0.86	2.67	0.012
	History of Chemotherapy
	Yes	0.25(0.54)	-0.82	1.32	0.004
	No	2.60(0.63)	1.36	3.83	0.004
	Annual Income
	<$50,000	2.57(0.79)	1.02	4.11	0.048
	≥$50,000	0.72(0.49)	-0.24	1.69	0.048
	Baseline Value Score
	≤24	2.67(0.63)	1.43	3.90	0.009
	>24	0.12(0.75)	-1.35	1.59	0.009
Social Well-being
	Time since Diagnosis
	≤12 Months	-1.81(1.22)	-4.20	0.59	0.010
	>12 Months	1.68(0.60)	0.50	2.85	0.010
	History of Chemotherapy
	Yes	0.08(0.71)	-1.31	1.48	0.043
	No	2.26(0.82)	0.65	3.88	0.043
Trial Outcome Index
	Time since Diagnosis
	≤12 Months	-1.83(2.38)	-6.52	2.85	0.013
	>12 Months	4.75(1.16)	2.46	7.05	0.013
	History of Chemotherapy
	Yes	0.87(1.36)	-1.81	3.56	0.003
	No	7.00(1.58)	3.89	10.11	0.003
	Baseline Value Score
	≤71.50	6.60(1.82)	2.99	10.19	0.030
	>71.50	0.95(1.85)	-2.71	4.61	0.030
Additional Concerns
	History of Chemotherapy
	Yes	-0.29(0.62)	-1.52	0.93	0.020
	No	1.90(0.72)	0.49	3.31	0.020

^aModerate-to-vigorous Physical Activity = MVPA

No competing interests reported.

Moderators of Physical Activity and Quality of Life Response to a Physical Activity Intervention for Breast Cancer Survivors

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial Registration:

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1