Cargando…

Validation of 2 Submaximal Cardiorespiratory Fitness Tests in Patients With Breast Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy

Patients with breast cancer have an impaired cardiorespiratory fitness, in part, due to the toxic effects of anticancer therapy. Physical exercise as a means of rehabilitation for patients with cancer is an emerging area of research and treatment, emphasizing the need for accurate and feasible physi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mijwel, Sara, Cardinale, Daniele, Ekblom-Bak, Elin, Sundberg, Carl Johan, Wengström, Yvonne, Rundqvist, Helene
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5049956/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27812433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000030
Descripción
Sumario:Patients with breast cancer have an impaired cardiorespiratory fitness, in part, due to the toxic effects of anticancer therapy. Physical exercise as a means of rehabilitation for patients with cancer is an emerging area of research and treatment, emphasizing the need for accurate and feasible physical capacity measurements. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of peak oxygen consumption ([Image: see text] o(2peak)) predicted by the Ekblom-Bak test (E-B) and the Åstrand-Rhyming prediction model (A-R). METHODS: Eight patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy participated in the study. Submaximal exercise tests were performed at 2 different submaximal workloads. Estimated [Image: see text] o(2peak) values were obtained by inserting the heart rate (HR) from the 2 workloads into the E-B prediction model and the HR of only the higher workload into the Åstrand nomogram. A 20-W incremental cycle test-to-peak effort was performed to obtain [Image: see text] o(2peak) values. RESULTS: Results from A-R overestimated [Image: see text] o(2peak) by 6% (coefficient of variation = 7%), whereas results from E-B overestimated [Image: see text] o(2peak) with 42% (coefficient of variation = 21%) compared with measured [Image: see text] o(2peak). Pearson's correlation coefficient revealed a significant strong relationship between the estimated [Image: see text] o(2peak) from A-R and the measured [Image: see text] o(2peak) (r = 0.86; P < .05), whereas the relationship between the estimated [Image: see text] o(2peak) from E-B and the measured [Image: see text] o(2peak) resulted in a nonsignificant weak correlation (r = 0.21). CONCLUSION: In a situation where maximal exercise testing is not practical or undesirable from a patient safety perspective, submaximal exercise testing provides an alternative way of estimating [Image: see text] o(2peak). The A-R prediction model appears to be a valid submaximal exercise test for determining cardiorespiratory fitness in this population.