Skip to main content
Log in

Exploring physical activity level in patients with thoracic cancer: implications for use as an outcome measure

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Cachexia is common in patients with thoracic cancer impairing physical function and quality of life. New approaches which target muscle tissue are emerging and activity monitors could provide an objective assessment of their effect on physical function. We have collated data from three studies involving the use of one such monitor in order to benchmark aspects of physical activity for patients with thoracic cancer, explore how these relate to physician-rated performance status, and consider the implications for future studies.

Methods

Patients with thoracic cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) of 0–2 wore an ActivPAL™ monitor for 1 week. The mean time spent each day in a range of activities, e.g. standing or stepping, or their frequency, e.g. number of sit-to-stand transitions, steps taken, were calculated and compared according to ECOG PS.

Results

Data from 84 patients (54 male; mean (SD) age, 66 (9) years) were collated. Each day, patients spent a mean (SD) of 4.3 (2.0) h upright, completed 45 (17) sit-to-stand transitions and took 4,246 (2,983) steps. There was wide variation in each activity examined. All but the number of sit-to-stand transitions differed significantly between ECOG PS categories.

Conclusions

These data provide a detailed insight into how physical activity levels decline across the range of ECOG PS categories studied. The wide variation in physical activity within each ECOG PS category suggests that this scale may lack sufficient sensitivity to evaluate new cachexia treatments. Our data help to inform future work in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Laviano A, Meguid MM, Inui A, Muscaritoli M, Rossi-Fanelli F (2005) Therapy insight: cancer anorexia–cachexia syndrome—when all you can eat is yourself. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2:158–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fearon K, Strasser F, Anker SD et al (2011) Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: an international consensus. Lancet Oncol. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70218-7

  3. Dodson S, Baracos VE, Jatoi A, Evans WJ, Cella D, Dalton JT, Steiner MS (2011) Muscle wasting in cancer cachexia: clinical implications, diagnosis, and emerging treatment strategies. Ann Rev Med 62:265–279

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mantovani G, Madeddu C, Serpe R (2010) Improvement of physical activity as an alternative objective variable to measure treatment effects of anti-cachexia therapy in cancer patients. Curr Opin Supp Pall Care 4(4):259–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fearon KCH (2008) Cancer cachexia: developing multimodal therapy for a multidimensional problem. Eur J Cancer 44:1124–1132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Maddocks M, Byrne A, Johnson CD, Wilson RH, Fearon KCH, Wilcock A (2009) Physical activity level as an outcome measure for use in cancer cachexia trials: a feasibility study. Supp Care Cancer 18:1539–1544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Grant PM, Ryan CG, Tigbe WW, Granat MH (2006) The validation of a novel activity monitor in the measurement of posture and motion during everyday activities. Br J Sports Med 40:992–997

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ryan CG, Grant PM, Tigbe WW, Granat MH (2006) The validity and reliability of a novel activity monitor as a measure of walking. Br J Sports Med 40:779–784

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Maddocks M, Petrou A, Skipper L, Wilcock A (2010) Validity of three accelerometers during treadmill walking and motor vehicle travel. Br J Sports Med 44:606–608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, Carbone PP (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the eastern cooperative oncology group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649–655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dupont WD, Plummer WD (1990) Power and sample size calculations: a review and computer program. Controlled Clinical Trials 11:116–128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tudor-Locke C, Washington TL, Hart TL (2009) Expected values for steps/day in special populations. Prevent Med 49:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dahele M, Fearon KCH, Preston T, Skipworth RJE, Voss A, Wall L (2007) Objective physical activity and self-reported quality of life in patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. J Pain Symptom Manage 33:676–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dajczam E, Kasymjanova G, Kreisman H, Swinton N, Pepe C, Small D (2008) Should patient-rated performance status affect treatment decisions in advanced lung cancer? J Thorac Oncol 3:1133–1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by funding from the Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire Research Alliance, Cancer Research UK (C18598/A8211) and the National Cancer Research Institute (LCSuPaC 35).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Wilcock.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maddocks, M., Wilcock, A. Exploring physical activity level in patients with thoracic cancer: implications for use as an outcome measure. Support Care Cancer 20, 1113–1116 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1393-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1393-z

Keywords

Navigation