Effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on cardiopulmonary function, body composition, and physical function in cancer survivors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
Frontiers in Physiology Pub Date : 2025-06-13 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fphys.2025.1594574
Chenggen Peng, Ming Hu, Linlin Yang, Zhichao Yuan
{"title":"Effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on cardiopulmonary function, body composition, and physical function in cancer survivors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Chenggen Peng, Ming Hu, Linlin Yang, Zhichao Yuan","doi":"10.3389/fphys.2025.1594574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advances in cancer treatment have led to a significant increase in the global number of cancer survivors. However, long-term health management challenges-such as reduced cardiopulmonary function, cancer-related fatigue, and metabolic dysregulation-remain formidable. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to comprehensively compare the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on Cardiopulmonary function, body composition, and physical function in cancer survivors. Thereby providing evidence-based guidance for individualized exercise prescriptions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>By the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and EBSCOhost up to February 2025. A total of 12 eligible RCTs were included, breast cancer (n = 7), colorectal cancer (n = 3), and mixed cancer types (n = 2). Meta-analysis was performed using Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager 5.4, while sensitivity analyses were conducted with Stata MP 14.0 to assess the stability and reliability of the results. Egger's test was utilized to evaluate the presence of publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis revealed that, compared with MICT, HIIT was significantly more effective in improving VO<sub>2</sub> peak (Peak Oxygen Uptake) in cancer survivors [SMD = 0.53, 95% CI (0.21, 0.84), Z = 3.30, P = 0.001]. However, no statistically significant differences were found between HIIT and MICT in terms of body composition (including Body Mass, Total Fat Mass, Lean Body Mass, Fat Percentage, Body Mass Index, Waist Circumference, and Hip Circumference) or physical function (including Sit-to-Stand Test and 6-Minute Walk Test).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HIIT appears superior to MICT in enhancing VO<sub>2</sub> peak and, consequently, cardiopulmonary function in cancer survivors. Nonetheless, both training modalities yield comparable outcomes in body composition and physical function. Given the variability in the quantity and quality of the included studies, further well-designed and objective RCTs are warranted to validate these findings.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/myprospero, identifier CRD420250654968.</p>","PeriodicalId":12477,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Physiology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1594574"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12202225/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1594574","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Advances in cancer treatment have led to a significant increase in the global number of cancer survivors. However, long-term health management challenges-such as reduced cardiopulmonary function, cancer-related fatigue, and metabolic dysregulation-remain formidable. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to comprehensively compare the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on Cardiopulmonary function, body composition, and physical function in cancer survivors. Thereby providing evidence-based guidance for individualized exercise prescriptions.

Methods: By the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and EBSCOhost up to February 2025. A total of 12 eligible RCTs were included, breast cancer (n = 7), colorectal cancer (n = 3), and mixed cancer types (n = 2). Meta-analysis was performed using Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager 5.4, while sensitivity analyses were conducted with Stata MP 14.0 to assess the stability and reliability of the results. Egger's test was utilized to evaluate the presence of publication bias.

Results: The meta-analysis revealed that, compared with MICT, HIIT was significantly more effective in improving VO2 peak (Peak Oxygen Uptake) in cancer survivors [SMD = 0.53, 95% CI (0.21, 0.84), Z = 3.30, P = 0.001]. However, no statistically significant differences were found between HIIT and MICT in terms of body composition (including Body Mass, Total Fat Mass, Lean Body Mass, Fat Percentage, Body Mass Index, Waist Circumference, and Hip Circumference) or physical function (including Sit-to-Stand Test and 6-Minute Walk Test).

Conclusion: HIIT appears superior to MICT in enhancing VO2 peak and, consequently, cardiopulmonary function in cancer survivors. Nonetheless, both training modalities yield comparable outcomes in body composition and physical function. Given the variability in the quantity and quality of the included studies, further well-designed and objective RCTs are warranted to validate these findings.

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/myprospero, identifier CRD420250654968.

高强度间歇训练(HIIT)与中等强度连续训练(MICT)对癌症幸存者心肺功能、身体成分和身体功能的影响:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析
背景:癌症治疗的进步导致全球癌症幸存者人数显著增加。然而,长期的健康管理挑战——如心肺功能下降、癌症相关疲劳和代谢失调——仍然是艰巨的。本研究的目的是对随机对照试验(rct)进行荟萃分析,以全面比较高强度间歇训练(HIIT)与中等强度连续训练(MICT)对癌症幸存者心肺功能、身体成分和身体功能的影响。从而为个体化运动处方提供循证指导。方法:根据PRISMA指南,系统检索截至2025年2月的PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus、Embase、Cochrane Library和EBSCOhost等数据库。共纳入12项符合条件的rct,乳腺癌(n = 7)、结直肠癌(n = 3)和混合癌症类型(n = 2)。meta分析采用Cochrane Collaboration的Review Manager 5.4进行,敏感性分析采用Stata MP 14.0进行,以评估结果的稳定性和可靠性。采用Egger检验来评估发表偏倚的存在。结果:荟萃分析显示,与MICT相比,HIIT在改善癌症幸存者的VO2峰值(峰值摄氧量)方面明显更有效[SMD = 0.53, 95% CI (0.21, 0.84), Z = 3.30, P = 0.001]。然而,在身体组成(包括身体质量、总脂肪质量、瘦体重、脂肪百分比、身体质量指数、腰围和臀围)或身体功能(包括坐立测试和6分钟步行测试)方面,HIIT和MICT之间没有统计学上的显著差异。结论:HIIT在提高肿瘤患者的VO2峰值和心肺功能方面优于MICT。尽管如此,两种训练方式在身体成分和身体功能方面的结果是相当的。考虑到纳入研究的数量和质量的可变性,需要进一步精心设计和客观的随机对照试验来验证这些发现。系统评价注册:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/myprospero,标识符CRD420250654968。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
2608
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Physiology is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research on the physiology of living systems, from the subcellular and molecular domains to the intact organism, and its interaction with the environment. Field Chief Editor George E. Billman at the Ohio State University Columbus is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信