# Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Functional Fitness and Body Composition Among Breast Cancer Survivors With 8 Weeks of Exercise Training: A Randomised, Controlled Non‐Inferiority Trial Comparing Remotely‐Supported and Partly‐Supervised Interventions

## TL;DR

This study compares two exercise programs for breast cancer survivors, finding that remote support may be as effective as in-person sessions for some fitness and body composition outcomes.

## Contribution

The study evaluates the non-inferiority of remotely-supported versus partly-supervised exercise training in breast cancer survivors.

## Key findings

- Remotely-supported exercise showed non-inferior changes in timed up and go and body fat compared to partly-supervised training.
- Adherence was higher in the partly-supervised group compared to the remotely-supported group.
- Non-inferiority could not be confirmed for V˙O2max, blood pressure, and other functional fitness measures in the remotely-supported group.

## Abstract

This randomised, controlled non‐inferiority trial investigated whether 8 weeks of remotely‐supported exercise training changes cardiorespiratory fitness, functional fitness and body composition by a magnitude that is not meaningfully inferior to changes caused by partly‐supervised exercise training.

Thirty female breast cancer survivors (57 ± 6 years, V˙O2max 28.9 ± 6.1 mL·kg−1·min−1, BMI 25.3 ± 3.3 kg·m−2) were randomised to 8 weeks of partly‐supervised (n = 15) or remotely‐supported (n = 15) exercise training. The partly‐supervised group undertook two supervised and one unsupervised session per week, progressing from 55% to 70% V˙O2max and 35–50 min. The remotely‐supported group were prescribed the same total duration of exercise per week (progressing from 105 to 150 min). Intensity was prescribed using heart rate targets corresponding to 55%–70% V˙O2max. V˙O2max, functional fitness, body composition and blood pressure were assessed pre‐ and post‐intervention.

Adherence was higher in the partly‐supervised group (87% ± 7%) versus the remotely‐supported group (64% ± 25%; p = 0.01). The remotely‐supported group exhibited changes in timed up and go (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI −0.8 to 0.4 s) and percentage body fat (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI −0.6 to 0.5 kg·m−2) that were non‐inferior to the partly‐supervised group. It was inconclusive whether changes among the remotely‐supported group for V˙O2max (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI −3.3 to 1.1 mL·kg−1·min−1), blood pressure (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI systolic; −3 to 12 mmHg, diastolic; −5 to 6 mmHg), 6 min walk (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI −54.0 to 0.4 m), or sit to stand (difference to partly‐supervised; 95% CI −3 to 2 repetitions), were non‐inferior to the partly‐supervised group.

Remotely‐supported exercise might be an alternative to partly‐supervised exercise regarding functional fitness (assessed by timed up and go) and body composition (assessed by percentage body fat). It remains inconclusive whether remotely‐supported exercise is an alternative regarding V˙O2max, blood pressure and other functional fitness measurements (6‐min walk, sit to stand).

Trials Registration: NCT06376578 (20/11/2020).