Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 3

3752 - The association between wearable device physical activity metrics and performance status in oncology: a systematic review

Date

30 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 3

Topics

Translational Research

Tumour Site

Presenters

Milan Kos

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v574-v584. 10.1093/annonc/mdz257

Authors

M. Kos1, E.N. Pijnappel1, C.S. Kampshoff2, L.M. Buffart3, H.W. Wilmink1, H.W.M. van Laarhoven1, M. van Oijen1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Dept. Of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ - Amsterdam/NL
  • 2 Dept. Of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081HV - Amsterdam/NL
  • 3 Dept. Of Medical Oncology And Dept. Of Epidemiology And Biostatistics, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081HV - Amsterdam/NL

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 3752

Background

The expanding armamentarium of wearable devices offers new opportunities to supplement physician-assessed performance status (PS) with continuously acquired real-life patient data. It is relevant to identify and characterize the level of association between wearable device physical activity (PA) metrics and PS in cancer patients as a first step into evaluating their potential combined utility in evaluating treatment outcomes and clinical decisions. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to examine the association between wearable device PA metrics and PS in cancer patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies that were conducted among adults with cancer, quantitatively assessed a relation between wearable device PA metrics and PS, and had a full text available in English. We extracted information on study design and population, wearable device type and PA metrics, outcome definitions, and results. Included studies were subjected to methodological quality assessment.

Results

Nine studies with a total of 574 patients were included in this review. Eight studies had a prospective observational study design and all studies reported on a different combination of wearable device PA metrics including: steps per day (n = 5), sedentary behavior (n = 5), and PA volume/intensity (n = 4). Much heterogeneity was observed regarding study population, wearable devices used, and reporting of results. None of the studies could be defined to be of ‘high methodological quality’ (≥ 70%): mean methodological quality was 47% and ranged from 40-60%. We found moderate evidence for a positive association between steps per day and PS, and for a negative association between sedentary behavior and PS.

Conclusions

Much heterogeneity was identified between studies with regards to study population, reported PA metrics, and used devices. Nevertheless, results of this study indicate that higher daily step count is associated with better PS in cancer patients. Whereas sedentary behavior is associated with worse PS. The next step into determining their potential combined utility in evaluating treatment outcomes and clinical decisions is to investigate the association between wearable device PA metrics and cancer outcomes.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

H.W. Wilmink: Advisory / Consultancy: Shire; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): Servier; Research grant / Funding (institution): Halozyme; Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck. H.W.M. van Laarhoven: Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Serono; Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Nordic; Research grant / Funding (institution): Philips. M. van Oijen: Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Servier; Research grant / Funding (institution): Nordic; Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.