mHealth system (ATOPE+) to support exercise prescription in breast cancer survivors: a reliability and validity, cross-sectional observational study (ATOPE study)

Paula Postigo-Martin, Rocío Gil-Gutiérrez, Salvador Moreno-Gutiérrez, Maria Lopez-Garzon, Ángela González-Santos, Manuel Arroyo-Morales, Irene Cantarero-Villanueva, Paula Postigo-Martin, Rocío Gil-Gutiérrez, Salvador Moreno-Gutiérrez, Maria Lopez-Garzon, Ángela González-Santos, Manuel Arroyo-Morales, Irene Cantarero-Villanueva

Abstract

Physical exercise is known to be beneficial for breast cancer survivors (BCS). However, avoiding nonfunctional overreaching is crucial in this population, as they are in physiological dysregulation. These factors could decrease their exercise capacity or facilitate nonfunctional overreaching, which can increase their risk of additional morbidities and even all-cause mortality. The focus of this study is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the ATOPE+ mHealth system to estimate autonomic balance and specific wellness parameters associated with BCS' perceived load, thereby informing nonlinear prescriptions in individualized physical exercise programs for BCS.Twenty-two BCS were included in the reliability and validity analysis. Measures were taken for four days, including morning autonomic balance by heart rate variability, self-reported perception of recovery from exercise, sleep satisfaction, emotional distress and fatigue after exertion. Measures were taken utilizing the ATOPE+ mHealth system application. The results of these measures were compared with criterion instruments to assess validity.The reliability results indicated that the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) showed an excellent correlation for recovery (0.93; 95% CI 0.85-0.96) and distress (0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.97) as well as good correlation for the natural logarithm of the mean square root differences of the standard deviation (LnRMSSD) (0.87; 95% CI 0.74-0.94). Sleep satisfaction also showed an excellent correlation with a weighted kappa of 0.83. The validity results showed no significant differences, except for fatigue. ATOPE+ is reliable and valid for remotely assessing autonomic balance, perception of recovery, sleep satisfaction and emotional distress in BCS; however, it is not for fatigue. This highlights that ATOPE+ could be an easy and efficient system used to assess readiness in BCS, and could help to improve their health by supporting the prescription of optimal and safe physical exercise. Trial registration NCT03787966 ClinicalTrials.gov, December 2019 [ATOPE project]. https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03787966 .

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ATOPE+ mHealth system overview. Created with Biorender.com.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a–e) Bland-Altman scatterplots created in order to assess agreement between ATOPE+ methods and Gold Standard methods for HRV parameters, recovery, sleep, emotional distress and fatigue of BCS.

References

    1. Patel AV, et al. American college of sports medicine roundtable report on physical activity, sedentary behavior, and cancer prevention and control. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2019;51:2391–2402. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002117.
    1. Morishita S, et al. Effect of exercise on mortality and recurrence in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Integr. Cancer Ther. 2020;19:153473542091746. doi: 10.1177/1534735420917462.
    1. Biganzoli E, Desmedt C, Demicheli R. Does physical activity have an impact on recurrence dynamics in early breast cancer patients? J. Clin. Med. 2021;10:831. doi: 10.3390/jcm10040831.
    1. Conklin KA. Chemotherapy-associated oxidative stress: Impact on chemotherapeutic effectiveness. Integr. Cancer Ther. 2004;3:294–300. doi: 10.1177/1534735404270335.
    1. Bower JE. Cancer-related fatigue—Mechanisms, risk factors, and treatments. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2014;11:597–609. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.127.
    1. Zitvogel L, Apetoh L, Ghiringhelli F, Kroemer G. Immunological aspects of cancer chemotherapy. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2008;8:59–73. doi: 10.1038/nri2216.
    1. Cadegiani FA, Kater CE. Novel insights of overtraining syndrome discovered from the EROS study. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2019;5:e000542. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000542.
    1. Angeli A, Minetto M, Dovio A, Paccotti P. The overtraining syndrome in athletes: A stress-related disorder. J. Endocrinol. Investig. 2004;27:603–612. doi: 10.1007/BF03347487.
    1. Kraft TS, et al. Multi-system physiological dysregulation and ageing in a subsistence population. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2020;375:2019. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0610.
    1. Sasso JP, et al. A framework for prescription in exercise-oncology research. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2015;6:115–124. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12042.
    1. Pickering C, Kiely J. Do non-responders to exercise exist—And if so, what should we do about them? Sport. Med. 2019;49:1–7. doi: 10.1007/s40279-018-01041-1.
    1. Spence RR, Sandler CX, Newton RU, Galvão DA, Hayes SC. Physical activity and exercise guidelines for people with cancer: Why are they needed, who should use them, and when? Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 2020;36:151075. doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2020.151075.
    1. Bruce J, et al. Exercise versus usual care after non-reconstructive breast cancer surgery (UK PROSPER): Multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. BMJ. 2021;375:e066542. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066542.
    1. Singh N, et al. Heart rate variability: An old metric with new meaning in the era of using mhealth technologies for health and exercise training guidance. Part two: Prognosis and training. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. Rev. 2018;7:1. doi: 10.15420/aer.2018.30.2.
    1. Kirkham AA, et al. ‘Chemotherapy-periodized’ exercise to accommodate for cyclical variation in fatigue. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2020;52:278–286. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002151.
    1. Moreno-Gutierrez S, et al. ATOPE+: An mHealth system to support personalized therapeutic exercise interventions in patients with cancer. IEEE Access. 2021;9:16878–16898. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3049398.
    1. Lozano-Lozano M, et al. Monitoring energy balance in breast cancer survivors using a mobile app: Reliability study. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018;6:1–10. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9669.
    1. Lozano-Lozano M, et al. Mobile health and supervised rehabilitation versus mobile health alone in breast cancer survivors: Randomized controlled trial. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2020;63:316–324. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.07.007.
    1. Billat VL, Sirvent P, Py G, Koralsztein J-P, Mercier J. The concept of maximal lactate steady state. Sports Med. 2003;33:407–426. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200333060-00003.
    1. Hecksteden A, et al. Blood-borne markers of fatigue in competitive athletes—Results from simulated training camps. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0148810. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148810.
    1. Levine A, Zagoory-Sharon O, Feldman R, Lewis JG, Weller A. Measuring cortisol in human psychobiological studies. Physiol. Behav. 2007;90:43–53. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.08.025.
    1. Shaffer F, Ginsberg JP, Shaffer F. An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms. Front. Public Health. 2017;5:1–17. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00258.
    1. Laurent CM, et al. A practical approach to monitoring recovery: Development of a perceived recovery status scale. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011;25:620–628. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c69ec6.
    1. Carney CE, et al. The consensus sleep diary: Standardizing prospective sleep self-monitoring. Sleep. 2012;35:287–302. doi: 10.5665/sleep.1642.
    1. Cutillo A, et al. The distress thermometer: Cutoff points and clinical use. Oncol. Nurs. Forum. 2017;44:329–336. doi: 10.1188/17.ONF.329-336.
    1. Soriano-Maldonado A, et al. Validity and reliability of rating perceived exertion in women with fibromyalgia: Exertion-pain discrimination. J. Sports Sci. 2015;33:1515–1522. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2014.994661.
    1. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine. Cambridge University Press; 2011.
    1. Postigo-Martin P, et al. Attenuating treatment-related cardiotoxicity in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer via a tailored therapeutic exercise program: Protocol of the ATOPE trial. Phys. Ther. 2021;101:pzab014. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab014.
    1. Heart rate variability: Standards of measurement, physiological interpretation and clinical use. Task force of the european society of cardiology and the North American society of pacing and electrophysiology. Circulation93, 1043–1065 (1996).
    1. Umair M, Chalabianloo N, Sas C, Ersoy C. HRV and stress: A mixed-methods approach for comparison of wearable heart rate sensors for biofeedback. IEEE Access. 2021;9:14005–14024. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3052131.
    1. Caro-Morán E, et al. Heart rate variability in breast cancer survivors after the first year of treatments: A case-controlled study. Biol. Res. Nurs. 2016;18:43–49. doi: 10.1177/1099800414568100.
    1. Rogers AE, Caruso CC, Aldrich MS. Reliability of sleep diaries for assessment of sleep/wake patterns. Nurs. Res. 1993;42:368–372.
    1. Martínez P, Galdón MJ, Andreu Y, Ibáñez E. The distress thermometer in Spanish cancer patients: Convergent validity and diagnostic accuracy. Support. Care Cancer. 2013;21:3095–3102. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1883-7.
    1. Hughes, D. C. et al. Using rating of perceived exertion in assessing cardiorespiratory fitness in endometrial cancer survivors. Physiother. Theory Pract.33, 0–765 (2017).
    1. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016;15:155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
    1. Portney, L. G. Foundations of Clinical Research : Applications to Practice. (Davis, F A, 2020).
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009;41:3–12. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278.
    1. Perrotta AS, Jeklin AT, Hives BA, Meanwell LE, Warburton DER. Validity of the elite HRV smartphone application for examining heart rate variability in a field-based setting. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017;31:2296–2302. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001841.
    1. Manresa-Rocamora A, Sarabia JM, Javaloyes A, Flatt AA, Moya-Ramón M. Heart rate variability-guided training for enhancing cardiac-vagal modulation, aerobic fitness, and endurance performance: A methodological systematic review with meta-analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18:10299. doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910299.
    1. Boos CJ, et al. A comparison of two methods of heart rate variability assessment at high altitude. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging. 2017;37:582–587. doi: 10.1111/cpf.12334.
    1. Gilgen-Ammann R, Schweizer T, Wyss T. RR interval signal quality of a heart rate monitor and an ECG Holter at rest and during exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2019;119:1525–1532. doi: 10.1007/s00421-019-04142-5.
    1. Tibana RA, et al. Validity of session rating perceived exertion method for quantifying internal training load during high-intensity functional training. Sports. 2018;6:2–9. doi: 10.3390/sports6010002.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere