Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2026 Jul 27;11:497. Originally published 2022 May 5. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.112667.2

Effects of exercise training on cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors. A systematic review

Ravindra Reddy C 1, Stephen Samuel 1,a, Vijay Pratap Singh 1, Sourjya Banerjee 2
PMCID: PMC13641239  PMID: 42845809

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

Our study is updated and revised according to the reviewers' queries. The study has some improvements in the methodological and results section structural aspects.  Overall, these revisions improve methodological rigour, reporting transparency, and alignment with PRISMA guidelines.

Abstract

Background:

Cardiotoxicity is a major long-term complication of anti-cancer drugs such as anthracycline and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). These drugs also impact the quality of life, reduced functional capacity, and life expectancy. Exercise attenuates the cardiotoxic effects of anticancer treatments via antioxidant effects, as indicated by a growing body of evidence.

Methods:

Studies for this review were retrieved from databases PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and Web of Science and were restricted only to clinical trials. Study results were screened and synchronized to Mendeley. Studies that met the eligibility criteria were extracted into the spreadsheet, summarizing information regarding the site and cancer stages, adjuvant therapy, various exercise interventions, and outcome measures. Risk of bias quality analysis was done in accordance with the National Heart Lung Blood Institute.

Results:

In this systematic review, 9021 articles were screened. After the exclusion criteria, seven articles were included for qualitative analysis. Outcome measures analyzed were measures of cardiotoxicity such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), cardiac biomarkers, and global longitudinal strain.

Conclusion:

Although a structured exercise protocol including aerobic and resistance training has been found to improve, the functional capacity is an indirect measure of cardiotoxicity. There is a lack of data on improvements in direct measurements of cardiotoxicity, such as LVEF and cardiac biomarkers. A lack of evidence from direct measurements of cardiotoxicity regarding the effects of exercise underscores the need for further research.

Keywords: Exercise, Cardiotoxicity, Cancer Survivors, Rehabilitation

Abbreviations

BNP: B-Type Natriuretic Peptide

CG: Control Group

GLS: Global Longitudinal Strain

HER: Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor

IG: Interventional Group

LVEF: Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction

MET: Metabolic Equivalent of Task

PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews And Meta-Analyses

RCT: Randomized Control Trial

ROS: Reactive Oxygen Species

RVEF: Right Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Introduction

According to the global cancer statistics 2020, the incidence rate of cancers has become 2 to 3-fold now with an estimated rise of 47% by 2040. 1 The three most prevalent cancers are prostate, colorectal, and melanoma among males, and breast, uterine corpus, and colorectal cancer among females. The most common types of childhood cancer are leukemia, brain cancer, lymphoma, and solid tumors. 2 Early screening for cancer helps slow down its progress and, if accompanied by appropriate treatment, can result in a significant decline in the mortality rate. 3

One of the primary treatment strategies in cancer treatment involves chemotherapeutic drugs such as anthracycline, doxorubicin, Paclitaxel, Cyclophosphamide, and Trastuzumab used alone or in combination with radiation therapy. 4 – 6 Globally, cancer and cardiovascular diseases cause morbidity and mortality. Despite various advances in cancer treatments, the detrimental effects of these treatment forms cause a significant burden to cancer survivors. 1 Despite the therapeutic effects of these drugs, cancer survivors have been found to have long-term adverse side effects such as cardiotoxicity, fatigue, cancer-related pain, sleep disorders, and psychological stress, which contribute to morbidity and mortality amongst them. 7

Cardiotoxicity is considered a significant concern and severe issue in clinical practice patients receiving chemotherapy. Cardiotoxicity is damage to the heart manifested by either symptomatic or asymptomatic decline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). 8 Although the mechanism of cardiotoxicity is poorly understood, the most agreed-upon fact remains the increase of reactive oxygen species (ROS), activating cardiac autophagy and apoptotic pathways. 9 – 12 Studies have defined cardiotoxicity as a decrease in LVEF of >10% points to a value of <53% (reference value). 13 Echocardiography-LVEF, myocardial strain imaging, and cardio biomarkers are the standard marker or parameters for measuring the early and late cardiotoxic effects. 11 , 13 – 18

The proposed strategies to reduce the cardiotoxic effects are: 1) anthracycline dose reduction, 2) altogether avoiding the radiotherapy/blockade of exposure to other areas, 3) usage of iron chelation, 4) treating the preexisting cardiovascular risk factors, 5) using other interventions such as exercise to alleviate its effects.

Exercise training, a most reliable and non-pharmacological option, brings positive outcomes and improves physical fitness by restoring physical function, enhancing the quality of life, and reducing cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors. This training could be implemented before, during, and after cancer treatments, 19 – 23 thus reducing the cardiotoxic effects. Exercise interventions, including aerobic exercises such as treadmill walking, running, cycling, and resistance training such as weight training, strength training using Thera Band, and weight cuffs, are safe and feasible for all cancer populations. Over the past decade, steady growth in the body of evidence supports the importance of exercise in attenuating or mitigating the cardiotoxic effects induced by chemotherapeutic drugs. The most proposed mechanisms by which exercise works is by its antioxidant effect, AMP-kinase mediated myocardial remodeling 7 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 – 27 However, several outcome measures, such as VO 2 max (maximum amount of oxygen utilized during exercise) – an indirect measure and metabolic equivalent (MET), are used in measuring cardiotoxicity; the standard direct predictors are LVEF and cardiac biomarkers.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no systematic review on the effects of exercise training on cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors; this review aims to synthesize evidence regarding the role of exercise training on cardiotoxicity and identify potential knowledge gaps in terms of research in this area.

Methods

This systematic review of clinical trials on the Effects of exercise training on cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines (See Reporting Guidelines). 28

Search strategy and selection criteria

A detailed data search was performed on databases PUBMED, SCOPUS, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE from August 2009 to March 2021. 28 For Population the following search terms were used: cancer, carcinoma, neoplasm (MeSH), cancer survivors (MeSH), adult cancer survivors, and pediatric cancer survivors. For Intervention, search terms were exercise (MeSH), exercise training, exercise therapy, prehabilitation, rehabilitation, aerobic training, resistance training (MeSH), endurance training, treadmill, cycle ergometry, swimming, walking, running, free weights, manual, kettlebell exercises, dumbbell exercises, Pilates, yoga, flexibility training, stretching exercise (MeSH), high-intensity interval training (MeSH). For Cardiotoxicity Outcomes, the search terms are Cardiotoxicity, Cardiopulmonary fitness, functional capacity, left ventricle ejection fraction, heart failure (MeSH), cardiovascular reserve capacity, coronary vascular disease, and physical fitness. The Boolean operator ‘AND’ or ‘OR’ combined the search terms. Potentially relevant studies were included from the reference list of the included articles. The search for clinical trials was limited to those involving human participants and those published in English Two investigators, RR and SRS, independently searched the databases mentioned above. The studies were further screened by RR and SRS based on the preset inclusion criteria. A discussion with VPS sorted any further discrepancies.

Inclusion criteria

Type of participant: All kinds of cancer survivors who received chemotherapy

Type of intervention: Aerobic or Resistance training or both

Type of outcome interest: Echocardiography (LVEF, RVEF, GLS), Cardiac biomarkers

Type of study design: Only clinical trials (RCT, non-RCT, pre- post study design).

Exclusion criteria

Studies that use other interventions rather than exercise such as Music therapy and Cognitive behavioral therapy, Nordic Walking, speech therapy qualitative studies Preclinical studies, Cross-sectional studies, and Systematic review.

Data extraction and management

All the studies retrieved from the databases were added to the mendley desktop (v1.19.8.) After synchronizing, the title and abstract screening was performed and duplicates were removed. RR and SRS performed full-text screening for the included articles independently, and any disagreements were sorted after discussion with VPS. Information on the objectives, site and cancer stages, adjuvant treatment, intervention details, comparator, outcome measures, study design, sample size, adverse events, and critical findings of the included studies were mentioned in the data extraction sheet. 28

Assessment of risk of bias

The included studies underwent the risk of bias assessment performed independently by RR and SRS using the National Heart Lung Blood Institute (NHLBI). 29 The NIH checklist for each study type measures 14 unique questions for control intervention studies and 12 for pre-post studies and was scored to assess studies’ internal validity. The studies were scored under each query related to randomization, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and assessors, baseline characteristics, dropouts, intervention adherence, outcome data, and other biases. Studies were marked as ‘good,’ ‘fair,’ and ‘poor’ if they met 10-14, 5–9, and ≤4 scores accordingly (See Underlying data). 28 Discussions with VPS sorted disagreements in the marking system of the studies between the two reviewers.

Results

Characteristics of the studies

In this review, 9021 articles were retrieved from a comprehensive search of the following databases; PubMed (n = 611), web of science (n = 1728), Scopus (n = 4058), Embase (n = 1069), Cochrane (n = 1555). A total of 6089 articles were found after merging duplicates. Based on the title and abstract screening, 13 articles were eligible for full-text screening. Out of the 13 articles, seven met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review (See Underlying data). 28 The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1, while the intervention characteristics, outcome measures, and main findings are presented in Table 2.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Included Studies.

Author Cancer site/Stage Age/Gender Study design Sample size Adjuvant treatment Exercise intervention Quality assessment measure
Foulkes et al., 2019 30 Breast cancer female/46-66 non-RCT 28
Usual care; n = 14
Exercise; n = 14
chemotherapy+radiotherapy Aerobic and resistance exercise Fair
Katarzyna Hojan et al., 2020 31 Breast cancer IB, IIA, IIB, IIIA female/18-75 years RCT 68
Usual care; n = 34
Exercise; n = 34
trastuzumab therapy
+radiotherapy
Endurance and strength exercises Good
Erin J Howden et al., 2019 32 Breast cancer female/(47-53) ± 9 years non-RCT 28
Usual care; n = 14
Exercise; n = 14
anthracycline Aerobic and resistance exercise Fair
Amy A. Kirkham et al., 2018 33 stage I–III Breast cancer female/50 ± 9 RCT 24
Usual care; n = 11
Exercise; n = 13
doxorubicin Aerobic exercise Good
Haykowsky et al., 2009 35 HER2 positive Breast cancer 53 ± 7 years single group design (pre-post) Exercise ; n = 17 trastuzumab therapy +radiotherapy Aerobic training Good
Zhijun Ma et al., 2018 36 Breast cancer 43.1±5 years RCT 64
Usual care; n = 33
Exercise; n = 31
anthracycline Aerobic exercises Fair
A.A. Kirkham et al., 2017 34 Breast cancer above 18 RCT 24
Usual care; n = 11
Exercise; n = 13
doxorubicin Aerobic exercises Good

RCT-randomized control trial, HER-human epidermal receptor.

Table 2. Intervention characteristics, Outcomes, Result of included studies.

Author Exercise details Outcome measure Result
Aerobic Resistance training Usual Training
Foulkes et al. (2019) 30 2 session/week moderate to vigorous intensity for 12 weeks aerobic-cycle ergometer 30 minutes 1 session/week unsupervised 30-60 min home aerobic exercise with moderate intensity 30 min, moderate to vigorous intensity for 12 weeks Echocardiography- (LVEF; global longitudinal strain), cardio biomarkers (troponin; B-type natriuretic peptide). LVEF %
PRE AC 64.3 ± 5.3
4 Months -3.3 (-0.4, 6.9)
16 Months -6.9 (-11.1, -2.0)
BNP, ng/L
Pre-AC 39.4 ± 50.0 4 Months -4.1 (-48.2, 39.9) 16 Months -14.5 (-63.8, 34.9)
Troponin I, ng/L Pre-AC 2.57 ± 0.79 4 Months 33.43 (1.87, 64.99)
16 Months 2.57 (-0.58, 5.72)
GLS, %
Pre-AC -19.9 ± 2.3
4 Months 0.9 (-1.4, 1.4)
16 Months 2.4 (-1.2, 3.5)
LVEF %
PRE AC 63.8 ± 5.4 4 Months -4.6 (-1.1, 10.3) 16 Months -3.1 (-8.4, 2.1)
BNP, ng/L
Pre-AC 43.4 ± 29.8 4 Months -0.4 (-30.8, 30.0) 16 Months -10.6 (-50.9, 29.7)
Troponin I, ng/L Pre-AC 3.00 ± 1.07 4 Months 20.89 (3.62, 38.12) 16 Months 3.63 (0.50, 6.75)
GLS Pre-AC -19.2 ± 1.5 4 Months 0.1 (-1.4, 1.3) 16 Months 0.2 (-1.5, 1.9)
Katarzyna Hojan et al. (2020) 31 endurance 5 session/week for 9 weeks 2 forms of exercise/one session (walking treadmill, cycling) 45-50 min strength 5 session/week for 9 weeks isometric, concentric, and eccentric training consisted of one to three sets of 8–10 repetitions Echocardiography-LVEF, RVEF
GLS.
LVEF (%)
Baseline- 63,9 ± 2.72
After- 59.82 ± 4.02 P (0.143)
RVEF (%)
Baseline 53.3 ± 6.5,
After- 54.2 ± 5.2 P (0.488)
GLS (%)
Baseline 17.3 ± 2.5
After 16.8 ± 2.5
LVEF (%)
Baseline 65.69 ± 5.02
After 64.88 ± 5.81 P (0.009)
RVEF (%)
Baseline 52.8 ± 7.5
After 52.1 ± 6.6 P (0.788)
GLS (%)
Baseline 17.5 ± 2.5
After 17.6 ± 2.5
Erin J Howden et al. (2019) 32 2 session/week for 12 weeks 30 minutes one unsupervised 30–60 minute 2 session/week for 12 weeks 30 minutes Echocardiography
(LVEF and GLS)
cardiacbiomarkers (troponin and B-type natriuretic peptide).
LVEF (%)
Pre-treatment 62.8 ± 4.9
post-treatment 59.1 ± 4.1
GLS (%) pre 20.4 ± 2.1 post 19.5 ± 2.0
BNP (ng/L) pre 35.8 ± 39.6 post 36.2 ± 19.7
Troponin I (ng/L) pre-2.6 ± 1.0 post 35.6 ± 27.2
LVEF (%)
Pre-treatment 64.1 ± 5.0
post-treatment 60.6 ± 5.4
GLS (%) pre 19.7 ± 2.0
post 19.6 ± 2.0
BNP (ng/L)
pre 39.6 ± 31.6
post 40.2 ± 23.4
Troponin I (ng/L)
pre-3.2 ± 1.5
post 21.4 ± 16.0
Amy A. Kirkham et al. (2018) 33 prior to 24 hrs. treatment supervised treadmill 10-min warm-up 30 min vigorous intensity (70% of heart rate reserve (HRR)), and a 5-min cool-down Nil Echocardiography and circulating biomarkers 0–14 days (baseline) and 7–14 days after treatment. Longitudinal strain (%)
Baseline − 19.6 ± 1.9
End of T − 20.3 ± 1.6
Cardiac troponin T (pg./mL)
Baseline 1.5 ± 2.3
End of T 11.6 ± 8.3
NT-proBNP (pg./mL)
Baseline 59 ± 35
End of T 77 ± 39
LVEF (%)
Baseline 58 ± 3
After 58 ± 3
Longitudinal strain (%)
Baseline − 19.2 ± 1.9
End of T − 18.7 ± 1.4
Cardiac troponin T (pg./mL)
Baseline 1.3 ± 2.1
End of T 13.6 ± 11.2
NT-proBNP (pg./mL)
Baseline 52 ± 30
End of T 52 ± 30
LVEF (%)
Baseline 57 ± 4
After 57 ± 4
Haykowsky et al. (2009) 35
Pre post study design
3D/week for 4 months (30-60 min) cycle ergometry (60%-90%) peak oxygen consumption nil ejection fraction by Echocardiography. LVEF (%)
Baseline (pre: 64% ± 4%)
After 4 months
Post: (59% ± 4%)
Zhijun Ma et al. (2018) 36 3D/week for 16 weeks 50 min treadmill 60%-70% HR max nil ejection fraction by echocardiography serum biomarkers. LVEF (%)
Baseline = (pre: 51 ± 5.6
After-post: 47 ± 2.6
NT-pro BNP (ng/L)
Baseline - 72.1 ± 13.6
After - 348.2 ± 25.4
LVEF (%)
Baseline: 55 ± 3.5
After: 60 ± 2.9
NT-pro BNP (ng/L)
Baseline-84.2 ± 21.5
After-90.6 ± 18.4
A.A. Kirkham et al. (2017) 34 prior to 24 hrs. treatment supervised treadmill 10-min warm-up, 30 min vigorous intensity (70% of heart rate reserve (HRR)), and a 5-min cool-down nil LV longitudinal strain, and cardiac Troponin T (cTnT)
Echocardiography and circulating biomarkers 0–14 days (baseline) and 7–14 days after the last doxorubicin treatment.
Cardiac troponin T (pg./mL)
Baseline - 1.5 ± 2.3
After - 1.9 ± 2.6
NT-proBNP (pg./mL)
Baseline - 59 ± 35
After - 323 ± 15
LVEF (%)
Baseline-58 ± 3
After - 59 ± 4
Longitudinal strain (%)
Baseline - 19.6 ± 1.9
After - 21.5 ± 1.6
Cardiac troponin T (pg./mL)
Baseline - 1.3 ± 2.1
After- 2.6 ± 3.2
NT-proBNP (pg./mL)
Baseline 52 ± 30
After- 214 ± 77
LVEF (%)
Baseline-57 ± 4
After-60 ± 3
Longitudinal strain (%)
Baseline-19.2 ± 1.9
After-21.4 ± 1.8

RVEF- right ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF –left ventricle ejection fraction, GLS- global longitudinal strain

BNP-B-type natriuretic peptide, AC- Anthracycline class.

A quality analysis using the NHLBI Questionnaire was performed for the included studies interventional studies. Most studies were of fair to good quality, and few had missing data, small sample sizes, dropouts, or differences in baseline characteristics. Among seven studies, one was a single-arm pre-post intervention design; four were randomized controlled trials (RCTs); two were non-RCT. In all included studies, the patients were diagnosed with breast cancer; however, only few authors reported their stage. Most of the participants included in the studies were those aged above 18. The outcome measure of all included studies was cardiac function using echocardiography- LVEF, Global longitudinal strain (GLS), and circulating cardiac biomarkers (troponins and N terminal-pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Most of the patients received anthracycline class drugs such as doxorubicin and trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy.

Exercise intervention for the included participants comprised either aerobic or resistance training or a combination of both. Supervised treadmill walking, unsupervised home-based walking, and cycle ergometry were the modalities used in aerobic exercise, and for resistance training, Thera band “®”, dumbbell, and medicine ball were used. Out of seven studies, three studies 30 – 32 used aerobic, and resistance training as their intervention, and the other four studies 33 – 36 used only aerobic training for their patients. The duration of these exercises was around 30-60 min performed in about 9-16 weeks. Two out of seven studies 33 , 34 incorporated exercise bout just 24-hours before the chemotherapy and observed the changes in echocardiographic findings and cardio biomarkers. Overall, the reversibility of cardiotoxic changes by incorporating exercise was seen only in Zhijun Ma et al., 36 and rest six have no or negligible changes.

The dropouts were as follows: 11 from Foulkes et al., 21 from Katarzyna Hojan et al., 2 from Howden et al., 3 from Kirkham et al., 2 from Haykowsky et al., 6 from Zhijun Ma et al., and 3 from Kirkham et al.

Discussion

Patients with cancer with underlying cardiovascular complications have reduced life expectancy compared to those with cancer alone. It is expected that the survival rate of the cancer population will increase by 30% by 2022 in the United States alone. 37 Modern treatment strategies for cancer have improved their survival rate and costed adverse cardiovascular injury as side effects in their long-term survival period. This study aimed to look for therapeutic strategies to alleviate the side effects. 38 A growing body of evidence supports the role of exercise in preventing and managing various treatment-related complications in cancer survivors. Hence, this review was conducted to summarize the available literature and thus evaluate the effects of exercise training on cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors. The studies included in this review used outcome measures that directly measure cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors. The data presented in this study relate only to breast cancer. The effect of exercise interventions has been discussed in detail under each outcome measure.

Left ventricular ejection fraction

Cancer therapy-induced cardiac dysfunction is a long-term complication in cancer survivors, with some being symptomatic and others asymptomatic. Heart failure is defined as pump failure, measured in LVEF. 39 Exercise training potentially induces ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure by restoring abnormal neurohormonal, autonomic and hemodynamic functions. 40 Among the included studies, five studies 30 – 32 , 35 , 36 measured LVEF as a primary outcome measure, and the Kirkham et al. (2018), A.A. Kirkham et al. (2017) 33 , 34 evaluated it as a secondary measure. Zhijun Ma et al., 36 among seven studies, reported an improvement LVEF (mean difference ≈ + 5%, 95% CI not reported). In contrast, six other showed negligible changes in left ventricular ejection from baseline to post-chemotherapy. This study incorporated only aerobic exercises for their patients for 16 weeks (3d/week). 36

Global longitudinal strain (GLS)

It is one of the echocardiographic findings and a potential predictor of subclinical cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction. It analyzes the subtle changes or deformation occurring in the left ventricle. 39 , 41 Based on research evidence, a greater than 15% change is a strong predictor of cardiotoxicity. 41 There a is lack of evidence supporting the role of exercise training in GLS; however, in a trial conducted by Valzania, Cinzia et al., improvements have been seen in GLS values in patients receiving cardio resynchronization therapy during exercise. 42 Among seven studies included in this review, Haykowsky et al., Zhijun Ma et al. 35 , 36 didn’t assess GLS as an outcome measure, while most studies showed slight changes in GLS value. However, a clinical trial conducted by Foulkes et al. demonstrated a considerable decline in GLS value over 16 months (P = 0.015), 30 despite providing a combination of aerobic and resistance training.

Cardiac biomarkers

Biomarkers are one of the best diagnostic predictors of early cardiotoxicity. The test performed during or after the chemotherapy helps anticipate the presence of cardiotoxicity. Troponins and Natriuretic peptides are the significant biomarkers in determining subclinical cardiotoxicity. These biomarkers imply a certainty of cardiac damage due to chemotherapy. 39 , 43 Based on the research literature, it is evident that even prolonged exercise training in healthy individuals can cause an acute elevation in these biomarkers, which are transient. 44 However, a trial conducted by Braith et al. on heart failure patients showed that 16-weeks of endurance training helped reduce the baseline values of natriuretic peptides. 45 Only five studies 30 , 32 – 34 , 36 investigated biomarkers as their outcome and revealed that there is a significant elevation of troponins and natriuretic peptides post-chemotherapy in acute time. Interestingly these values recovered after 12 months in Foulkes et al. (2019); Zhijun Ma et al. (2018). 30 , 36 Thus, exercise training as an intervention to reduce biomarkers level is unclear and poorly understood.

Strength and limitation

Thus, this systematic review summarizes the effect of exercise training on cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors. Although previous studies summarize the impact of exercise as an intervention on cardiotoxicity measured by VO 2 max in cancer survivors, no review synthesizes evidence regarding the direct measure of cardiotoxicity. The inclusion of studies published in English and exclusion of the grey literature are the limitation of this review. Aerobic exercise training was limited to treadmill modality in most of the studies. Recent advances in exercise training like high-intensity interval training have shown clinical benefits in reduced ejection fraction patients suggesting ventricular remodeling, thus improving their functional capacity. 46 So, there is a need for an alternate form of exercise to counteract the chemotherapy-induced dysfunction.

In this review, one out of seven studies 36 showed statistically significant improvement in cardiotoxicity-related LVEF outcome measures. In comparison, three studies 30 , 32 , 33 showed that there was no deterioration of the cardiotoxicity related outcome measures. In contrast, the remaining three studies 30 , 32 , 35 showed a decline in the outcome measures, which was statistically significant.

Individualized exercise prescription, based on the frequency, intensity, type, and time (FITT) principle, can be recommended based on patients’ baseline characteristics or comorbidities limiting their physical performance. Cancer patients also suffer from sarcopenia, 47 – 49 which reduces their strength; there is a clinical need for resistance training.

The timing of exercise intervention used before, concomitant, or after chemotherapy has a significant role in providing protective effects. A gap has to be explored for further strengthening of evidence in optimal timing. In most of the included studies, the intervention duration was short, about four months; other studies can implement exercises for the long run and see the clinical changes.

Childhood cancer survivors with Hodgin’s lymphoma, and adult cancer survivors with prostate and colorectal cancer, are common and may also suffer from chemotherapy-related side effects. Predominantly early childhood cancer survivors with a longer life span have to sustain chemotherapy-induced cardiovascular injury affecting their quality of life in the long run. Despite evidence regarding exercise training, no studies are measuring the clinical changes in LVEF, GLS, and biomarkers, which are the direct measures of cardiotoxicity. Therefore, exploring the role of exercises in other cancer survivors is crucial to gather more evidence regarding the direct measurement of cardiotoxicity.

Conclusion

This review concludes that exercise has a potential role as an intervention to improve their functional capacity in cancer survivors but its true effects are not reflected in actual measures of cardiotoxicity. We recommend further research to ascertain the dose, volume of exercise, and optimal timing to further understand the role of exercise in preventing or mitigating cardiotoxicity.

Data availability

Underlying data

Open Science Framework (OSF): Effects of exercise on cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors. A systematic review’. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Q4YZM

This project contains the following underlying data:

Review protocol.docx. (It has information on search strategy, databases, search terms used, and inclusion and exclusion criteria.)

Systematic review.xlsx. (Patients’ characteristics such as site/stage, adjuvant treatments, intervention, results, dropouts)

Risk of bias.docx. (It includes the tables for which risk of bias for studies was done using NIH tool)

Data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license ( CC-BY 4.0).

Reporting guidelines

Open Science Framework (OSF): PRISMA checklist and flow chart for ‘Effects of exercise training on cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors. A systematic review’. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Q4YZM

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license ( CC-BY 4.0).

Author contributions

Conceptualization, R.R. AND S.R.S; Methodology, R.R. Investigation, R. R AND S.R.S.

Software, R.R. AND S.R.S; Supervision, S.R.S., V.P.S. AND S.B.; Funding Acquisition, S.R.S., V.P.S. AND S.B.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing, R. R. AND S.R.S.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved

References

  • 1. Miller KD, Nogueira L, Mariotto AB, et al. : Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 2019 Sep 1 [cited 2021 May 11];69(5):363–385. 10.3322/caac.21565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Lam CG, Howard SC, Bouffet E, et al. : Science and health for all children with cancer. Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2019;363:1182–1186. 10.1126/science.aaw4892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A: Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 2020 Jan [cited 2021 May 11];70(1):7–30. 10.3322/caac.21590 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Table 1|Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity: Overview of the Roles of Oxidative Stress.[cited 2021 May 11]. Reference Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 5. Banfill K, Giuliani M, Aznar M, et al. : Cardiac Toxicity of Thoracic Radiotherapy: Existing Evidence and Future Directions. J Thorac Oncol. Elsevier Inc. 2021;16:216–227. 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.11.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Koutroumpakis E, Palaskas NL, Lin SH, et al. : Modern Radiotherapy and Risk of Cardiotoxicity. Chemotherapy. S. Karger AG. 2020;65:65–76. 10.1159/000510573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. 2015 Strategic Priorities Symptom Management & Quality of Life Steering Committee (SxQoL SC).
  • 8. Wolf CM, Reiner B, Kühn A, et al. : Subclinical Cardiac Dysfunction in Childhood Cancer Survivors on 10-Years Follow-Up Correlates With Cumulative Anthracycline Dose and Is Best Detected by Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing, Circulating Serum Biomarker, Speckle Tracking Echocardiography, and Tissue Doppler Imaging. Front Pediatr. 2020 Mar;8:8. 10.3389/fped.2020.00123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Bhagat A, Kleinerman ES: Anthracycline-Induced Cardiotoxicity: Causes, Mechanisms, and Prevention. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. Springer;2020; p.181–192. 10.1007/978-3-030-43032-0_15 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Babiker HM, McBride A, Newton M, et al. : Cardiotoxic effects of chemotherapy: A review of both cytotoxic and molecular targeted oncology therapies and their effect on the cardiovascular system. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. Elsevier Ireland Ltd.2018;126:186–200. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Dessalvi CC, Deidda M, Mele D, et al. : Chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity: new insights into mechanisms, monitoring, and prevention. J Cardiovasc Med. 2018 Jul 1;19(7):315–23. 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000667 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Koutsoukis A, Ntalianis A, Repasos E, et al. : Cardio-oncology: A focus on cardiotoxicity. Eur Cardiol Rev. 2018 Jun 1;13(1):64–9. 10.15420/ecr.2017:17:2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Plana JC, Galderisi M, Barac A, et al. : Expert consensus for multimodality imaging evaluation of adult patients during and after cancer therapy: A report from the American society of echocardiography and the European association of cardiovascular imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 [cited 2021 May 11];27(9):911–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Cardinale D, Colombo A, Bacchiani G, et al. : Early detection of anthracycline cardiotoxicity and improvement with heart failure therapy. Circulation. 2015 Jun 2;131(22):1981–8. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013777 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Sawaya H, Sebag IA, Plana JC, et al. : Assessment of echocardiography and biomarkers for the extended prediction of cardiotoxicity in patients treated with anthracyclines, taxanes, and trastuzumab. Circ: Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(5):596–603. 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.112.973321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Tocchetti CG, Ragone G, Coppola C, et al. : Detection, monitoring, and management of trastuzumab-induced left ventricular dysfunction: An actual challenge. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012;14:130–137. 10.1093/eurjhf/hfr165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Colombo A, Cardinale D: Using cardiac biomarkers and treating cardiotoxicity in cancer. Future Cardiology. 2013;9:105–118. 10.2217/fca.12.73 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Cardinale D, Cipolla CM: Assessment of cardiotoxicity with cardiac biomarkers in cancer patients. Herz. 2011;36:325–332. 10.1007/s00059-011-3453-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Mustian KM, Cole CL, Lin PJ, et al. : Exercise Recommendations for the Management of Symptoms Clusters Resulting From Cancer and Cancer Treatments. Seminars in Oncology Nursing. W.B. Saunders. 2016;32:383–393. 10.1016/j.soncn.2016.09.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Mustian KM, Sprod LK, Janelsins M, et al. : Exercise Recommendations for Cancer-Related Fatigue, Cognitive Impairment, Sleep Problems, Depression, Pain, Anxiety, and Physical Dysfunction—A Review. Oncol Hematol Rev. 2012 [cited 2021 May 11];08(02):81;08:81. 10.17925/OHR.2012.08.2.81 Reference Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Speed-Andrews AE, Courneya KS: Effects of exercise on quality of life and prognosis in cancer survivors. Current Sports Medicine Reports. 2009;8:176–181. 10.1249/JSR.0b013e3181ae98f3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Campbell KL, Winters-Stone KM, Wiskemann J, et al. : Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2019 Nov 1;51(11):2375–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Schmitz KH, Courneya KS, Matthews C, et al. : No Title. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Med Sci Sports Exerc. Jul, 2010; p.1409–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Tong CKW, Lau B, Davis MK: Exercise Training for Cancer Survivors. Curr Treat Options Oncol. Springer;2020; Vol.21. 10.1007/s11864-020-00752-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Scott JM, Nilsen TS, Gupta D, et al. : Exercise therapy and cardiovascular toxicity in cancer. Circulation. 2018;137(11):1176–1191. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.024671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Kleckner IR, Dunne RF, Asare M, et al. : Exercise for Toxicity Management in Cancer—A Narrative Review. Oncol Hematol Rev. 2018;14(1):28–37. 10.17925/OHR.2018.14.1.28 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Chen JJ, Wu PT, Middlekauff HR, et al. : Aerobic exercise in anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity: A systematic review of current evidence and future directions. Am J Physiol - Hear Circ Physiol. 2017;312(2):H213–H222. 10.1152/ajpheart.00646.2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. C, R. R: Samuel SR Singh P et al. : Effects of exercise training on cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors. 2022, April 5. 10.17605/OSF.IO/Q4YZM [DOI]
  • 29. Study Quality Assessment Tools|NHLBI, NIH:[cited 2021 May 23]. Reference Source
  • 30. Foulkes SJ, Howden EJ, Bigaran A, et al. : Persistent Impairment in Cardiopulmonary Fitness after Breast Cancer Chemotherapy. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Aug 1 [cited 2020 Nov 29];51(8):1573–1581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Hojan K, Procyk D, Horynska-Kestowicz D, et al. : The Preventive Role of Regular Physical Training in Ventricular Remodeling, Serum Cardiac Markers, and Exercise Performance Changes in Breast Cancer in Women Undergoing Trastuzumab Therapy-An REH-HER Study. J Clin Med. 2020 May;9(5). 10.3390/jcm9051379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Howden EJ, Bigaran A, Beaudry R, et al. : Exercise as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for the prevention of cardiovascular dysfunction in breast cancer patients. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Feb 1;26(3):305–315. 10.1177/2047487318811181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Kirkham AA, Eves ND, Shave RE, et al. : The effect of an aerobic exercise bout 24 h prior to each doxorubicin treatment for breast cancer on markers of cardiotoxicity and treatment symptoms: A. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Nov 6;167(3):719–29. 10.1007/s10549-017-4554-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Kirkham AA, Shave RE, Bland KA, et al. : Protective effects of acute exercise prior to doxorubicin on cardiac function of breast cancer patients: A proof-of-concept RCT. Int J Cardiol. 2017;245:263–270. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.07.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Haykowsky MJ, Mackey JR, Thompson RB, et al. : Adjuvant Trastuzumab Induces Ventricular Remodeling Despite Aerobic Exercise Training. Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Aug;15(15):4963–4967. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0628 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Ma Z: Effect of anthracycline combined with aerobic exercise on the treatment of breast cancer. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2018 May;31(3(Special)):1125–1129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Cancer Statistics - National Cancer Institute:[cited 2022 Apr 12]. Reference Source
  • 38. Blackwell: Cardiotoxicity of Anticancer Treatments: Epidemiology, Detection, and Management CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION ACCREDITATION AND DESIGNATION STATEMENT.
  • 39. Bloom MW, Hamo CE, Cardinale D, et al. : Cancer Therapy-Related Cardiac Dysfunction and Heart Failure: Part 1: Definitions, Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, and Imaging. Circ Hear Fail. 2016 Jan 1 [cited 2021 Jun 13];9(1). 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.115.002661 Reference Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Haykowsky MJ, Liang Y, Pechter D, et al. : A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Exercise Training on Left Ventricular Remodeling in Heart Failure Patients. The Benefit Depends on the Type of Training Performed. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(24):2329–2336. 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.02.055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Oikonomou EK, Kokkinidis DG, Kampaktsis PN, et al. : Assessment of Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain for Early Prediction of Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiology. 2019;4(10):1007–1018. 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.2952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Valzania C, Gadler F, Boriani G, et al. : Changes in global longitudinal strain during rest and exercise in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2012 Jul [cited 2021 Jun 15];32(4):310–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Ananthan K, Lyon AR: The Role of Biomarkers in Cardio-Oncology. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2020;13(3):431–450. 10.1007/s12265-020-10042-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Eijsvogels TMH, Fernandez AB, Thompson PD: Are there deleterious cardiac effects of acute and chronic endurance exercise?. Physiol. Rev. 2016;96(1):99–125. 10.1152/physrev.00029.2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Braith RW, Welsch MA, Feigenbaum MS, et al. : Neuroendocrine activation in heart failure is modified by endurance exercise training. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(4):1170–1175. 10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00339-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Gomes Neto M, Durães AR, Conceição LSR, et al. : High intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training on exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2018 Jun 15 [cited 2021 Jun 19];261:134–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Nipp RD, Fuchs G, El-Jawahri A, et al. : Sarcopenia Is Associated with Quality of Life and Depression in Patients with Advanced Cancer. Oncologist. 2018 Jan;23(1):97–104. 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Chindapasirt J: Sarcopenia in cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. Asian Pacific Organization for Cancer Prevention;2016;16:8075–8077. 10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.18.8075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Davis MP, Panikkar R: Sarcopenia associated with chemotherapy and targeted agents for cancer therapy. Vol. 8, Annals of Palliative Medicine. AME Publishing Company;2019;86–101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2026 Aug 18. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.199218.r505310

Reviewer response for version 2

Sheetal Kalra 1

All the changes and revisions suggested previously have been incorporated by the authors in the revised manuscript.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Physical health, fitness, sports injuries, sports rehabilitation, women health, exercise interventions

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2024 Sep 11. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.124396.r168414

Reviewer response for version 1

Sheetal Kalra 1

This is an interesting article. The authors have synthesized the evidence regarding role of exercises on cardiotoxicity.

Certain observations are:

1. In Abstract it would be justified to include a line or rationale of study , may be in background or as separate heading

2. Methodology section can be improved by including information under PICOS framework

3. The PRISMA flowchart should include reasons for exclusion of 6076 articles in screening section.

4. Also records identified does not give complete information. Should be re-written.

5. How was the review Question1 "What are the effects of exercise training in preventing cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors" mentioned in study protocol addressed in study?

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Physical health, fitness, sports injuries, sports rehabilitation, women health, exercise interventions

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2026 Apr 22.
Stephen Samuel 1

1. In Abstract it would be justified to include a line or rationale of study , may be in the background or as separate heading

Reply: Dear reviewer, thanks for your comment. I have made necessary changes in the abstract.

2.Methodology section can be improved by including information under PICOS framework..

Reply:Dear reviewer, thanks for your comment.  On basis of PIO framework, the inclusion criteria has been framed.

3. The PRISMA flowchart should include reasons for exclusion of 6076 articles in the screening section

Reply: Dear reviewer, thanks for your comment. I have added the necessary changes in the Prisma flowchart.

4. Also, the records identified does not give complete information. Should be re-written

Reply: Dear reviewer, thanks for your comment. I have added the necessary changes in the records identified section -giving no of articles from each database has been updated

5. How was the review Question1 "What are the effects of exercise training in preventing cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors" mentioned in study protocol addressed in the study?

Reply: Dear reviewer, thanks for your comment.

Regarding the question, the role of exercise training in preventing cardiotoxicity, our study didn’t find evidence for that.

The conclusion is modified and updated with evidence found. Stated  exercise improves functional capacity  and neither prevents or mitigates the cardiotoxicity, since the quality of evidence is inconsistent. Needed a large studies with RCT designs.

F1000Res. 2023 Jul 12. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.124396.r180450

Reviewer response for version 1

Quentin Jacquinot 1

 Abbreviations section (page 3)

  • Harmonize the writing. For example: Capitalize the first only or capitalize first letter for each word.

  • Write the meaning of MET in full. Add "of Task".

Introduction section (page 3)

  •  Add a reference for the first sentence.

  • Change the order of the sentences in the writing of the first paragraphs of the introduction for more logic. For example: Start with the incidence (ref 1 and 2), then the notion of mortality (ref 3) then the sentences of references 4-6 and finally the first two sentences of the introduction and the reference.

  • Weight your comments regarding the sentence "This training can be implemented before, during, and after cancer treatments,19–23 thus nullifying the cardiotoxic effects". Modify "can be" by "could be" and "nullifying" by a less "strong" term because it contradicts the results of your article.

  • Regarding VO 2, specify that it is an "indirect" reflection of cardiotoxicity.

Methods section

  • Cite reference 28 (See Underlying data) earlier and in each subsections of the method section because currently it comes too late, whereas these informations are important.

subsection " Search strategy and selection criteria"

  • Add the words MESH for all categories (intervention, cardiotoxicity, etc...) as done for neoplasm and cancer survivors.

subsection "Inclusion criteria"

  • Specify the type of study design (RCT, observational, etc.)

subsection "Exclusion criteria"

  • Specify that pre-clinical studies are excluded.

  • Why Nordic walking is excluded whereas selected studies offered unsupervised walking or the treadmill (cf : Supervised treadmill walking, unsupervised home-based walking in results section)?

Results section

Subsection "Characteristics of the studies"

  • Maybe add the flowchart in the body text and not in the supplementary data?

  • In the first sentence put the number in brackets like this: PubMed (n=6).

  • Add "®" to Thera band® as it's a brand or change by "resistance bands".

  • In table 2: Write in the "results" column "usual" and "training" at the top and not only in the first line. This will make it possible to harmonize the wording to facilitate reading on the 2 pages.

  • Same comment: Harmonize the wording of the "outcomes measures" column because sometimes it writes echo* - sometimes echography in full then sometimes no information on the method (as for Katarzyna et al).

  • Same comment for the "outcomes measure" column: Sometimes there are deadlines, sometimes not. You must harmonize the wording and be more rigorous in the wording and organization of the paragraphs so that they are written in the same way for all the studies.

  • Last sentence of the result part, please add the reference of the study.

Discussion section

  • First sentence of the discussion part, please add a reference.

  • Specify within the limits that the data presented relates only to breast cancer.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Exercise physiology and supportive care

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2026 Apr 22.
Stephen Samuel 1

  • Harmonize the writing. For example: Capitalize the first only or capitalize first letter for each word.

  • Write the meaning of MET in full. Add "of Task".

Reply: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. The changes have been made.(Abbreviations are corrected.

Introduction section (page 3)

  •  Add a reference for the first sentence.

  • Change the order of the sentences in the writing of the first paragraphs of the introduction for more logic. For example: Start with the incidence (ref 1 and 2), then the notion of mortality (ref 3) then the sentences of references 4-6 and finally the first two sentences of the introduction and the reference.

  • Weight your comments regarding the sentence "This training can be implemented before, during, and after cancer treatments,19–23 thus nullifying the cardiotoxic effects". Modify "can be" by "could be" and "nullifying" by a less "strong" term because it contradicts the results of your article.

  • Regarding VO 2, specify that it is an "indirect" reflection of cardiotoxicity.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment, the necessary changes have been made in the introduction.

Methods section

  • Cite reference 28 (See Underlying data) earlier and in each subsections of the method section because currently it comes too late, whereas these informations are important.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment, the reference section is updated with the necessary changes.

subsection " Search strategy and selection criteria"

  • Add the words MESH for all categories (intervention, cardiotoxicity, etc...) as done for neoplasm and cancer survivors.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. The mesh terms are updated.

subsection "Inclusion criteria"

  • Specify the type of study design (RCT, observational, etc.)

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment(inclusion criteria is refined and type of study design are added )

subsection "Exclusion criteria"

  • Specify that pre-clinical studies are excluded.

  • Why Nordic walking is excluded whereas selected studies offered unsupervised walking or the treadmill (cf : Supervised treadmill walking, unsupervised home-based walking in results section)?

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. The necessary changes have been made.  We acknowledge that it could be a part of interventions, but Nordic walking requires skilled walking and the use of a pole, which has more heterogeneity.

Results section

Subsection "Characteristics of the studies"

  • Maybe add the flowchart in the body text and not in the supplementary data?

  • In the first sentence put the number in brackets like this: PubMed (n=6).

  • Add "®" to Thera band® as it's a brand or change by "resistance bands".

  • In table 2: Write in the "results" column "usual" and "training" at the top and not only in the first line. This will make it possible to harmonize the wording to facilitate reading on the 2 pages.

  • Same comment: Harmonize the wording of the "outcomes measures" column because sometimes it writes echo* - sometimes echography in full then sometimes no information on the method (as for Katarzyna et al).

  • Same comment for the "outcomes measure" column: Sometimes there are deadlines, sometimes not. You must harmonize the wording and be more rigorous in the wording and organization of the paragraphs so that they are written in the same way for all the studies.

  • Last sentence of the result part, please add the reference of the study.

Response: Dear reviewer, the flow chart was added in the body text at first ,but as per the journal instruction its been added as supplementary material.

Response: Dear reviewer in Table 2 , the necessary changes have been made in outcome measures column.

Response: Dear reviewer, the reference has been updated to the last sentence of the results part.

Discussion section

  • First sentence of the discussion part, please add a reference.

  • Specify within the limits that the data presented relates only to breast cancer.

Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for your comment. The first sentence of the discussion part is referenced with 37 and updated.

Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for your comment. I have added the necessary changes to the discussion part( limited to breast cancer).

F1000Res. 2022 Jul 1. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.124396.r140895

Reviewer response for version 1

Sharon F Kramer 1

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript of a systematic review investigating the effect of exercise on cardiotoxicity outcomes in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

The rationale for the review is clearly stated. The background is missing some details regarding definitions of the main concepts addressed in this review for example: cardiotoxicity and details about how this is measured (this information is reported in the discussion and could be moved to the background and methods) and exercise and what is the potential underlying mechanisms of exercise on cardiotoxicity.

Methods:

  • Several sections are missing in the methods.

  • What criteria are used regarding study design? i.e., randomised controlled trail, non-randomised controlled trials, pre-post studies?

  • What was the process of screening title and abstract?

  • What comparisons were of interest? i.e., exercise A vs exercise B, exercise vs no exercise etc.

  • I suggest providing more background about why these tools were developed as I was not aware of these tools and maybe other readers might not be either. For example, it is not clear that there are several tools that were developed for different study types. Specify which tools were used.

  • Add a section to the methods about the outcomes of interest including: timing of outcome measurement of interest (post intervention and FU), how these outcomes are/should be measures, and how the outcome measure should be interpreted higher value is greater toxicity? (some of the details are reported in discussion and could be moved to methods section).

  • Although no meta-analyses were performed, the methods still need a section about how the data was summarised/synthesised. Please provide information abut how the results were structured by study design, by population, by outcome.

Results:

  • The main results regarding toxicity are reported in the discussion and should be moved to the results section. I suggest restructuring or adding a table with just the results outcomes and consider how this could be structured (see suggestions above by study design, outcome or population).

  • Avoid vote counting i.e. 1 out of seven studies showed a significant result. Reporting 95%CI is more informative and helps the reader to interpret data better instead of reporting just the p -value.

Conclusion:

  • The conclusion currently doesn’t reflect what is reported in the results. Currently there doesn’t seem to be any strong evidence to suggest that exercise mitigates the cardiotoxic effects of chemo/radiotherapy in cancer patients.

I suggest revisiting the PRISMA guidelines to help with structuring the manuscript and adding missing information/sections.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

Systematic review methods including meta-analyses and data synthesis, risk of bias assessment; clinical trials and exercise

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2026 Apr 22.
Stephen Samuel 1

1)The rationale for the review is clearly stated. The background is missing some details regarding definitions of the main concepts addressed in this review, for example cardiotoxicity and details about how this is measured (this information is reported in the discussion and could be moved to the background and methods) and exercise and what is the potential underlying mechanisms of exercise on cardiotoxicity.

Response: Dear reviewer, Thank you for your comments, the description about cardiotoxicity and its measures was already mentioned in the introduction in 6 th line of 3 rd paragraph. . We have also updated the mechanism of how exercise works in the 9 th line of the 5th paragraph.

2.Methods:

  • Several sections are missing in the methods.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. We have made significant changes in the methods section.

  • What criteria are used regarding study design? i.e., randomized controlled trail, non-randomised controlled trials, pre-post studies?

Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments. We have added the criteria and it is updated in the method section under inclusion criteria.

What was the process of screening title and abstract?

Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments. We have added the screening details in the method section.

             

  • What comparisons were of interest? i.e., exercise A vs exercise B, exercise vs no exercise, etc.

Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments. We are focused on how exercise can help the risk of cardiotoxicity;so any kind of exercise is considered, the comparison was not in our scope of review, as there is lot of variation in study designs. we are unable to do comparison. 

  • I suggest providing more background about why these tools were developed as I was not aware of these tools and maybe other readers might not be either. For example, it is not clear that there are several tools that were developed for different study types. Specify which tools were used.

Response: Dear reviewer, the NHLBI(national heart lung and blood institute) has its different study tools for varied study designs. The details are available and updated in the risk of bias section.

  • Add a section to the methods about the outcomes of interest including: timing of outcome measurement of interest (post intervention and FU), how these outcomes are/should be measures, and how the outcome measure should be interpreted higher value is greater toxicity? (Some of the details are reported in discussion and could be moved to methods section).

Response:Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. The measures of cardiotoxicity (outcomes) have been already explained in the introduction. Regarding the interpretation, which is greater toxicity, there is no standardized set value for this. Only if there is critical changes seen in cardiotoxicity outcomes (LVEF, GLS, cardiac biomarkers) from baseline to follow up time period, the studies have considered toxicity.

 

  • Although no meta-analyses were performed, the methods still need a section about how the data was summarized/synthesized. Please provide information about how the results were structured by study design, by population, by outcome.                    

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. The data of the included articles were summarised and added to the Excel sheet. This information has been mentioned under the data extraction heading of the method section

3. Results

  • The main results regarding toxicity are reported in the discussion and should be moved to the results section. I suggest restructuring or adding a table with just the results outcomes and consider how this could be structured (see suggestions above by study design, outcome or population).

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. We have mentioned the main results considering the cardiotoxicity in the result section under the 3 rd paragraph.

All the articles retrieved and the data of the included studies is reported in the table under the results section. So the discussion part is more focused on exercise effects and cardiotoxicity outcomes.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    Underlying data

    Open Science Framework (OSF): Effects of exercise on cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors. A systematic review’. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Q4YZM

    This project contains the following underlying data:

    Review protocol.docx. (It has information on search strategy, databases, search terms used, and inclusion and exclusion criteria.)

    Systematic review.xlsx. (Patients’ characteristics such as site/stage, adjuvant treatments, intervention, results, dropouts)

    Risk of bias.docx. (It includes the tables for which risk of bias for studies was done using NIH tool)

    Data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license ( CC-BY 4.0).

    Reporting guidelines

    Open Science Framework (OSF): PRISMA checklist and flow chart for ‘Effects of exercise training on cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors. A systematic review’. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Q4YZM

    Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license ( CC-BY 4.0).


    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES