Brown 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 115; 57 to the exercise group and 58 to the control group Study start and stop dates: not reported Length of intervention: 4 weeks Length of follow‐up: 4, 7, and 27 weeks after baseline
Participants	Type cancer, n (%): various exercise group: brain, 6 (12.7%); head and neck, 7 (14.3%); lung, 9 (18.4%); ovarian, 1 (2.0%); gastrointestinal, 18 (36.7%); other, 8 (16.3%) control group: brain, 6 (11.1%); head and neck, 11 (20.4%); lung, 6 (11.1%); ovarian, 0 (0.0%); gastrointestinal, 21 (38.9%); other, 10 (18.5%) Time since cancer diagnosis: not reported Time in active treatment: not reported Inclusion criteria: adults scheduled to undergo radiation therapy for at least 2 weeks cancer diagnosis within the past 12 months expected survival of at least 6 months, but a 5‐year survival probability of no more than 50% Eligibility criteria related to interest or ability, or both, to exercise: none, but participants were screened preceding the exercise intervention to assure ability to participate Exclusion criteria: MMSE score < 20 ECOG performance score of ≥ 3 active alcohol or substance dependence (except nicotine) active thought disorder suicidal plans participation in a psychosocial research trial Gender, n (%): exercise group: male, 29 (59.2%); female, 20 (40.8%) control group: male, 37 (58.5%); female, 17 (31.5%) Current age, n (%): exercise group: < 50 years, 7 (14.3%); ≥ 50 years, 42 (85.7%) control group: < 50 years, 12 (22.2%); ≥ 50 years, 42 (77.8%) Age at cancer diagnosis: not reported Ethnicity/race: all patients were white or of unknown ethnicity Education level: not reported SES: not reported Employment status, currently employed, n (%): exercise group: 10 (35.7%) control group: 29 (53.7%) Comorbidities: not reported Past exercise history: not reported On hormone therapy: not reported
Interventions	57 participants assigned to the exercise intervention, including: a structured multidisciplinary intervention focused on specific strategies designed to improve participants' overall QoL. Sessions included 20 minutes of exercises, including: seated active ROM exercises of upper and lower extremities, progressing to resistive exercises with an elastic band stretching exercises functional lower extremity exercises (e.g. marching in place) stressing increasing endurance Educational sessions coinciding with exercise sessions Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic and anaerobic Intensity of the experimental exercise intervention: not reported Frequency: twice per week Duration of individual sessions: 90 minutes Duration of exercise program: 4 weeks Total number of exercise sessions: 8 sessions Format: group Facility: facility Professionally led by a physical therapist Adherence: 78% of participants attended all sessions, 92% attended all but 1 session. No subject missed more than 2 sessions 58 participants assigned to control group, including: usual care Contamination of control group: not reported
Outcomes	Primary outcome: global HRQoL, but how assessed was not reported Other outcomes included: fatigue, assessed using: Linear Analogue Self Assessment fatigue Profile of Moods State fatigue‐inertia and vigor‐activity subscales Speilberger's STAI fatigue question Symptom Distress Scale fatigue question Outcomes were measured at baseline, 4 weeks, 7 weeks, and 27 weeks: exercise group: n = 55 at baseline, n = 46 at 4 weeks, number of participants completing longer follow‐up visits not reported control group: n = 57 at baseline, n = 54 at 4 weeks, number of participants completing longer follow‐up visits not reported Subgroup analysis: none reported Adverse events: not reported
Notes	Country: US Funding: Linse Bock Foundation, Saint Mary's Hospital Sponsorship Board
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The generation of the random sequence was not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Whether the treatment assignment was concealed from study personnel and participants was not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to conceal allocation to the intervention from the participants
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Allocation to the intervention was not concealed from the study personnel
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	The number of participants who withdrew from the study was not reported beyond the 4‐week period. An ITT analysis was not completed
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	The authors describe some QoL measures in the methods for which no results are presented
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appears to be free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias