Griffith 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 138; 73 to the exercise group and 65 to the control group Study start and stop dates: not reported Length of intervention: varied by duration of cancer treatment. For the entire sample, the mean (SD) number of cancer treatment weeks was 12.83 (5.15) with a range of 5 to 35 weeks. The mean (SD) total weeks of cancer treatment was 15.8 (5.89) for nonprostate and 10.44 (2.73) for prostate cancer patients Length of follow‐up: to end of the intervention
Participants	Type cancer, n (%): various exercise group: breast, 23 (33.8%); colorectal, 2 (2.9%); prostate, 38 (55.9%); other, 5 (7.4%) control group: breast, 18 (31.0%); colorectal, 5 (8.6%); prostate, 32 (55.2%); other, 3 (5.2%) Cancer stage, n (%): Stage I, 12 (10%); Stage II, 89 (70%); Stage III, 25 (20%) Time since cancer diagnosis: not reported Time in active treatment: currently undergoing treatment Inclusion criteria: ≥ 21 years old diagnoses of Stage I to III cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or both Eligibility criteria related to interest or ability, or both, to exercise: were already exercising more than 120 minutes per week conditions that could preclude the advisability or safety of a moderate‐intensity walking program Exclusion criteria: comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, cognitive dysfunction, metastatic cancer, hematologic malignancies Gender, n (%): exercise group: male, 27 (39.7%), female, 41 (60.3%) control group: male, 22 (37.9%), female 36 (62.1%) Current age, mean (SD) years: exercise group: 59.8 (10.8) years control group: 60.6 (10.8) years Age at cancer diagnosis: not reported Ethnicity/race, n (%): exercise group: American Indian, 0 (0%); Asian/Pacific Islander, 0 (0%): black non‐Hispanic, 9 (13.2%); white non‐Hispanic, 57 (83.8%); Hispanic, 1 (1.5%); other, 1 (1.5%) control group: American Indian, 1 (1.7%); Asian/Pacific Islander,  2 (3.4%); black non‐Hispanic 11 (19.0%); white non‐Hispanic, 42 (72.5%); Hispanic, 2 (3.4%); other, 0 (0%) Education level, n (%): exercise group: high school, 7 (10.3%); college, 35 (51.5%); graduate school, 26 (38.2%) control group: high school, 8 (13.8%); college, 17 (29.3%); graduate school, 33 (56.9%) SES: not reported Employment status, n (%): exercise group: full‐time, 31 (54.4%); part‐time, 5 (8.8%); resigned, 15 (26.3%); disabled, 6 (10.5%); leave of absence, 1 (1.7%); other, 8 (11.8%) control group: full‐time, 29 (55.8%); part‐time, 6 (11.5%); resigned, 15 (28.9%); disabled, 2 (3.9%); leave of absence, 3 (4.4%); other, 5 (8.6%) Comorbidities: not reported Past exercise history: not reported On hormone therapy: not reported\
Interventions	73 participants assigned to the exercise intervention, including: brisk 20‐ to 30‐minute walk followed by 5 minutes of slower walking (cool down) other aerobic activities such as cycling could substitute or supplement walking biweekly telephone calls from study nurse Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic Intensity of the experimental exercise intervention: moderate, corresponding to approximately 50% to 70% of the maximum HR Frequency: 5 times per week Duration of individual sessions: 25 to 35 minutes Duration of exercise program: varied by duration of cancer treatment. For the entire sample, the mean (SD) number of cancer treatment weeks was 12.83 (5.15); range (5 to 35 weeks) Total number of exercise sessions: varied Format: individual Facility: home Not professionally led Adherence, defined as walking at least 60 minutes weekly for more than 2/3 of the total program: 67.6% with an average walking time of 117 (SD = 105) minutes per week 65 participants assigned to control group, including: encouragement to maintain current activity levels biweekly telephone calls Contamination of control group: non‐adherence defined as walking more than 60 minutes for more than 2/3 of treatment weeks. Adherence = 77.6%, and contamination = 22.4%
Outcomes	Primary outcome included: cardiorespiratory fitness, expressed as peak oxygen uptake (VO2), either directly measured by treadmill testing or estimated from the 12‐MWT Other outcomes included: physical functioning subscale, assessed using the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form‐36 role limitations owing to physical health subscale, assessed using the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form‐36 pain level, assessed using the pain subscale of the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form‐36 Outcomes were measured at baseline and end of intervention: exercise group: n = 68 at baseline, n = 68 at end of intervention control group: n = 58 at baseline, n = 58 at end of intervention Subgroup analysis: examined outcomes by cancer type (prostate versus other cancer) and performed secondary dose‐response analysis, which evaluated outcomes based on the actual amount of exercise performed according to the Physical Activity Questionnaire, regardless of group assignment. This secondary analysis was necessitated by the finding that, contrary to study instructions, 22.4% of the control group participants performed exercise at a level at least equivalent to what was assigned for the exercise group. The subgroup analysis and the secondary analysis were not prespecified Adverse events: not reported
Notes	Country: US Funding: none reported
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	Although analyses were conducted on an ITT basis, 5 participants from the intervention arm and 7 from the control arm were not included in the analyses
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	There appears to be no selective reporting of outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appears to be free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias