Table 1.
Clinicodemographic Characteristics for the EP and UC Groups.a
| EP group (n = 33) | UC group (n = 64) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, y ± SD | 67.7 ± 6.8 | 65.0 ± 8.9 | .12 |
| Sex, n (%) | .57 | ||
| Female | 14 (42.4) | 31 (48.4) | |
| Male | 19 (57.6) | 33 (51.6) | |
| Baseline performance status (ECOG),b n (%) | .80 | ||
| 0 | 11 (33.3) | 19 (29.7) | |
| 0/1 | 1 (3.0) | 1 (1.6) | |
| 1 | 19 (57.6) | 42 (65.6) | |
| 2 | 2 (6.1) | 2 (3.1) | |
| Baseline radiographic tumor stage,c n (%) | .11 | ||
| I | 25 (75.8) | 33 (51.6) | |
| II | 8 (24.2) | 27 (42.2) | |
| III | 0 (0.0) | 3 (4.7) | |
| IV | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.6) | |
| Sarcopeniad at baseline, n (%) | 21 (64) | 40 (63) | .91 |
| Treatment sequence relative to CT scans, n (%) | .04 | ||
| T0 CT, chemotherapy, chemoradiation, T1 CT | 12 (36.4) | 33 (51.6) | |
| Previous chemotherapy, T0 CT, chemoradiation, T1 CT | 4 (12.1) | 6 (9.4) | |
| T0 CT, chemoradiation, T1 CT | 12 (36.4) | 8 (12.5) | |
| T0 CT, chemotherapy, T1 CT | 5 (15.1) | 17 (26.5) | |
| Weeks between T0 and T1 CT scans, mean ± SD | 19.2 ± 10.3 | 22.3 ± 9.5 | .15 |
| Surgery type, n (%) | .46 | ||
| Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple) or total pancreatectomy | 30 (90.9) | 52 (81.3) | |
| Distal pancreatectomy | 3 (9.1) | 12 (18.8) | |
| Preoperative physical activity and exercise during exercise program enrollment, mean weekly min ± SD | — | ||
| Self-reported moderate-to-vigorous aerobic exercise | 118.7 ± 65.3 | Unknown | |
| Self-reported resistance exercise | 42.3 ± 38.2 | Unknown | |
| Accelerometer moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | 170.0 ± 103.0 | Unknown |
Bold indicates significance at P < .05.
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; ECOG, eastern cooperative oncology group; EP, exercise program; SD, standard deviation; T0, baseline/treatment planning; T1, follow-up/preoperative visit; UC, usual care.
a
All clinicodemographic characteristics were abstracted from electronic medical records and correspond to baseline (T0). Exercise data were self-reported or collected using accelerometers.
b
Performance status from Zubrod et al.38
c
Staging from Katz et al.39
d
Cut points from Prado et al.36