The effect of exercise on bone mineral density in adult cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Purpose Certain cancer treatments are associated with bone loss and increased fracture risk. Weight-bearing impact exercise, resistance training or the combination, are recommended to preserve or improve bone mineral density (BMD) inhealthy older adults, but their efficacy in cancer survivors is less well understood. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised control trials (RCT) was to review the evidence regarding the role of exercise to counteract cancer treatment-induced bone loss.Methods Four databases were searched systematically with 12 RCTs of at least 6-month duration investigating the effects of exercise on BMD compared to a control group in adult cancer survivors identified.Results Meta-analysis was completed using available data from six studies enrolling 814 participants, with lumbar spine, femoral neck and/or total hip BMD as the primary outcome measures. Overall, there was no significant benefit of exercise compared to controls on BMD at the lumbar spine (0.0071 g/cm , 95% CI -0.0002 to 0.0145, p = 0.057), femoral neck (0.0044 g/cm , 95% CI -0.0005 to 0.0093, p = 0.077), or total hip (0.0024 g/cm , 95% CI -0.0038 to 0.0086, p = 0.443). Subgroup analysis revealed a positive effect on lumbar spine BMD in three studies implementing a combined resistance and impact exercise intervention (0.015 g/cm , 95% CI 0.003 to 0.028, p = 0.019).Conclusions From the evidence available, exercise may not be sufficient to improve bone health in cancer survivors, but given the heterogeneity in the participant characteristics and several exercise programs which may not have been designed to specifically optimise bone health, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The effects of exercise seen in breast cancer may not translate to lymphedema following head and neck, bladder, melanoma, gynecologic, or other cancer sites.
“Based on preliminary evidence(43), the effects seen in breast cancer may not translate for lymphedema following head and neck, bladder, melanoma, gynecologic, or other cancer sites.”
From Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable (2019) · cites this paper as [43]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 40
- Authors
- Dalla Via, J., Daly, R. M., & Fraser, S. F.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- Venue
- Osteoporosis International
- Published
- 2017-10-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 287-303
- ISSN
- 0937-941X (ISSN-L)
- 1433-2965
- OpenAlex
- W2762367688
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 0.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- Locations
- Osteoporosis International (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Bone health and treatments
- Keywords
- physical activity, bone mineral density, cancer survivors, cancer treatment-induced bone loss, resistance training, lumbar spine, femoral neck, total hip, bone health, fracture risk
- MeSH terms
- Cancer Survivors, Adult, Exercise Therapy, Femur Neck, Humans, Lumbar Vertebrae, Neoplasms, Osteoporosis, Exercise, Bone Density, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review