ASPO Abstracts
The Feasibility of High-Intensity Interval Training Among Women at Heightened Risk for Invasive Breast Cancer
Category: Lifestyles Behavior, Energy Balance & Chemoprevention
Conference Year: 2019
Abstract Body:
Purpose: This trial assessed the feasibility of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)among women at heightened risk for breast cancer and explored the impact of HIIT compared to thetraditionally prescribed moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and usual care (UC) on changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), body weight and body mass index (BMI), important factorslinked with breast cancer risk. Methods: Forty-four women at heightened risk for invasive breast cancer (i.e.postmenopausal women with overweight/obesity and a history of proliferative breast lesions and/or elevated Gail5 year or lifetime risk score) were randomized to HIIT, MICT or UC for a 12-week intervention.Participants in HIIT and MICT completed three weekly supervised exercise sessions on a treadmill. HIITincluded a 5-minute warm-up at 50-70% peak heart rate (HR), then four cycles of four minutes at 90-100%peak HR followed by three minutes at 50-70% peak HR. MICT consisted of 41 minutes at 50-70% peak HR. Feasibility was assessed by summary statistics. At baseline and 12-weeks, CRF was assessedwith cardiopulmonary exercise test, and body weight and BMI were measured. Two-sample t-tests assessed between-group differences in change scores of outcome variables at 12-weeks from baseline (2.5% significance level). Results: Average age and BMI was 63.9±8.8 years and 30.9±5.7 kg/m2, respectively.Participants completed 90% and 89% of workouts in HIIT and MICT respectively, with 100% compliance to the exercise prescriptions. The numbers of adverse events were not statistically differentbetween HIIT and MICT (p=0.49) and no serious adverse events were reported. Compared to MICT and UC, HIIT exhibited greater increase in change in time to fatigue (HIIT: 127.6±75.3 vs. MICT:29.1±53.4 seconds, p=0.003, vs. UC: 9.91±55.8 seconds, p<0.001). Compared to UC, HIIT exhibited greaterincrease in changes in absolute and relative VO2peak (HIIT: 0.16±0.1, UC: 0.01±0.1 L/min, p=0.02;HIIT: 2.34±1.8, UC: 0.21±2.2 ml/kg/min, p=0.02). There were no significant differences between groups inchange in body weight or BMI (p>0.05). Conclusions: HIIT is feasible, safe, and appears to promote greater improvements in CRFcompared to MICT and UC in this patient population.
Keywords: Breast Cancer Prevention, ExercisePrescription,Fitness