Borsati Anita, Adamoli Gloria, Giannarelli Diana, Belluomini Lorenzo, Trevisan Andrea, Schenal Piero, Bettariga Francesco, Markarian Anna M, Schena Federico, Milella Michele, Newton Robert U, Pilotto Sara, Avancini Alice
Biomedical, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Osteoporos Int. 2025 Aug 6. doi: 10.1007/s00198-025-07645-4.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise interventions on bone mineral density (BMD), bone mineral content (BMC), and bone turnover markers in patients with cancer and compromised bone health.
A comprehensive search of four electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of exercise intervention compared to supplementation or bone-targeted agents only on BMD, BMC and bone turnover markers. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models to calculate effect sizes (ES) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Eighteen studies were included, involving 1,478 patients with mainly breast and prostate cancer. Meta-analyses of 11 trials showed no significant effect of exercise on whole-body (ES: 0.16, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.41; p = 0.23), lumbar spine (ES: 0.10, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.24; p = 0.14), hip (ES: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.77 to 0.64; p = 0.86), or femoral neck (ES: 0.07, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.21; p = 0.37) BMD. However, individual studies reported improvements in lumbar spine and hip BMD following resistance or high-impact training. In patients with bone metastases, resistance training increased BMD at metastatic vertebrae. Bone turnover markers showed mixed trends, with some studies reporting increased bone formation and reduced resorption, especially after 3 months of intervention.
Our results suggest that, while exercise does not significantly increase BMD in patients with cancer and bone impairments when added to standard therapies, there are important variations across studies. High-intensity resistance and impact-loading training may be beneficial for specific bone sites and patient subgroups. Further research is warranted to identify optimal exercise modalities tailored to cancer type, treatment stage, and bone health status, including feasibility for patients with bone metastases.
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估运动干预对癌症患者及骨骼健康受损患者的骨密度(BMD)、骨矿物质含量(BMC)和骨转换标志物的影响。
全面检索了四个电子数据库,以确定评估运动干预与仅补充剂或骨靶向药物相比对BMD、BMC和骨转换标志物影响的随机对照试验。使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析,以计算效应量(ES)及95%置信区间(CI)。
纳入了18项研究,涉及1478例主要为乳腺癌和前列腺癌的患者。对11项试验的荟萃分析表明,运动对全身(ES:0.16,95%CI:-0.10至0.41;p = 0.23)、腰椎(ES:0.10,95%CI:-0.03至0.24;p = 0.14)、髋部(ES:-0.06,95%CI:-0.77至0.64;p = 0.86)或股骨颈(ES:0.07,95%CI:-0.08至0.21;p = 0.37)的骨密度均无显著影响。然而,个别研究报告了抗阻训练或高强度训练后腰椎和髋部骨密度有所改善。在骨转移患者中,抗阻训练增加了转移椎骨的骨密度。骨转换标志物呈现出混合趋势,一些研究报告骨形成增加且骨吸收减少,尤其是在干预3个月后。
我们的结果表明,虽然在标准治疗基础上增加运动对癌症和骨骼受损患者的骨密度没有显著增加,但各研究之间存在重要差异。高强度抗阻训练和冲击负荷训练可能对特定骨骼部位和患者亚组有益。有必要进一步研究,以确定针对癌症类型、治疗阶段和骨骼健康状况量身定制的最佳运动方式,包括骨转移患者的可行性。