Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Functional Fitness and Body Composition Among Breast Cancer Survivors With 8 Weeks of Exercise Training: A Randomised, Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial Comparing Remotely-Supported and Partly-Supervised Interventions

Background: This randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial investigated whether 8 weeks of remotely-supported exercise training changes cardiorespiratory fitness, functional fitness and body composition by a magnitude that is not meaningfully inferior to changes caused by partly-supervised exercise training. Methods: Thirty female breast cancer survivors (57 ± 6 years, (Formula presented.) 28.9 ± 6.1 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, BMI 25.3 ± 3.3 kg·m⁻²) were randomised to 8 weeks of partly-supervised (n = 15) or remotely-supported (n = 15) exercise training. The partly-supervised group undertook two supervised and one unsupervised session per week, progressing from 55% to 70% (Formula presented.) and 35–50 min. The remotely-supported group were prescribed the same total duration of exercise per week (progressing from 105 to 150 min). Intensity was prescribed using heart rate targets corresponding to 55%–70% (Formula presented.). (Formula presented.), functional fitness, body composition and blood pressure were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Results: Adherence was higher in the partly-supervised group (87% ± 7%) versus the remotely-supported group (64% ± 25%; p = 0.01). The remotely-supported group exhibited changes in timed up and go (difference to partly-supervised; 95% CI −0.8 to 0.4 s) and percentage body fat (difference to partly-supervised; 95% CI −0.6 to 0.5 kg·m⁻²) that were non-inferior to the partly-supervised group. It was inconclusive whether changes among the remotely-supported group for (Formula presented.) (difference to partly-supervised; 95% CI −3.3 to 1.1 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹), blood pressure (difference to partly-supervised; 95% CI systolic; −3 to 12 mmHg, diastolic; −5 to 6 mmHg), 6 min walk (difference to partly-supervised; 95% CI −54.0 to 0.4 m), or sit to stand (difference to partly-supervised; 95% CI −3 to 2 repetitions), were non-inferior to the partly-supervised group. Conclusion: Remotely-supported exercise might be an alternative to partly-supervised exercise regarding functional fitness (assessed by timed up and go) and body composition (assessed by percentage body fat). It remains inconclusive whether remotely-supported exercise is an alternative regarding (Formula presented.), blood pressure and other functional fitness measurements (6-min walk, sit to stand). Trials Registration: NCT06376578 (20/11/2020).