A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of walking training on cardiorespiratory fitness in cancer patients.

Authors

Weikai Wang, Sujie Mao, Zijun Yu, Tao Liu, Zihan Song, Fengyu Wu

Published in

Frontiers in oncology. Volume 16. Pages 1852397. Epub Jun 26, 2026.

Abstract

Walking is a simple and accessible form of aerobic exercise that may improve cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in cancer patients; however, its independent effects remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of walking training on CRF, fatigue, dyspnea, safety, and adherence in adult cancer patients.
A systematic search was conducted in 4 databases-Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library Database-covering the period from the inception of each database through November 28, 2025. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating walking interventions for cancer patients. Priority was given to meta-analyses of outcome measures using a random-effects model. If the statistical heterogeneity is less than 40%, a fixed-effects model is used.
11 randomized controlled trials involving 649 participants were included. Compared with standard care or no intervention, walking training was associated with statistically significant improvements in the two outcomes: peak oxygen uptake (VO₂ peak) (SMD = 0.56; 95% CI: [0.06, 1.06]; I² = 75%; τ²=0.28; P = 0.03) and fatigue (SMD = -0.45; 95% CI: [-0.71, -0.18]; I² = 32%; τ²=0; P = 0.001). In contrast, no statistically significant effects were observed for maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂ max) (SMD = 0.20;95% CI: [-0.15, 0.54]; I² = 0%; P = 0.26), 6-Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) (MD = 53.97;95% CI: [-23.00, 130.93]; I² = 80%; τ²=2538;P = 0.17), and dyspnea (SMD = -0.18, 95% CI: [-0.47, 0.11]; I² = 0%; P = 0.23). No serious intervention-related adverse events were reported, and adherence rates ranged from 67% to 94%.
Current evidence suggests that walking training may improve VO₂ peak and reduce fatigue in cancer patients, while demonstrating acceptable short-term safety and adherence. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because the certainty of evidence remains low. Larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with standardized intervention protocols and longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm these findings.This study conducted a systematic literature search in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Prior to the search, the study protocol was prospectively registered on the international systematic review registry platform (PROSPERO, registration number: CRD420251140743) to ensure the scientific rigor and methodological soundness of this study.
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251140743.

PMID:
42434753
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 11 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.