RightRep EN · PT Open the app
BLOG

Can You Train With Cancer? The In-Treatment Audit: Where 242 Breast-Cancer Patients on Chemotherapy Improved Their Chemotherapy Completion Rate by Lifting Weights (P=.033, No Lymphedema, No Adverse Events), the Lymphoma Trial Improved Physical Functioning +9.0 With Zero Interference With Treatment Response, the PAL Trial Inverted Oncology's Oldest Gym Prohibition (Weight Lifting 11% v 17% Lymphedema Onset; Five-Plus Nodes Removed 7% v 22%), Fatigue — the Treatment's Most Common Complaint — Is the Column Training Treats (P=.002 on Androgen Deprivation, P=.004 During Radiotherapy), and the Post-Diagnosis Dose Is a Walking Habit (RR 0.50 at 9–14.9 MET-Hours/Week, 6 Absolute Points at 10 Years, Cancer Mortality HR 0.63 Across 136 Studies) — the Answer Is a Prescribed, Oncology-Cleared Program, Not Rest and Not Heroics

By RightRep AI Assistant · · 22 min read

Every cancer diagnosis spawns two gym scripts, and both are certain. Script one is the family rest cure: the body is fighting, the treatment is war, and the gym is a luxury for people who are not "sick" — save your strength, lie down, wait. Script two is the wellness extremity: sweat out the toxins, exercise starves the tumor, the one who trains hard enough refuses the diagnosis. Both scripts quote a neighbor's uncle. Neither has read the file. This library has cross-examined the neighbours — what training does to cancer risk before the diagnosis, the anemia door chemo so often opens, the lymphedema question, even the sick-day fence — but never the door this reader is standing in: the treatment is already running, the port is placed, the counts swing week to week, and the question is whether training is risk, accessory, or medicine. The file answers with an order of operations the rest-cure script cannot survive and the wellness script cannot afford: cleared first, dosed second, finished third — with the barbell inside the program, not outside it.

The evidence runs in three columns. The in-treatment column: among 242 breast-cancer patients initiating adjuvant chemotherapy, supervised resistance exercise for the duration of treatment improved muscular strength (P<.001), lean body mass (P=.015) and the chemotherapy completion rate itself (P=.033) — with no lymphedema and no adverse events [3]; among 122 lymphoma patients including those on active treatment, 12 weeks of supervised aerobic training improved patient-rated physical functioning, fatigue, depression and happiness without interfering with chemotherapy completion or treatment response, and with no increased risk of recurrence or progression at six months [4]. The prohibition-inversion column: when the lymphedema dogma — no upper-body exercise after breast cancer — was finally randomized, a year of slowly progressive weight lifting in 154 at-risk survivors produced lymphedema onset in 11% versus 17% of non-lifting controls, and in the highest-risk subgroup (five or more nodes removed) 7% versus 22% [7]. The prognosis column, observational and labelled as such: across 136 studies, highest versus lowest postdiagnosis physical activity carried cancer-specific mortality HR 0.63 (0.53–0.75) for all cancers combined [10], and in the Nurses' Health Study file the peak protection sat at 9–14.9 MET-hours a week — three to five hours of average-pace walking — RR 0.50 (0.31–0.82) for breast-cancer death, 6 absolute points of mortality risk reduction at ten years [9]. And the fences that outrank every column: fever during a chemotherapy cycle is the emergency door today; the counts, the bones, the port and the immune-suppressed weeks belong to the oncology team's calendar before they belong to the program [1][2]. Every number below comes from an abstract that was read directly and checked against its claim.

The short answer: yes — prescribed, dosed, and cleared with the oncology team, with the barbell inside the program

Strip the file to its spine. The treatment-carrying effect: in the chemotherapy trial, the resistance arm did not merely tolerate treatment better — it finished more of it (completion rate P=.033), the outcome the infusion schedule is written around, alongside strength (P<.001) and lean mass (P=.015), with zero lymphedema and zero adverse events in either exercise arm [3]. The non-interference effect: in the lymphoma trial, exercise improved physical functioning +9.0 (2.0–16.0, P=.012), overall quality of life (P=.021), fatigue (P=.013), happiness (P=.004), depression (P=.005), general health (P<.001), cardiovascular fitness (P<.001) and lean body mass (P=.008) — while leaving chemotherapy completion and treatment response untouched [4]. The fatigue inversion: on androgen deprivation therapy, 12 weeks of resistance training reduced fatigue's interference with daily living (P=.002) and improved disease-specific quality of life (P=.001) [5]; during radiotherapy for prostate cancer, both resistance and aerobic training mitigated fatigue (P=.010 and P=.004), with the resistance arm holding longer-term gains (P=.002) plus strength, triglyceride and body-fat wins [6]. The prohibition inversion: a year of slowly progressive weight lifting did not increase lymphedema — it numerically reduced it, and in the five-plus-nodes subgroup cut onset from 22% to 7% (cumulative incidence difference −15.0 points, 95% CI −18.6 to −11.4) [7]. The survival association: postdiagnosis activity at cancer-specific mortality HR 0.63 across 136 studies [10], peak walking-dose protection at RR 0.50 with 6 absolute points at ten years [9]. The answer to the title is yes — with the order of operations doing the work: the oncology team clears and calibrates, the program prescribes, and the reader trains inside that structure [1][2].

The guideline floor: "avoid inactivity" is a prescription, not a dare

The American College of Sports Medicine has convened two international roundtables on exactly this question, and their language is the floor everything else stands on. The 2019 consensus statement — oncology, exercise science and rehabilitation on one author list — concluded that exercise training and testing are generally safe for cancer survivors, that every survivor should "avoid inactivity," and that enough evidence now exists to prescribe specific doses of aerobic, combined aerobic-plus-resistance, and/or resistance training for anxiety, depressive symptoms, fatigue, physical functioning and health-related quality of life — moving exercise oncology beyond one-size public-health advice toward prescription by cancer type, treatment and outcome [2]. The same statement keeps its honest edges visible: for peripheral neuropathy and cognitive functioning, the evidence "remains uncertain" [2]. The companion roundtable paper put the delivery problem in one line: despite the guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active, and the proposed fix is a clinical workflow — clinicians who assess, advise and refer to home-based, community-based or rehabilitative exercise programming [1]. Two facts do the framing for everything below. First, the scale: over 15.5 million cancer survivors in the United States alone, a figure expected to double in the coming decades [2]. Second, the posture: the guideline body's shortest sentence — avoid inactivity — is not permission to improvise; it is the prescription's preamble, with the doses, the adjustments and the contraindication checks belonging to a structured program and the team that cleared it [1][2].

The chemotherapy-completion file: training carries the treatment

The single most load-bearing trial for this door randomized 242 breast-cancer patients initiating adjuvant chemotherapy to usual care (82), supervised resistance exercise (82) or supervised aerobic exercise (78), for the entire duration of their treatment — median 17 weeks on the infusion schedule [3]. The resistance arm's headline is the one no script predicted: a superior chemotherapy completion rate (P=.033) [3]. Sit with what that means — the exercise did not compete with the treatment for recovery budget; it carried it. Alongside it: muscular strength (P<.001) and lean body mass (P=.015) up, self-esteem improved (P=.018), and the honest ledger kept open — changes in cancer-specific quality of life, fatigue, depression and anxiety favored the exercise arms but did not reach significance, and body fat only trended (adjusted P=.076 in the aerobic arm) [3]. The aerobic arm bought its own column: self-esteem (P=.015) and aerobic fitness (P=.006) [3]. And the safety line that decides this entire file: exercise did not cause lymphedema or adverse events [3] — this in breasts and arms one cycle into the treatment the rest-cure script wants them protected from. Adherence ran at 70.2% through months of infusion chairs and side effects [3] — these patients were not elite volunteers; they were the schedule, with the same fatigue and the same port, training anyway.

The non-interference file: the oncology answer stays intact

The quiet fear underneath this door is not that exercise is dangerous — it is that it is distracting: that energy spent training is energy stolen from fighting the disease, that a body busy adapting is a body not healing. The lymphoma trial priced that fear directly: 122 patients, stratified by disease type and by current treatment status — with patients on active chemotherapy part of the randomization strata — randomized to 12 weeks of supervised aerobic training or usual care [4]. The exercise arm improved on patient-rated physical functioning (+9.0 points, 95% CI 2.0–16.0, P=.012), overall quality of life (P=.021), fatigue (P=.013), happiness (P=.004), depression (P=.005), general health (P<.001), objective cardiovascular fitness (P<.001) and lean body mass (P=.008) [4]. The two lines the oncologist reads first: aerobic exercise training did not interfere with the chemotherapy completion rate or with treatment response [4]. At six months' follow-up the psychological gains were still holding (depression P=.009, happiness P=.034) without an increased risk of disease recurrence or progression [4]. Median adherence was 92% [4] — in a hematologic cancer population, on treatment. The mechanism note belongs to the reader who wants it: change in peak cardiovascular fitness mediated the change in physical functioning [4] — the fitness itself, not the attendance badge, carried the outcome.

The fatigue inversion: the treatment's most common complaint is the column training treats

Fatigue is the symptom the oncology chart logs most and fixes least — the lead complaint across chemotherapy, radiation and hormonal therapy, and the one the rest script answers with the very thing that deepens it. Two randomized files from the same Ottawa group invert it. In androgen deprivation therapy — the prostate-cancer hormone treatment whose listed metabolic casualties are fatigue, functional decline and lean-tissue loss — 155 men starting at least three months of ADT were randomized to 12 weeks of resistance exercise three times a week (82) or a waiting list (73): the training arm had less fatigue interference with activities of daily living (P=.002) and higher disease-specific quality of life (P=.001), with upper-body (P=.009) and lower-body (P<.001) fitness up, and the honest null printed — 12 weeks did not move body weight, BMI, waist or skinfolds [5]. During radiotherapy, 121 prostate-cancer patients ran the same three-arm design for 24 weeks: both resistance (P=.010) and aerobic training (P=.004) mitigated fatigue short-term; resistance produced longer-term improvements (P=.002) plus quality of life (P=.015), aerobic fitness (P=.041), upper- and lower-body strength (P<.001 both), triglycerides (P=.036), and prevented the body-fat increase usual care accrued (P=.049) [6]. The authors' own framing of resistance exercise in this population: an important component of supportive care [5]. The trial honesty file: one serious adverse event occurred, in the aerobic arm, reported like adults [6]. Read against the depression and sick-day siblings in this library, the pattern is the family's signature: the symptom that says "lie down" is routinely the one that responds to movement — but here the dosing runs through the oncology calendar, not against it.

The lymphedema inversion: the oldest gym prohibition in oncology, tested and flipped

No piece of gym folklore is older or more confident than the breast-cancer arm rule: nodes removed, upper-body exercise forbidden, the dumbbell rack reclassified as a hazard. The clinical guideline context was explicit — survivors without lymphedema were advised against upper-body exercise, locking them out of training's benefits [7]. The Physical Activity and Lymphedema (PAL) trial — a randomized equivalence trial, 154 breast-cancer survivors one to five years past unilateral diagnosis, at least two lymph nodes removed, no clinical lymphedema at entry — put the prohibition on trial: a year of slowly progressive weight lifting (13 weeks supervised, 9 months unsupervised) versus no exercise [7]. The verdict: incident lymphedema in 11% of the lifting arm versus 17% of controls (cumulative incidence difference −6.0 points, 95% CI −17.2 to 5.2, P for equivalence=.04) — lifting met the equivalence test, did not exceed it [7]. And in the subgroup the prohibition was written for — five or more nodes removed: 7% (3 of 45) in the lifting arm versus 22% (11 of 49) in controls, CID −15.0 points (95% CI −18.6 to −11.4, P=.003) [7]. Clinician-defined onset ran 1 versus 3 cases [7]. The prohibition did not survive its own trial: the highest-risk arms were the ones that benefited most, and the lymphedema file carries the mechanism story. The transfer rule for this door: progressive, dosed, started light — "slowly progressive" is the trial's own adjective and the non-negotiable one [7].

The hands and feet file: neuropathy, grip, and balance

The chemotherapy the reader is on may be the kind that numbs — the taxanes and platinums whose peripheral neuropathy lands in fingertips and soles, wrecking grip on a barbell and confidence on a treadmill. The neuropathy file's meta-analysis — 41 randomized trials across neuropathies of every cause, 20 in the quantitative pool — found standardized mean differences of 0.27 to 2.00 in favor of exercise across symptoms, balance, functional mobility, gait and quality of life, with the evidence best developed for diabetic neuropathy (27 studies) and chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (9 studies) [11]. The programming translation writes itself and costs nothing: when hands are numb, machines beat free weights — the handle you cannot drop is the handle you can load; when soles are numb, the bike beats the trail and a rail is part of the set; balance work graduates from assisted to free only as the feet report back [11]. This is also the chapter where the form-checking case earns its keep for this specific reader — when proprioception is the thing treatment took, an external eye on the joint angles is not a luxury.

The survival column: what moving after the diagnosis actually buys

Everything above is through treatment. The mortality column is after and alongside it — and it is observational, so it is labelled observational, and it is still the largest file in this audit. The 136-study meta-analysis: highest versus lowest postdiagnosis physical activity carried cancer-specific mortality HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.53–0.75) for all cancers combined, against HR 0.82 (0.79–0.86) for prediagnosis activity — with benefits showing across 11 specific cancer sites, across sex, BMI, menopausal status and activity domain, and strongest where the reader would hope: breast and colorectal cancers at postdiagnosis HR 0.58–0.63 [10]. The dose-response curve is this file's most practical paragraph: inverse, with steep reductions in hazard up to 10–15 MET-hours a week, flattening after [10]. The Nurses' Health Study file prices that exact band in the most quotable currency available: among 2,987 women with stage I–III breast cancer, versus less than 3 MET-hours a week, breast-cancer death ran RR 0.80 at 3–8.9 MET-h/wk, RR 0.50 (0.31–0.82) at 9–14.9, RR 0.56 at 15–23.9, RR 0.60 at ≥24 (P for trend=.004) — hormone-responsive tumors at ≥9 MET-h/wk RR 0.50 (0.34–0.74), and an absolute unadjusted mortality risk reduction of 6 percentage points at ten years [9]. And the dose, in gym terms, is devastatingly ordinary: 3 MET-hours is one hour of average-pace walking; the peak-protection band is walking three to five hours a week [9]. The prevention twin in this library owns the survival-trial frontier — the CHALLENGE trial that made exercise colon-cancer treatment — and this file hands off to it (the full audit here); what this door adds is the timing: the habits that carry the survival column are built during the treatment, not discovered after it [3][4][9][10].

After the last cycle: the survivorship engine

The last infusion is not the end of this file — it is the handoff. The 34-trial meta-analysis of exercise after completion of main cancer treatment (hormonal therapy excepted — it continues) found significant improvements across cancer types in body mass index, body weight, peak oxygen consumption, peak power output, six-minute-walk distance, right-handgrip strength and quality of life, with the breast-cancer files adding insulin-like growth factor-I, bench press, leg press, fatigue and depression to the win column [8]. Median program duration 13 weeks; most controls sedentary or nothing [8]. This is the engine the reader is test-driving during treatment: the strength and fitness banked in cycles one through six are the capital the survivorship program compounds on [3][4][8]. The muscle the treatment tried to take is the account the training kept open — which is the over-40 muscle file's lesson with the stakes raised, and the reason the protein and progressive overload discipline never leaves the program even when the calendar is ruled by the oncology team.

The fences: the days and counts that outrank the program

The inversions above are real, and they are all conditional on the fence — the roundtable's own language: generally safe, with doses and adjustments specified by cancer type, treatment and outcome, and specific conditions that change the prescription [2]. The fence items in this file are the oncology-team conversation, listed the way the guideline bodies frame them — not as trivia, but as the checks that run before the session does. Fever during a chemotherapy cycle is the emergency door today — not a training question, not a toughness question; the immune-suppressed week is the week the session moves home or rests. The blood counts — the anemia that flattens capacity (its own door in this library), the platelet count that changes what loading is prudent — are lab values the team reads and the program calibrates to [1][2]. Bone involvement reframes loading entirely: known bone metastases or significantly demineralized bone (the osteoporosis file, the bone-training audit) route the resistance prescription through medical clearance before the first set [2]. The port or PICC line has a limb and a side, and the team has rules for it. Uncontrolled pain, vomiting, dehydration are the day-off door — and the day off is a dose adjustment, not a failure (the deload logic, obeying a different calendar here). None of this is fine print; it is the file's operating system. The program that produced the numbers above ran inside these fences [3][4][5][6][7] — the fences are not the opposite of the evidence, they are its address.

The program in gym terms: what trains, what re-doses, what stops

Trains first (cleared, inside the program): the aerobic base — most days, moderate, zone 2 as the manual — because the survival column's steepest gains sit under 15 MET-hours a week and walking at average pace is the qualifying dose [9][10]. Resistance trains fully and early: moderate loads, full-body, two to three times a week, progressing on the overload calendar — the chemo-completion and fatigue files are resistance-training results [3][5][6], and the lean mass it protects is the treatment's own collateral [3][4].

Trains with rules: machines over free weights when hands are numb [11]; the lymphedema-at-risk arm trains progressively from light, not abstinent [7]; the session shrinks on treatment weeks and grows between them — the program-design question answered by the infusion calendar.

Re-doses on symptoms and counts: fatigue is data — the ADT and radiotherapy files treated it as the outcome, not the obstacle [5][6]; the weekly pattern (session size, minutes, what got skipped) is the instrument the team calibrates against the labs [1][2].

Stops and refers: fever in a chemo cycle = the emergency door today. Chest pain, breathlessness out of proportion, syncope, new severe pain — stop, and the medical door that day. The treatment plan is never traded for the training plan; the prescription belongs to the oncology team, and this file's entire evidence base ran on top of treatment, never instead of it [3][4].

The delivery reality: who is actually standing outside this door

The roundtable's own delivery audit is the last inversion: the guidance exists, the trials exist — and the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active, for reasons the clinician-workflow paper names bluntly: nobody in the consulting room owns the assess-advise-refer step [1]. In the app's home market the door is national-scale: 506,462 new cancer cases estimated in Brazil for 2018, female breast and prostate the two leading types in every region, with the North and Northeast carrying their own cervical- and stomach-cancer burden and the incidence-to-mortality ratios tracking socioeconomic development and access to services [12]. Half a million new doors a year in one country, and the default answer they receive is still the rest cure that the trials retired [3][4][5][6][7]. The reader standing in that door with a phone and a treatment calendar is exactly who this file is for.

So what do you actually do? The practical file

  1. Sort the doors first. Active treatment, counts, bone status, port, fever history — the oncology team's calendar is the program's constitution. The ask that opens everything: "I want to keep training through treatment — what do I need to watch?" [1][2]
  2. Keep the walking base non-negotiable. Average pace, most days, toward the 9–15 MET-hour band — three to five hours a week of walking is the peak-protection dose in the survival file, and it is deliberately unheroic [9][10].
  3. Lift, progressively, from light. Two to three full-body sessions a week, moderate loads, machines when grip is compromised [3][11]. The chemo-completion, fatigue and lean-mass columns are resistance-training results — the barbell is not the risk in this story; abstention is [3][5][6].
  4. Treat fatigue as the training target, not the excuse. The programs that improved it were modest, supervised and consistent [5][6]; the session-length discipline matters more here than anywhere in this library.
  5. Let the fence outrank the file. Fever, destabilizing symptoms, count-driven restrictions, new bone pain — the medical door first, the program re-dosed after, never argued with [1][2].
  6. Keep the ledger. Sessions done, minutes walked, loads, symptom boundaries — the tracking habit is how a swinging treatment calendar becomes a calibratable program [2][3].

How RightRep fits into this

The in-treatment program is, at its core, a dose-versus-capacity ledger running against a moving calendar — and it is unanswerable from memory:

  • The home door is the safe door. Camera-scored reps at home replace the shared-gym decision entirely on immune-suppressed weeks — no equipment handles, no commute, the session happening inside the fence [1][2].
  • The dose actually delivered. Reps counted and scored per session turn "I kept moving through treatment" into a number the oncology team can read against the labs — the difference between a program and an intention [3].
  • Form when the sensors are dulled. Neuropathy takes proprioception; the camera keeps the joint angles honest when the fingertips cannot [11].
  • Both engines on one ledger. The walking base and the strength work tracked together, because the file prices both — VO₂ and lean mass each carried their own trial [3][4].

The bottom line

  • The treatment-carrying trial: 242 on chemo — resistance training improved chemotherapy completion (P=.033), strength (P<.001), lean mass (P=.015); no lymphedema, no adverse events [3].
  • The non-interference trial: 122 lymphoma patients, on-treatment strata — physical functioning +9.0, QOL, fatigue, depression improved; chemo completion and treatment response untouched; no added recurrence/progression risk at 6 months [4].
  • The fatigue inversion: ADT P=.002 on daily-living interference, QOL P=.001 [5]; radiotherapy — both modalities mitigated fatigue, resistance holding longer-term (P=.002) with strength, triglycerides and body-fat wins [6].
  • The lymphedema inversion: PAL — lifting 11% v 17% onset overall; ≥5 nodes removed 7% v 22% (CID −15.0, −18.6 to −11.4, P=.003) [7].
  • The guideline floor: generally safe, avoid inactivity, specific doses prescribed for fatigue, physical functioning, anxiety, depressive symptoms, QOL [2] — delivered by assess-advise-refer, because the majority are still inactive [1].
  • The survival column (observational): postdiagnosis activity at cancer-specific mortality HR 0.63 (0.53–0.75) across 136 studies [10]; walking 3–5 h/wk at RR 0.50 for breast-cancer death, 6 absolute points at ten years [9].
  • The survivorship engine: 34 post-treatment trials — BMI, weight, VO₂peak, peak power, 6-minute walk, grip strength, QOL all improved [8]. The delivery gap: Brazil, 506,462 new cases in 2018 — the door this file answers is national-scale [12].

Cleared first, dosed second, finished third — and let the camera keep the ledger honest at rightrep.app.

This post was written by the RightRep AI Assistant — the same AI that counts and scores your reps at rightrep.app.

Sources

  1. Schmitz KH, Campbell AM, Stuiver MM, et al. Exercise is medicine in oncology: Engaging clinicians to help patients move through cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2019;69(6):468–484. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  2. Campbell KL, Winters-Stone KM, Wiskemann J, et al. Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 2019;51(11):2375–2390. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  3. Courneya KS, Segal RJ, Mackey JR, et al. Effects of aerobic and resistance exercise in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007;25(28):4396–4404. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  4. Courneya KS, Sellar CM, Stevinson C, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the effects of aerobic exercise on physical functioning and quality of life in lymphoma patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2009;27(27):4605–4612. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  5. Segal RJ, Reid RD, Courneya KS, et al. Resistance exercise in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2003;21(9):1653–1659. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  6. Segal RJ, Reid RD, Courneya KS, et al. Randomized controlled trial of resistance or aerobic exercise in men receiving radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2009;27(3):344–351. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  7. Schmitz KH, Ahmed RL, Troxel AB, et al. Weight lifting for women at risk for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a randomized trial. JAMA, 2010;304(24):2699–2705. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  8. Fong DYT, Ho JWC, Hui BPH, et al. Physical activity for cancer survivors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 2012;344:e70. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  9. Holmes MD, Chen WY, Feskanich D, Kroenke CH, Colditz GA. Physical activity and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. JAMA, 2005;293(20):2479–2486. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  10. Friedenreich CM, Stone CR, Cheung WY, Hayes SC. Physical Activity and Mortality in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JNCI Cancer Spectrum, 2020;4(1):pkz080. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  11. Streckmann F, Balke M, Cavaletti G, et al. Exercise and Neuropathy: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine, 2022;52(5):1043–1065. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  12. Jardim BC, Junger WL, Daumas RP, Silva GAE. Estimation of cancer incidence in Brazil and its regions in 2018: methodological aspects [Estimativa da incidência de câncer no Brasil e suas regiões em 2018: aspectos metodológicos]. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 2024;40(6):e00131623. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov