Kinect-Based Mixed Reality Exercise Program Improves Physical Function and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Byunggul Lim; Xinxing Li; Yunho Sung; Parivash Jamrasi; SoYoung Ahn; Hyejung Shin; Wook Song

doi:10.4143/crt.2024.758

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 57(2); 2025 > Article

Original Article Breast cancer Kinect-Based Mixed Reality Exercise Program Improves Physical Function and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Clinical Trial: Byunggul Lim^1,2,3, Xinxing Li¹, Yunho Sung¹, Parivash Jamrasi¹, SoYoung Ahn¹, Hyejung Shin¹, Wook Song^1,2,3,4,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2025;57(2):478-491.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.758
Published online: October 30, 2024

¹Health and Exercise Science Laboratory, Department of Physical Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

²Institute on Aging, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

³Dr. Exsol, Inc., Research Institute, Seoul, Korea

⁴Institute of Sport Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Wook Song, Health and Exercise Science Laboratory, Department of Physical Education, Seoul National University, 410, 71-1, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea
Tel: 82-2-880-7791 E-mail: songw3@snu.ac.kr

• Received: August 8, 2024 • Accepted: October 28, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

977 Views
93 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
Exercise is an effective non-pharmacological approach for alleviating treatment-related adverse effects and enhancing physical fitness in breast cancer survivors. A Kinect-based mixed reality device (KMR), with real-time feedback and user data collection, is an innovative exercise intervention for breast cancer survivors. This study aimed to investigate the effect of KMR exercise program on quality of life (QOL) and physical function in breast cancer survivors.
Materials and Methods
Seventy-seven participants were randomly assigned to either the KMR exercise group or home stretching group with an 8-week intervention. Physical function (shoulder range of motion, body composition, aerobic capacity, and hand grip strength) was evaluated before and after the intervention period. Participants completed questionnaires such as the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast, and International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) to assess upper extremity disabilities, QOL, and physical activity levels.
Results
Significant group-by-time interaction was found for flexion of the operated arm (154.3±12.5 to 165.8±11.2), and the non-operated arm (158.2±13.8 to 166.5±12.2), abduction of the non-operated arm (154.8±31.6 to 161.1±28.1), and adduction of the operated arm (46.5±9.1 to 52.6±7.2). Significant improvements were also observed in DASH (46.8±9.1 to 40.8±9.3) and IPAQ (1,136.3±612.8 to 1,287±664.1).
Conclusion
The KMR exercise program effectively improved the physical function, alleviated edema, reduced upper extremity disability, and enhanced the QOL in breast cancer survivors. Coupled with significant group-by-time interactions for various outcomes, the results emphasize the potential benefits of incorporating the KMR exercise program to improve the QOL in breast cancer survivors.
Key words: Breast neoplasms, Exercise, Physical function, Kinect-based

Introduction

In 2023, with 2.3 million new cases, constituting 12.5% of all cancer diagnoses, breast cancer in women has surpassed lung cancer as the foremost contributor to the global cancer incidence [1] and, with 685,000 fatalities, it is the fifth most prevalent cause of cancer-related deaths [2]. Exercise is an effective non-pharmacological intervention for breast cancer survivors (BCS) to alleviate treatment-related adverse effects, enhance quality of life (QOL), improve cardiorespiratory fitness, and increase muscular strength [3]. Combined aerobic and resistance exercises can improve the QOL and attenuate adipose tissue inflammation in obese BCS [4]. Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is among the most common adverse effects related to cancer treatment [5]. Also, 16 weeks of resistance and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) was effective in preventing increases in cancer-related fatigue and in reducing symptom burden for patients during chemotherapy for breast cancer [6]. Systematic reviews have indicated that stretching, yoga, qigong, and Pilates are safe, effective approaches for BCRL risk or symptom management [7].

Nonetheless, traditional exercise programs have limitations such as the lack of adherence or monitoring of exercise intensity and progression, as well as the limited access to exercise facilities. Barriers to exercising in cancer survivors include time and cost [8], lack of enjoyment or equipment [9], psychological distress, and lack of motivation or confidence [10]. Therefore, BCS frequently seek exercise alternatives in a safer, familiar environment [11].

Several exercise intervention studies have aimed to address the limitations of traditional exercises in BCS. Exergaming confers functional upper limb improvement and enhanced daily task performance [12]. Despite the abundance of research on conventional exercise methods, there is a noticeable gap in studies focusing on the use of advanced technologies, such as virtual reality (VR), mobile applications, and other digital platforms, for exercise interventions in breast cancer patients. Although not many studies have utilized VR, some have shown that VR training, which includes body-weight exercises and active motions of the upper limb such as all movements of the shoulder joint, wrist and fingers, was found to be superior to resistance exercise training in managing BCRL. It showed significant improvements in shoulder range of motion (ROM), body pain, general health, vitality, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores [13,14]. With a primary focus on gaming, exergaming and VR-based exercises are not specifically developed for BCS, and there are low adherence rates and a higher likelihood of incorrectly performing exercises when following instructional exercise videos [15]. Accurate assessment of exercise intensity and improvements are hindered by lack of user data and records, even with specific device use. Therefore, Kinect-based mixed reality devices (KMR) comprise three components: the Kinect device, for real-time movement tracking of 25 joints; the main screen, which displays the user’s image; and the floor environment, for interaction between the user and augmented reality (Fig. 1).

KMR exercise programs incorporate gaming elements and provide real-time feedback, with user data collection features that enable users to properly exercise while monitoring individual exercise intensity and progress; furthermore, preserved user data facilitates outcome assessment [16].

The effectiveness of exercise intervention using the KMR system in improving physical function, alleviating fatigue, addressing upper extremity dysfunction, and enhancing QOL in BCS has not been elucidated. A deeper understanding of the health-related impacts of KMR exercise programs will enable targeted exercise intervention recommendations for BCS.

This study aimed to elucidate the effects of the KMR exercise program on physical functioning, lymphedema symptom severity, and QOL in BCS. We posited that, compared to the home stretching group (HS), an 8-week KMR exercise program would greatly improve physical function (shoulder ROM, hand grip strength [HGS], and aerobic capacity), QOL, upper extremity disability, and physical activity (PA).

Materials and Methods

1. Research design

Participants were recruited through local cancer-related associations, social media advertisements, and referrals from the Korean Cancer Society (Seoul, Korea) and randomly assigned to two groups (Fig. 2). The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) a confirmed diagnosis of stage I-III breast cancer; (2) completion of radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy at ≥ 6 months before study enrollment; (3) no metastasis or other cancers; (4) engagement in physical activities for < 60 minutes per week, including resistance exercise, within the preceding 6 months; (5) absence of musculoskeletal, neurological, metabolic, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases; and (6) no contraindicated medications or comorbidities hindering participation in exercise programs. Individuals with severe cardiac disease, uncontrolled hypertension, lymphedema (intact limb difference > 2 cm), neurological or rheumatic disease, communication difficulties, recurrent infection, open wounds, or abdominal incisions were excluded, as were those who underwent continuous chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

The sample size of 66 was calculated using G*Power 3.1, with an effect size of 0.2, power 0.95, and significance level (α) 0.05. To account for a projected dropout rate of 20%, eighty participants were enrolled, of which three dropped out because of reasons related to distance. The final sample for analysis included 77 participants, who were allocated to the Kinect-based group (KE) and HS (38 and 39, respectively) using a computer-generated randomization sequence to maintain concealment from the study investigators. Prior to the interventions, all participants underwent pre-test assessments of HGS, Chester step test (CST), shoulder ROM, questionnaires (Korean version of DASH [K-DASH], Korean version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire [K-IPAQ], and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast [FACT-B]), and body-composition analysis.

2. Interventions

The KMR system integrates mixed reality to provide real-time performance feedback and track adherence, allowing participants to view their progress on-screen and receive immediate feedback on movement quality. This feedback ensures correct form and motivates participants to stay engaged throughout the program. The system automatically adjusts exercise intensity by increasing repetition targets based on performance, ensuring personalized progression. By using HIIT, the program maximizes cardiovascular and muscular endurance, combining aerobic and resistance exercises to meet the specific needs of BCS. The dynamic mixed reality interface creates a more immersive, motivating experience, helping participants adhere to the program and achieve better rehabilitation outcomes.

The KE completed 8 weeks of exercise (total: 24 sessions), with three unsupervised 30-minute sessions per week consistently conducted in a comfortable, safe environment with controlled temperature (22-23°C) and humidity (40%-50%). In week 1, the participants were closely supervised by trained professionals to effectively perform the KMR exercise program. Flexibility movements were incorporated into the warm-up and cool-down. The main exercise regimen comprised bodyweight resistance exercises targeting large and core muscles and aerobic and resistance exercises, with 40-second work and 20-second rest intervals (Table 1). This structure, based on HIIT, aims to maximize cardiovascular and muscular endurance by alternating periods of maximum effort with short rest breaks. The exercises are carefully selected to engage both upper and lower body muscles, ensuring a comprehensive workout that enhances strength, stability, and overall fitness, particularly tailored for the needs of BCS. The KE performed the scheduled KMR exercise program within the gymnasium and received real-time feedback (“Great,” “Good,” and “Bad”). Using mixed reality, and automatically saves data on adherence, including the movement repetitions in the server. The initial exercise was presented, with an audible count of repetitions; then, the next exercise was displayed on the screen with a 20-second timer, followed by a second exercise. This sequence was repeated for all designated exercises.

The exercise intensity was personalized by tracking movement repetitions using automatically recorded data from the device. Each participant’s relative intensity was set based on performing exercises to maximum effort within a given time frame. This method ensured personalized and adaptive intensity, reflecting each participant’s maximal effort level. While indicators like heart rate and rating of perceived exertion can provide detailed insights, our approach focused on maximizing individual effort to account for variations in fatigue and effort. Participants could access their exercise records and performance evaluations of previous sessions. Every week, based on the participants’ performance history, the target number of repetitions for each exercise was incrementally increased by 5%-10%, and the adjusted targets were displayed on the screen, which enabled participants to gradually increase their exercise volume. Participants provided ongoing feedback to address concerns, preferences, and adapt the intervention as needed. Missed sessions were rescheduled after determining reasons, prioritizing adherence.

In contrast, the HS received videos of general health recommendations for stretching exercises (total: 24 sessions) (Fig. 2). Stretching exercises comprised movements aimed at improving flexibility in the major muscle groups, including the upper body and chest, and shoulder mobility. Each stretch was performed for 40 seconds, followed by a 20-second rest interval before the next stretch (Table 1). All participants underwent post-intervention assessments.

The KMR device automatically recorded data on adherence with the exercise program, including the total number of repetitions and performance grades (missed, bad, good, and great) of each movement. The correctness of the movements was determined by assessing the ratio of good and great grades to the total number of repetitions.

3. Measurements

1) Physical function

Physical function was measured on the same day (minimum 72-hour interval between training sessions) by evaluators blinded to the assigned training group and included shoulder ROM, HGS, and CST, with a 5-minute recovery period between measurements to minimize inter-test interference. The ROM was measured in degrees using a digital goniometer (Easy Angle, Meloq). Active flexion and abduction of the shoulder were evaluated with the participant in the supine position with the elbow extended. The HGS was measured using a handheld dynamometer (T.K.K 5101, Takei), which measures upper-extremity muscle strength in kilograms, to assess upper-extremity strength.

Aerobic capacity was evaluated using the CST, a validated submaximal exercise test commonly used in clinical and research settings to assess cardiorespiratory fitness [17]. The test involved stepping up and down a 30-cm step (rate: 15 steps/min), with the step height and test duration adjusted according to the participant’s age and fitness level.

2) Questionnaire

To assess QOL, we used FACT-B version 4, which comprises 36 items and measures both the 27-item general QOL associated with cancer (FACT-G) and an additional 9-item breast cancer-related QOL (breast cancer subscale). Shoulder disability was measured using the validated K-DASH questionnaire, which is widely used to evaluate functional status and symptoms related to upper extremity disability [18]. PA of BCS was assessed using the K-IPAQ. Participants reported moderate-to-vigorous PA during the previous 7 days [19].

3) Body composition

Body composition variables, including body fat percentage and skeletal muscle mass, were evaluated using a multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis platform (Inbody BWA 2.0), which is a reliable alternative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [20]. The extracellular water ratio (%ECW) serves as a valuable indicator of the occurrence and severity of secondary leg lymphedema and quantifies the ratio of extracellular water volume to total body water volume for each limb [21].

4. Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS software ver. 26.0 (IBM Corp.). Descriptive statistics, presented as mean±standard deviation or percentage, were used. Mean differences were assessed using paired t tests.

Exercise-related effects were evaluated using a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures (group×time), with a significance level of p < 0.05. To gauge the magnitude of the intergroup differences, Cohen’s d effect sizes were computed for pairwise comparisons and categorized as small (d=0.2), moderate (d=0.5), or large (d=0.8) [22].

Results

1. General characteristics

Table 2 presents the general characteristics of the 77 BCS enrolled participants. On average, the participants were 49.4±7.5 years old, with a body weight of 57.2±11 kg. No significant intergroup differences (p > 0.05) in the descriptive and dependent variables were observed at baseline.

2. Physical function

1) Shoulder ROM

The pre- and post-test results for shoulder ROM are presented in Table 3. Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a significant group-by-time interaction for flexion in the operated arm (p=0.009), flexion in the non-operated arm (p=0.004), abduction in the non-operated arm (p=0.033), and adduction in the operated arm (p=0.026). Further analysis revealed statistically significant effects over time for specific movements, such as flexion in the operated arm (p < 0.001), flexion in the non-operated arm (p < 0.001), extension in the operated arm (p < 0.05), abduction in the operated arm (p < 0.001), and abduction in the non-operated arm (p < 0.001).

Compared to HS, the KE showed a significant increase of 11.5° in flexion of the operated arm, improving from 154.3±12.5 to 165.8±11.2 between the pre- and post-tests (Fig. 3A). A significant group-by-time interaction (F=7.23, p=0.009) and a large effect size (Cohen’s d=0.93) further highlighted the distinct improvement patterns. Similarly, for flexion of the non-operated arm, the KE demonstrated a considerable improvement from a pre-test mean of 158.2±13.8 to a post-test mean of 162.5±12.2 (F=0.16, p=0.070), with significant group-by-time interaction (F=8.04, p=0.004) with a large effect size (Cohen’s d=0.84), indicating diverse responses to the interventions (Fig. 3B). For extension of the operated arm (Fig. 3C), the KE group improved from 46.5±9.2 to 52.2±7.4, while the HS group increased from 47.4±9.1 to 50.2±8.5. A significant time effect (F=4.85, p=0.021) was observed, but the group effect (F=0.38, p=0.384) and group-by-time interaction (F=1.05, p=0.310) were not significant. For extension of the non-operated arm (Fig. 3D), there was no statistically significant difference between groups.

For abduction of the operated arm, the KE group showed a significant improvement from a pre-test mean of 150.2±23.9 to a post-test mean of 159.1±25.9. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of time (F=39.41, p < 0.001), while the group effect (F=0.06, p=0.049) and group-by-time interaction (F=0.96, p=0.683) indicated a moderately large effect size (Cohen’s d=0.74), demonstrating varied responses (Fig. 3E). For abduction of the non-operated arm (Fig. 3F), the KE group improved from 154.8±31.6 to 161.1±28.1, while the HS group increased from 157.0±23.0 to 163.3±27.8. The analysis showed a significant main effect of time (F=20.83, p < 0.001) and a significant group-by-time interaction (F=6.48, p=0.033), while the group effect was not significant (F=3.32, p=0.217).

As shown in Fig. 3G, for adduction of the operated arm, the KE group demonstrated a significant increase from a pre-test mean of 46.5±9.1 to a post-test mean of 52.6±7.2. The analysis revealed a significant group effect (F=0.59, p=0.023) and a significant group-by-time interaction (F=1.34, p=0.041), with a moderately large effect size (Cohen’s d=0.72), indicating different patterns of improvement over time between the groups. However, the time effect was not significant (F=3.16, p=0.228), suggesting that the changes were primarily driven by group differences. For adduction of the non-operated arm (Fig. 3H), there was no statistically significant difference between groups.

We conducted post hoc analyses on the variables that showed significant interaction effects (Table 4). Only the KE group demonstrated a significant mean difference in shoulder ROM variables, with notable changes observed in flexion of the operated arm (11.5±9.5), flexion of the non-operated arm (8.3±12.1), abduction of the operated arm (8.9±12.7), and adduction of the operated arm (6.1±10.4). In contrast, the HS group showed no significant mean differences in any of these four variables. Improvements in shoulder ROM were observed only in the KE, driven by the significant interaction effects.

2) HGS

Repeated-measures analyses of variance revealed no significant group-by-time interaction for HGS (F=2.97, p=0.075) (Fig. 4A). However, group comparisons revealed distinct values in the KE and HS. Specifically, the pre-test mean for the KE was 19.3±2.4, which was increased to 20.4±3.1 with a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d=0.52) in the post-test.

3) Aerobic capacity

Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a non-significant group-by-time interaction for VO₂max (p=0.357) (Fig. 4B), without significance, for both KE and HS.

3. Questionnaire

1) QOL (FACT-B)

The KE exhibited a significant increase from a pre-test mean of 61.31±9.88 to a post-test mean of 65.26±10.12, as did HS (pre-test mean: 60.25±10.29 increasing to 62.11±8.84 in the post-test) (Fig. 5A), without a significant main effect of group (F=0.23, p=0.634) or a significant group-by-time interaction (F=3.48, p=0.101).

2) Shoulder disability (K-DASH)

The KE exhibited a significant reduction from a pre-test mean of 46.81±9.18 to a post-test mean of 40.87±9.31, as did the HS (pre-test mean: 43.85±10.69 increasing to 42.28±9.67 in the post-test) (Fig. 5B).

The statistical analysis underscored a significant group-by-time interaction (F=3.48, p=0.001) with a large effect size (Cohen’s d=0.84), indicating distinctive patterns of change over time between the KE and HS.

3) Physical activity (K-IPAQ)

Notably, the statistical analysis revealed a significant group-by-time interaction (F=7.18, p=0.011) with a moderately large effect size (Cohen’s d=0.73), highlighting discernible trends in the changes over time between the KE and HS (Fig. 5C).

4. Body composition

The results of %ECW with the exercise program for the analysis of body composition and edema are presented in Table 5. For %ECW, a significant main effect for the group (F=5.67, p=0.028) indicated a significant difference in %ECW between the KE and HS. The KE had a mean %ECW of 39.1±0.5, whereas the HS had a mean %ECW of 38.1±0.3. However, the main effects for time (F=0.061, p=0.937) and group-by-time interaction (F=0.006, p=0.918) were not significant.

5. Adherence and performance rate

Regarding adherence with the exercise program, the mean adherence was 92.4±8.1 for the KE and 89.7±7.7 for HS, with significant intergroup differences neither in body weight or body mass index (BMI) nor over time within each group. The group-by-time interaction was not significant for either body weight or BMI. During the exercise sessions, the performance rate, which refers to the quality of movements during each session, progressively improved as the weeks advanced. The performance rate was specifically calculated as the total number of repetitions rated as “great” or “good” by the KMR system, excluding repetitions rated as “bad.” In exercise program 1, the performance rate increased from 66.6% to 78.3%, and in exercise program 2, it improved from 58.5% to 71.7%.

Discussion

BCS frequently experience a decline in physical function and QOL, in addition to increased fatigue. Exercise interventions are recommended to alleviate these negative effects [23-25]. We evaluated the effectiveness of an 8-week KMR exercise program on various measures of physical function, QOL, fatigue, and body composition in BCS. The main finding of our study was as follows: the 8-week KMR exercise program significantly improved the shoulder ROM, upper extremity function, and PA levels in BCS, highlighting the potential benefits of KMR as a novel exercise intervention.

Our results regarding the positive effects of exercise interventions on physical function and QOL in BCS align with the findings of Aydin et al. [26] and Basha et al. [13]. The improvements observed in our study, such as enhanced shoulder movements, reduced upper extremity disability, and increased PA levels, were consistent with the outcomes reported by Lang et al. [27], who reported an improvement of approximately 10° in both right and left flexion shoulder ROM, which was beneficial for BCS with difficulty in performing overhead work-related functional tasks. Fisher et al. [28] reported that a minimum shoulder flexion of 148° was necessary to reach a high shelf. However, the average flexion of 161° in both directions observed after the exercise intervention in this study exceeded this requirement. The exercise program in this study, which primarily included stretching exercises targeting the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and coracobrachialis muscles, and movements such as high knee chop and overhead sideband, may have influenced the results.

Recent studies have demonstrated that combined exercise interventions, including resistance training, aerobic activities, and dynamic stretching, offer superior benefits for improving ROM in BCS compared to static stretching alone [29,30]. These combined programs not only improve flexibility but also enhance muscle strength, neuromuscular adaptations, and joint mobility, leading to better overall functional capacity. This may be since resistance training activates muscles more effectively, while dynamic exercises improve circulation and reduce stiffness. Tailored exercise programs that address individual needs, pain levels, and physical conditions are likely to yield the best outcomes.

Basha et al. [13] demonstrated that VR-based exercise programs can effectively manage BCRL and improve QOL and physical functioning in BCS. While our study did not directly compare VR training with resistance exercises, our findings support the positive impact of exercise interventions on improving physical function and QOL in this population.

Collectively, these findings indicate that exercise interventions play a pivotal role in enhancing physical function and QOL in BCS. Our tailored exercise program utilizing KMR technology for BCS distinctly differed from those used in previous studies that utilized exergaming or VR interventions [14,31] and validated the significant effects of interventions, which used existing games. This distinction highlights the combination of a scientifically based customized exercise program and the advantages of KMR technology for BCS for targeted, effective intervention. The high adherence rate (92.4±8.1%) and improved performance rate suggest that the KMR exercise program is both feasible and acceptable for BCS. KMR’s real-time feedback and personalized progression maintained participant engagement, while the controlled environment contributed to strong adherence. These findings highlight the KMR’s potential for promoting long-term PA and rehabilitation.

An advantage of KMR over VR is the ability to recognize user movements and provide real-time feedback to guide correct exercise techniques. Although many studies have used VR interventions for BCS, most have focused on psychological distress [32] or effective distraction interventions for managing pain and anxiety [33], and frequently reported one-sided visual effects [34]. In our study, KMR technology assessed user movements in four stages, aiding in correct exercise techniques and posture, contributing to positive outcomes. The accuracy of exercise movements and ability to perform exercises in the correct posture significantly contributed to the positive outcomes of our study. The KMR provides interactive, personalized exercise guidance, ensuring safe and effective workouts for BCS, yielding positive outcomes.

As in the study by Yasunaga et al. [21], we evaluated the effects of exercise on edema by measuring the changes in %ECW in BCS as an indicator of BCRL. The group effect was the only significant finding in our study; however, the results are consistent with those reported by Yasunaga et al. [21] regarding the potential of %ECW as a valuable measure for assessing edema and lymphedema in BCS. Further research with larger samples is required to explore exercise interventions for %ECW and their potential in managing BCRL.

The results on aerobic capacity indicated no significant difference in the group-by-time interaction, which resemble the findings of Lee et al. [35]. They reported that the HIIT group maintained VO₂max, whereas control group experienced a significant decrease in VO₂max from baseline to 8 weeks. The decline in cardiorespiratory fitness may persist for years after cancer treatment [36]. The maintenance of aerobic capacity in our study constitutes a positive outcome.

Despite the absence of significant group-time interactions, the KMR exercise program showed positive effects on QOL in BCS, consistent with prior studies on exercise interventions [37]. Longer-duration studies (1-5 years), such as those of Odynets et al. [38] and Roine et al. [39], consistently reported QOL improvements, with FACT-B scores increasing from 82.5±1.9 to 119.2±3. Thus, QOL is a multifaceted concept that requires a relatively long time for meaningful changes, and the short-term intervention in this study may have influenced research outcomes.

Our analyses revealed a substantial interaction effect between group and time variables in relation to shoulder ROM, disability, and PA whereby the KMR exercise program effectively mitigated shoulder pain and enhanced PA in BCS.

The KMR exercise program is a promising intervention for enhancing physical function, QOL, and overall well-being among BCS. Significant improvements in various physical measures and the reduction in shoulder pain and fatigue highlight the potential benefits of customized exercise interventions. The interactive and personalized nature of the KMR contributes to the effectiveness and safety of exercise interventions, enabling individualized guidance and real-time feedback for enhanced engagement and motivation of BCS for improved outcomes. This study could serve as a catalyst for further research on exercise interventions for BCS.

While the average duration since surgery in our participants was 63 months, the key focus of this study lies in the use of a KMR exercise program. This intervention provides a unique approach to maintaining physical function and enhancing QOL. Previous studies [40,41] have explored exercise interventions during earlier stages of treatment, but the KMR system in this study offers long-term survivors an innovative and engaging method to improve physical function. The system integrates real-time feedback and personalized progression, making it a valuable tool for ongoing rehabilitation in survivors. By emphasizing the mixed reality component, this study highlights the innovative application of technology to address the long-term needs of cancer survivors, which may offer more comprehensive and sustained benefits compared to traditional exercise programs.

1. Limitations

A limitation of this study is the relatively short intervention period, which might be insufficient to capture the long-term effects of the exercise program. A longer follow-up period may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the program’s effectiveness and sustainability. Randomized controlled trials with more controlled conditions, such as scheduled rest days and a controlled diet, and extended follow-up periods should be conducted to address these limitations and provide a more robust evaluation of the exercise program. Despite the absence of a direct comparison between the KMR exercise intervention and a traditional exercise intervention as well as the reliance on a comparison with the HS, this study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of exercise interventions utilizing KMR.

2. Strengths and clinical applications

The KMR exercise program is a practical and beneficial option for BCS. It offers a private and personalized alternative to traditional gyms, allowing individuals to adapt and exercise independently within a short period. The program promotes exercise adherence through the ability to track and monitor exercise records while emphasizing the sustainability and customization of exercise intensity. The KMR program is cost-effective and accessible to a wide range of individuals and provides BCS with a comfortable, personalized, and effective approach to improve their physical function and QOL.

The 8-week KMR exercise program improved the shoulder ROM and PA in BCS. The participants’ DASH scores were decreased, indicating an improvement in upper extremity function. The results underscore the potential advantages of the KMR exercise program in improving the QOL of BCS and suggest that further research should be conducted to investigate its long-term effects for incorporation into standard care.

NOTES

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by Seoul National University Institutional Review Board (approval No. 2310/002-012) and performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Lim B, Shin H, Song W.

Collected the data: Lim B, Sung Y, Jamrasi P, Shin H.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Lim B, Jamrasi P, Ahn S.

Performed the analysis: Lim B, Li X, Sung Y.

Wrote the paper: Lim B, Li X, Ahn S.

Review & editing: Song W.

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Funding

This work was supported by the Korean Cancer Society.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Editage (https://www.editage.com/) for English language editing.

Fig. 1.

Kinect-based mixed reality device.

Fig. 2.

Experimental design. QOL, quality of life; ROM, range of motion.

Fig. 3.

Results of shoulder range of motion from pre- and post-test across the two groups. (A) Flexion operated arm. (B) Flexion non-operated arm. (C) Extension operated arm. (D) Extension non-operated arm. (E) Abduction operated arm. (F) Abduction non-operated arm. (G) Adduction operated arm. (H) Adduction non-operated arm. HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group; SD, standard deviation. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance is used for statistical repeated ANOVA. ⁺p < 0.05 for group effect ^#p < 0.05 and ^###p < 0.001 for time effect; ^*p < 0.05 and ^**p < 0.01 for group-by-time interaction.

Fig. 4.

Results of hand grip strength (HGS) and aerobic capacity from pre-test and post-test across the two groups: HGS (A) and maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max) (B). HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance is used for statistical repeated ANOVA. ⁺p < 0.05 for group effect; ^#p < 0.05 for time effect.

Fig. 5.

Results of questionnaire from pre- and post-test across the two groups: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) (A), Korean version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (K-DASH) (B), and Korean version of International Physical Activity Questionnaire (K-IPAQ) (C). HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance is used for statistical repeated ANOVA. ^##p < 0.01 for time effect; ^*p < 0.05 and ^**p < 0.01 for group-by-time interaction.

Table 1.

Exercise and stretching programs

	Type	Exercise	Duration
Exercise program 1 (weeks 1, 2, 5, and 6)
Warm-up	Thoracic mobility/dynamic stretching	Thoracic extension, spine opener, chest stretching, arm rotation	5 min
Main	Circuit (body weight, core, scapulohumeral joint stability)	High knee chop, squat, knee push-up, arm walking, clamshell, double toe tap	20 min (interval: 40 sec on/20 sec off)
Cool-down	Dynamic/static stretching of major muscle groups	Pelvic stretching, supine spinal stretching, side oblique stretching	5 min
Exercise program 2 (weeks 3, 4, 7, and 8)
Warm-up	Thoracic mobility/dynamic stretching	Leg swing, shoulder rotation, thoracic extension, spine opener	5 min
Main	Circuit (body weight, core, scapulohumeral joint stability)	Bird dog, overhead side bend, squat, knee push-up, arm walking, single leg sprint	20 min (40 sec on/20 sec off)
Cool-down	Dynamic/static stretching of major muscle groups	Downward groin stretching, upper body extension, single-leg hip hinge	5 min
Stretching program 1 (weeks 1, 2, 5, and 6)	Thoracic mobility, dynamic/static stretching of major muscle groups (standing, lying down, sitting positions)	Quad, chest, hamstring, back side oblique, cat-camel stretching, knee bend, arm and shoulder rotation, bridge	20 min (40 sec on/20 sec off)
Stretching program 2 (weeks 3, 4, 7, and 8)	Thoracic mobility, dynamic/static stretching of major muscle groups (standing, lying down, sitting positions)	Side leg swing, knee, trunk rotation, overhead triceps, levator scapula, spine chest, trunk stretching shoulder twist	20 min (40 sec on/20 sec off)

Table 2.

General characteristics of the study participants

Variable	Total (n=77)	KE (n=38)	HS (n=39)	p-value
Age (yr)	49.4±7.5	48.9±5.4	49.8±7.2	0.882
Height (cm)	158.8±5.7	159.7±6.1	157.9±5.3	0.931
Body weight (kg)	57.2±11	58±7.3	56.4±7	0.854
Duration since operation (mo)	63.5±43.6	59.3±47.5	68.7±37.4	0.783
Cancer stage I	35 (45.4)	16 (42.1)	19 (48.7)	0.871
Cancer stage II	33 (42.8)	18 (47.3)	15 (38.4)	0.932
Cancer stage III	9 (11.6)	4 (10.5)	5 (12.8)	0.912
Surgery
Yes	75	38	37
No	2	0	2 (hormone and radiation therapy)
Surgery type (n=75)
Conservation (R/L)	52 (26/26)	25 (14/11)	27 (12/15)
Mastectomy (R/L)	23 (11/12)	13 (8/5)	10 (3/7)
Axillary surgery (n=75)
Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)	41 (25/16)	21 (12/9)	20 (13/7)
Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND)	34 (19/15)	16 (9/7)	18 (10/8)
Radiation therapy	54	25	29
Chemotherapy	46	23	23

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%) unless otherwise indicated. HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group; L, left; R, right; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3.

Changes in shoulder range of motion from the pre-test to the post-test

Variable	Mean±SD		Source	F	p-value
Variable	Pre-test	Post-test	Source	F	p-value
Flexion
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	154.3±12.5	165.8±11.2	G	0.44	0.044⁺
HS (n=39)	157.3±11.2	160.9±10.8	T	45.63	< 0.001^###
			G×T	7.23	0.009^**
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	158.2±13.8	166.5±12.2	G	0.16	0.070
HS (n=39)	159.4±11.5	160.8±12.1	T	48.71	< 0.001^###
			G×T	8.04	0.004^**
Extension
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	46.5±9.2	52.2±7.4	G	0.38	0.384
HS (n=39)	47.4±9.1	50.2±8.5	T	4.85	0.021^#
			G×T	1.05	0.310
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	49.5±9.3	51.8±9.2	G	0.84	0.849
HS (n=39)	49.1±9.1	50.2±8.9	T	1.77	0.456
			G×T	0.35	0.701
Abduction
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	150.2±23.9	159.1±25.9	G	0.06	0.049⁺
HS (n=39)	156.3±21.1	160.1±19.4	T	39.41	< 0.001^###
			G×T	0.96	0.683
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	154.8±31.6	161.1±28.1	G	3.32	0.217
HS (n=39)	157.0±23.0	163.3±27.8	T	20.83	< 0.001^###
			G×T	6.48	0.033^*
Adduction
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	46.5±9.1	52.6±7.2	G	0.59	0.023⁺
HS (n=39)	47.1±11.3	49.4±10.4	T	3.16	0.228
			G×T	1.34	0.041^*
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	52.3±10.3	53.2±11.7	G	0.47	0.479
HS (n=39)	53.2±11.1	54.7±10.5	T	2.45	0.863
			G×T	0.91	0.731

HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group; SD, standard deviation. ^#p < 0.05 and ^###p < 0.001 for time effect; ⁺p < 0.05 for group effect; *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 for group-by-time interaction.

Table 4.

Changes in shoulder range of motion by groups

Variable	Mean difference (post-test and pre-test)	p-value
Flexion
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	11.5±9.5	< 0.001^***
HS (n=39)	3.6±10.1	0.152
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	8.3±12.1	< 0.001^***
HS (n=39)	1.4±11.4	0.473
Abduction
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	8.9±12.7	0.004^**
HS (n=39)	3.8±11.5	0.551
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	6.1±10.4	0.033^*
HS (n=39)	2.3±9.5	0.230

Values are presented as mean±SD. HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group; SD, standard deviation. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001.

Table 5.

Changes in body weight, BMI, and %ECW from the pre- to post-test

Variable	Mean±SD		Source	F	p-value
Variable	Pre-test	Post-test	Source	F	p-value
Body weight (kg)
KE (n=38)	58.4±10.3	56.8±9.6	G	0.09	0.752
HS (n=39)	56.8±9.6	57.8±10.2	T	0.03	0.987
			G×T	0.952	0.341
BMI (kg/m²)
KE (n=38)	22.4±2.1	21.7±3.1	G	0.037	0.747
HS (n=39)	23.2±3.8	23±3.2	T	0.012	0.672
			G×T	4.05	0.521
% ECW (%)
KE (n=38)	39.1±0.5	38.3±0.3	G	5.67	0.028⁺
HS (n=39)	38.1±0.3	38.2±0.4	T	0.061	0.937
			G×T	0.006	0.918

Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance is used for statistical repeated ANOVA. BMI, body mass index; HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group; SD, standard deviation; %ECW, extracellular water ratio.

⁺ p < 0.05 for group effect.

REFERENCES

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:17–48. Article PubMed PDF
2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. Article PubMed PDF
3. Stout NL, Baima J, Swisher AK, Winters-Stone KM, Welsh J. A systematic review of exercise systematic reviews in the cancer literature (2005-2017). PM R. 2017;9:S347–84. Article PubMed PMC PDF
4. Dieli-Conwright CM, Parmentier JH, Sami N, Lee K, Spicer D, Mack WJ, et al. Adipose tissue inflammation in breast cancer survivors: effects of a 16-week combined aerobic and resistance exercise training intervention. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168:147–57. Article PubMed PDF
5. Baumann FT, Reike A, Reimer V, Schumann M, Hallek M, Taaffe DR, et al. Effects of physical exercise on breast cancer-related secondary lymphedema: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170:1–13. Article PubMed PDF
6. Mijwel S, Backman M, Bolam KA, Jervaeus A, Sundberg CJ, Margolin S, et al. Adding high-intensity interval training to conventional training modalities: optimizing health-related outcomes during chemotherapy for breast cancer: the OptiTrain randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168:79–93. Article PubMed PDF
7. Panchik D, Masco S, Zinnikas P, Hillriegel B, Lauder T, Suttmann E, et al. Effect of exercise on breast cancer-related lymphedema: what the lymphatic surgeon needs to know. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2019;35:37–45. Article PubMed
8. Knowlton SE, O’Donnell EK, Horick N, Perez GK, Park E, Rabin J, et al. Moving forward on all fronts: impact, patterns, and barriers to exercise in cancer survivors and patients living with advanced disease. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:4979–88. Article PubMed PDF
9. Ng AH, Ngo-Huang A, Vidal M, Reyes-Garcia A, Liu DD, Williams JL, et al. Exercise barriers and adherence to recommendations in patients with cancer. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021;17:e972–81. Article PubMed
10. Hardcastle SJ, Maxwell-Smith C, Kamarova S, Lamb S, Millar L, Cohen PA. Factors influencing non-participation in an exercise program and attitudes towards physical activity amongst cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26:1289–95. Article PubMed PDF
11. Yeon S, Jeong A, Min J, Byeon J, Yoon YJ, Heo J, et al. Tearing down the barriers to exercise after mastectomy: a qualitative inquiry to facilitate exercise among breast cancer survivors. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e055157Article PubMed PMC
12. Fernandes CS, Baldaia C, Ferreira LM. Impact of exergames in women with breast cancer after surgery: a systematic review. SN Compr Clin Med. 2023;5:5.Article PDF
13. Basha MA, Aboelnour NH, Alsharidah AS, Kamel FH. Effect of exercise mode on physical function and quality of life in breast cancer-related lymphedema: a randomized trial. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30:2101–10. Article PubMed PDF
14. Feyzioglu O, Dincer S, Akan A, Algun ZC. Is Xbox 360 Kinect-based virtual reality training as effective as standard physiotherapy in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery? Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:4295–303. Article PubMed PDF
15. Winters L, Post K, Flanagan J. A web-streamed yoga intervention for breast cancer survivors. Creat Nurs. 2020;26:e70–6. Article PubMed PDF
16. Lim BG, Li X, Sung YH, Lee SW, Kim HJ, Song W. Effects of Kinect-based mixed reality device on physical function and quality of life in breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. J Korean Soc Integr Med. 2023;11:49–60.
17. Sietsema KE, Stringer WW, Sue DY, Ward SA. Wasserman & Whipp’s principles of exercise testing and interpretation. 6th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2020.
18. Lee JY, Lim JY, Oh JH, Ko YM. Cross-cultural adaptation and clinical evaluation of a Korean version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand outcome questionnaire (K-DASH). J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:570–4. Article PubMed
19. Chun MY. Validity and reliability of korean version of international physical activity questionnaire short form in the elderly. Korean J Fam Med. 2012;33:144–51. Article PubMed PMC
20. Kim H, Song KH, Ambegaonkar JP, Chung S, Jeon K, Jiang FL, et al. Two-megahertz impedance index prediction equation for appendicular lean mass in Korean older people. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:385.Article PubMed PMC PDF
21. Yasunaga Y, Kondoh S, Nakajima Y, Mimura S, Kobayashi M, Yuzuriha S, et al. Extracellular water ratio as an indicator of the development and severity of leg lymphedema using bioelectrical impedance analysis. Lymphat Res Biol. 2021;19:223–30. Article PubMed
22. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press; 2013.
23. Reis AD, Pereira P, Diniz RR, de Castro Filha JGL, Dos Santos AM, Ramallo BT, et al. Effect of exercise on pain and functional capacity in breast cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:58.Article PubMed PMC PDF
24. Sagarra-Romero L, Butragueno J, Gomez-Bruton A, Lozano-Berges G, Vicente-Rodriguez G, Morales JS. Effects of an online home-based exercise intervention on breast cancer survivors during COVID-19 lockdown: a feasibility study. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30:6287–97. Article PubMed PMC PDF
25. Friedenreich CM, Stone CR, Cheung WY, Hayes SC. Physical activity and mortality in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020;4:pkz080.Article PubMed PDF
26. Aydin M, Kose E, Odabas I, Meric Bingul B, Demirci D, Aydin Z. The effect of exercise on life quality and depression levels of breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2021;22:725–32. Article PubMed PMC
27. Lang AE, Dickerson CR, Kim SY, Stobart J, Milosavljevic S. Impingement pain affects kinematics of breast cancer survivors in work-related functional tasks. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019;70:223–30. Article
28. Fisher MI, Capilouto G, Malone T, Bush H, Uhl TL. Comparison of upper extremity function in women with and women without a history of breast cancer. Phys Ther. 2020;100:500–8. Article PubMed PDF
29. De Groef A, Van Kampen M, Dieltjens E, Christiaens MR, Neven P, Geraerts I, Devoogdt N. Effectiveness of postoperative physical therapy for upper-limb impairments after breast cancer treatment: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:1140–53. Article PubMed
30. Galantino ML, Stout NL. Exercise interventions for upper limb dysfunction due to breast cancer treatment. Phys Ther. 2013;93:1291–7. Article PubMed PDF
31. da Silva Alves R, de Carvalho JM, Borges JBC, Nogueira DA, Iunes DH, Carvalho LC. Effect of exergaming on quality of life, fatigue, and strength and endurance muscle in cancer patients: a randomized crossover trial. Games Health J. 2023;12:358–65. Article PubMed PMC
32. Chirico A, Maiorano P, Indovina P, Milanese C, Giordano GG, Alivernini F, et al. Virtual reality and music therapy as distraction interventions to alleviate anxiety and improve mood states in breast cancer patients during chemotherapy. J Cell Physiol. 2020;235:5353–62. Article PubMed PDF
33. Bani Mohammad E, Ahmad M. Virtual reality as a distraction technique for pain and anxiety among patients with breast cancer: a randomized control trial. Palliat Support Care. 2019;17:29–34. Article PubMed
34. van der Kruk SR, Zielinski R, MacDougall H, Hughes-Barton D, Gunn KM. Virtual reality as a patient education tool in healthcare: a scoping review. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105:1928–42. Article PubMed
35. Lee K, Kang I, Mack WJ, Mortimer J, Sattler F, Salem G, et al. Feasibility of high intensity interval training in patients with breast cancer undergoing anthracycline chemotherapy: a randomized pilot trial. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:653.Article PubMed PMC PDF
36. Frydenberg H, Bettum TJ, Lofterød T, Edvardsen E, Flote VG, Finstad SE, et al. Abstract P6-08-37: cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max) before, during and after adjuvant treatment in breast cancer patients. Cancer Res. 2015;75(9 Suppl):P6-08-37.Article PDF
37. Fukushima T, Nakano J, Hashizume K, Ueno K, Matsuura E, Ikio Y, et al. Effects of aerobic, resistance, and mixed exercises on quality of life in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2021;42:101290.Article PubMed
38. Odynets T, Briskin Y, Todorova V. Effects of different exercise interventions on quality of life in breast cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. Integr Cancer Ther. 2019;18:1534735419880598.Article PubMed PMC PDF
39. Roine E, Sintonen H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Penttinen H, Utriainen M, Vehmanen L, et al. Health-related quality of life of breast cancer survivors attending an exercise intervention study: a five-year follow-up. In Vivo. 2020;34:667–74. Article PubMed PMC
40. Piraux E, Caty G, Aboubakar Nana F, Reychler G. Effects of exercise therapy in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment: a narrative review. SAGE Open Med. 2020;8:2050312120922657.Article PubMed PMC PDF
41. Schumacher O, Luo H, Taaffe DR, Galvao DA, Tang C, Chee R, et al. Effects of exercise during radiation therapy on physical function and treatment-related side effects in men with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;111:716–31. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Kinect-Based Mixed Reality Exercise Program Improves Physical Function and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Cancer Res Treat. 2025;57(2):478-491. Published online October 30, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.758

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
NOTES
REFERENCES

Kinect-Based Mixed Reality Exercise Program Improves Physical Function and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Fig. 1. Kinect-based mixed reality device.

Fig. 2. Experimental design. QOL, quality of life; ROM, range of motion.

Fig. 3. Results of shoulder range of motion from pre- and post-test across the two groups. (A) Flexion operated arm. (B) Flexion non-operated arm. (C) Extension operated arm. (D) Extension non-operated arm. (E) Abduction operated arm. (F) Abduction non-operated arm. (G) Adduction operated arm. (H) Adduction non-operated arm. HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group; SD, standard deviation. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance is used for statistical repeated ANOVA. +p < 0.05 for group effect #p < 0.05 and ###p < 0.001 for time effect; *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 for group-by-time interaction.

Fig. 4. Results of hand grip strength (HGS) and aerobic capacity from pre-test and post-test across the two groups: HGS (A) and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) (B). HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance is used for statistical repeated ANOVA. +p < 0.05 for group effect; #p < 0.05 for time effect.

Fig. 5. Results of questionnaire from pre- and post-test across the two groups: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) (A), Korean version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (K-DASH) (B), and Korean version of International Physical Activity Questionnaire (K-IPAQ) (C). HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance is used for statistical repeated ANOVA. ##p < 0.01 for time effect; *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 for group-by-time interaction.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Kinect-Based Mixed Reality Exercise Program Improves Physical Function and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Clinical Trial

	Type	Exercise	Duration
Exercise program 1 (weeks 1, 2, 5, and 6)
Warm-up	Thoracic mobility/dynamic stretching	Thoracic extension, spine opener, chest stretching, arm rotation	5 min
Main	Circuit (body weight, core, scapulohumeral joint stability)	High knee chop, squat, knee push-up, arm walking, clamshell, double toe tap	20 min (interval: 40 sec on/20 sec off)
Cool-down	Dynamic/static stretching of major muscle groups	Pelvic stretching, supine spinal stretching, side oblique stretching	5 min
Exercise program 2 (weeks 3, 4, 7, and 8)
Warm-up	Thoracic mobility/dynamic stretching	Leg swing, shoulder rotation, thoracic extension, spine opener	5 min
Main	Circuit (body weight, core, scapulohumeral joint stability)	Bird dog, overhead side bend, squat, knee push-up, arm walking, single leg sprint	20 min (40 sec on/20 sec off)
Cool-down	Dynamic/static stretching of major muscle groups	Downward groin stretching, upper body extension, single-leg hip hinge	5 min
Stretching program 1 (weeks 1, 2, 5, and 6)	Thoracic mobility, dynamic/static stretching of major muscle groups (standing, lying down, sitting positions)	Quad, chest, hamstring, back side oblique, cat-camel stretching, knee bend, arm and shoulder rotation, bridge	20 min (40 sec on/20 sec off)
Stretching program 2 (weeks 3, 4, 7, and 8)	Thoracic mobility, dynamic/static stretching of major muscle groups (standing, lying down, sitting positions)	Side leg swing, knee, trunk rotation, overhead triceps, levator scapula, spine chest, trunk stretching shoulder twist	20 min (40 sec on/20 sec off)

Variable	Total (n=77)	KE (n=38)	HS (n=39)	p-value
Age (yr)	49.4±7.5	48.9±5.4	49.8±7.2	0.882
Height (cm)	158.8±5.7	159.7±6.1	157.9±5.3	0.931
Body weight (kg)	57.2±11	58±7.3	56.4±7	0.854
Duration since operation (mo)	63.5±43.6	59.3±47.5	68.7±37.4	0.783
Cancer stage I	35 (45.4)	16 (42.1)	19 (48.7)	0.871
Cancer stage II	33 (42.8)	18 (47.3)	15 (38.4)	0.932
Cancer stage III	9 (11.6)	4 (10.5)	5 (12.8)	0.912
Surgery
Yes	75	38	37
No	2	0	2 (hormone and radiation therapy)
Surgery type (n=75)
Conservation (R/L)	52 (26/26)	25 (14/11)	27 (12/15)
Mastectomy (R/L)	23 (11/12)	13 (8/5)	10 (3/7)
Axillary surgery (n=75)
Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)	41 (25/16)	21 (12/9)	20 (13/7)
Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND)	34 (19/15)	16 (9/7)	18 (10/8)
Radiation therapy	54	25	29
Chemotherapy	46	23	23

Variable	Mean±SD		Source	F	p-value
Variable	Pre-test	Post-test	Source	F	p-value
Flexion
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	154.3±12.5	165.8±11.2	G	0.44	0.044⁺
HS (n=39)	157.3±11.2	160.9±10.8	T	45.63	< 0.001^###
			G×T	7.23	0.009^**
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	158.2±13.8	166.5±12.2	G	0.16	0.070
HS (n=39)	159.4±11.5	160.8±12.1	T	48.71	< 0.001^###
			G×T	8.04	0.004^**
Extension
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	46.5±9.2	52.2±7.4	G	0.38	0.384
HS (n=39)	47.4±9.1	50.2±8.5	T	4.85	0.021^#
			G×T	1.05	0.310
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	49.5±9.3	51.8±9.2	G	0.84	0.849
HS (n=39)	49.1±9.1	50.2±8.9	T	1.77	0.456
			G×T	0.35	0.701
Abduction
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	150.2±23.9	159.1±25.9	G	0.06	0.049⁺
HS (n=39)	156.3±21.1	160.1±19.4	T	39.41	< 0.001^###
			G×T	0.96	0.683
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	154.8±31.6	161.1±28.1	G	3.32	0.217
HS (n=39)	157.0±23.0	163.3±27.8	T	20.83	< 0.001^###
			G×T	6.48	0.033^*
Adduction
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	46.5±9.1	52.6±7.2	G	0.59	0.023⁺
HS (n=39)	47.1±11.3	49.4±10.4	T	3.16	0.228
			G×T	1.34	0.041^*
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	52.3±10.3	53.2±11.7	G	0.47	0.479
HS (n=39)	53.2±11.1	54.7±10.5	T	2.45	0.863
			G×T	0.91	0.731

Variable	Mean difference (post-test and pre-test)	p-value
Flexion
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	11.5±9.5	< 0.001^***
HS (n=39)	3.6±10.1	0.152
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	8.3±12.1	< 0.001^***
HS (n=39)	1.4±11.4	0.473
Abduction
Operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	8.9±12.7	0.004^**
HS (n=39)	3.8±11.5	0.551
Non-operated arm (°)
KE (n=38)	6.1±10.4	0.033^*
HS (n=39)	2.3±9.5	0.230

Variable	Mean±SD		Source	F	p-value
Variable	Pre-test	Post-test	Source	F	p-value
Body weight (kg)
KE (n=38)	58.4±10.3	56.8±9.6	G	0.09	0.752
HS (n=39)	56.8±9.6	57.8±10.2	T	0.03	0.987
			G×T	0.952	0.341
BMI (kg/m²)
KE (n=38)	22.4±2.1	21.7±3.1	G	0.037	0.747
HS (n=39)	23.2±3.8	23±3.2	T	0.012	0.672
			G×T	4.05	0.521
% ECW (%)
KE (n=38)	39.1±0.5	38.3±0.3	G	5.67	0.028⁺
HS (n=39)	38.1±0.3	38.2±0.4	T	0.061	0.937
			G×T	0.006	0.918

Table 1. Exercise and stretching programs

Table 2. General characteristics of the study participants

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%) unless otherwise indicated. HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group; L, left; R, right; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3. Changes in shoulder range of motion from the pre-test to the post-test

Table 4. Changes in shoulder range of motion by groups

Values are presented as mean±SD. HS, home stretching group; KE, Kinect-based mixed reality device exercise group; SD, standard deviation. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001.