SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Physiol.
Sec. Exercise Physiology
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1594574
Effects of high intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) on cardiopulmonary function, body composition, and physical function in cancer survivors: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Provisionally accepted- 1Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- 2Hunan International Economics University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- 3Guangxi Science and Technology Normal University, Laibin, China
- 4Changsha Normal University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- 5Hunan Normal University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Advances in cancer treatment have led to a significant increase in the global number of cancer survivors. However, long-term health management challenges—such as reduced cardiopulmonary function, cancer-related fatigue, and metabolic dysregulation—remain formidable. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to comprehensively compare the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on Cardiopulmonary function, body composition, and physical function in cancer survivors. Thereby providing evidence-based guidance for individualized exercise prescriptions.Methods: By the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and EBSCOhost up to February 2025. A total of 12 eligible RCTs were included, breast cancer (n = 7), colorectal cancer (n = 3), and mixed cancer types (n = 2). Meta-analysis was performed using Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager 5.4, while sensitivity analyses were conducted with Stata MP 14.0 to assess the stability and reliability of the results. Egger’s test was utilized to evaluate the presence of publication bias.Results: The meta-analysis revealed that, compared with MICT, HIIT was significantly more effective in improving VO₂ peak (Peak Oxygen Uptake) in cancer survivors [SMD = 0.53, 95% CI (0.21, 0.84), Z = 3.30, P = 0.001]. However, no statistically significant differences were found between HIIT and MICT in terms of body composition (including Body Mass, Total Fat Mass, Lean Body Mass, Fat Percentage, Body Mass Index, Waist Circumference, and Hip Circumference) or physical function (including Sit-to-Stand Test and 6-Minute Walk Test).Conclusion: HIIT appears superior to MICT in enhancing VO₂ peak and, consequently, cardiopulmonary function in cancer survivors. Nonetheless, both training modalities yield comparable outcomes in body composition and physical function. Given the variability in the quantity and quality of the included studies, further well-designed and objective RCTs are warranted to validate these findings.
Keywords: HIIT, MICT, cancer survivors, Cardiopulmonary function, Body Composition, physical function, Meta-analysis
Received: 18 Mar 2025; Accepted: 26 May 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Peng, Yang, Hu and Yuan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Ming Hu, Guangxi Science and Technology Normal University, Laibin, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.