Search

PurposeThe number of cancer survivors worldwide is growing, with over 15.5 million cancer survivors in the United States alone-a figure expected to double in the coming decades. Cancer survivors face unique health challenges as a result of their cancer diagnosis and the impact of treatments on their physical and mental well-being. For example, cancer survivors often experience declines in physical functioning and quality of life while facing an increased risk of cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality compared with persons without cancer. The 2010 American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable was among the first reports to conclude that cancer survivors could safely engage in enough exercise training to improve physical fitness and restore physical functioning, enhance quality of life, and mitigate cancer-related fatigue.MethodsA second Roundtable was convened in 2018 to advance exercise recommendations beyond public health guidelines and toward prescriptive programs specific to cancer type, treatments, and/or outcomes.ResultsOverall findings retained the conclusions that exercise training and testing were generally safe for cancer survivors and that every survivor should "avoid inactivity." Enough evidence was available to conclude that specific doses of aerobic, combined aerobic plus resistance training, and/or resistance training could improve common cancer-related health outcomes, including anxiety, depressive symptoms, fatigue, physical functioning, and health-related quality of life. Implications for other outcomes, such as peripheral neuropathy and cognitive functioning, remain uncertain.ConclusionsThe proposed recommendations should serve as a guide for the fitness and health care professional working with cancer survivors. More research is needed to fill remaining gaps in knowledge to better serve cancer survivors, as well as fitness and health care professionals, to improve clinical practice.

IntroductionPreliminary evidence supports the beneficial role of physical activity on prostate cancer outcomes. This phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT) is designed to determine if supervised high-intensity aerobic and resistance exercise increases overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).Methods and analysisParticipants (n=866) must have histologically documented metastatic prostate cancer with evidence of progressive disease on androgen deprivation therapy (defined as mCRPC). Patients can be treatment-naïve for mCRPC or on first-line androgen receptor-targeted therapy for mCRPC (ie, abiraterone or enzalutamide) without evidence of progression at enrolment, and with no prior chemotherapy for mCRPC. Patients will receive psychosocial support and will be randomly assigned (1:1) to either supervised exercise (high-intensity aerobic and resistance training) or self-directed exercise (provision of guidelines), stratified by treatment status and site. Exercise prescriptions will be tailored to each participant's fitness and morbidities. The primary endpoint is OS. Secondary endpoints include time to disease progression, occurrence of a skeletal-related event or progression of pain, and degree of pain, opiate use, physical and emotional quality of life, and changes in metabolic biomarkers. An assessment of whether immune function, inflammation, dysregulation of insulin and energy metabolism, and androgen biomarkers are associated with OS will be performed, and whether they mediate the primary association between exercise and OS will also be investigated. This study will also establish a biobank for future biomarker discovery or validation.Ethics and disseminationValidation of exercise as medicine and its mechanisms of action will create evidence to change clinical practice. Accordingly, outcomes of this RCT will be published in international, peer-reviewed journals, and presented at national and international conferences. Ethics approval was first obtained at Edith Cowan University (ID: 13236 NEWTON), with a further 10 investigator sites since receiving ethics approval, prior to activation.Trial registration numberNCT02730338.

Exercise has long been recognized as an important component of treatment for various diseases. However, the benefits and risks of exercise interventions must be carefully evaluated to ensure the former outweighs the latter. As cancer patients undergo diverse treatment modalities with distinct objectives, a systematic approach partitioning the cancer journey into distinct phases is necessary to inform tailored exercise prescriptions. This narrative review summarizes exercise benefits and mechanisms for cancer patients and survivors across four distinct survivorship periods--before surgery, after surgery and before adjuvant treatment, during nonsurgical treatment (adjuvant and neoadjuvant), and during extended survival. In summary, exercise reduces the risks of complications and declines in physical functioning while improving fatigue, quality of life, and the ability to manage treatment effects. Although additional research is warranted, existing evidence is sufficient to integrate exercise into clinical oncology practice and cancer survivorship programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Observational evidence has established a relationship between obesity and cancer risk and outcomes. Interventional studies have demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of lifestyle change after cancer diagnosis, and guidelines recommend weight management and regular physical activity in cancer survivors; however, lifestyle interventions are not a routine part of cancer care. The ASCO Research Summit on Advancing Obesity Clinical Trials in Cancer Survivors sought to identify the knowledge gaps that clinical trials addressing energy balance factors in cancer survivors have not answered and to develop a roadmap for the design and implementation of studies with the potential to generate data that could lead to the evidence-based incorporation of weight management and physical activity programs into standard oncology practice. Recommendations highlight the need for large-scale trials evaluating the impact of energy balance interventions on cancer outcomes, as well as the concurrent conduct of studies focused on dissemination and implementation of interventions in diverse populations of cancer survivors, including answering critical questions about the degree of benefit in key subgroups of survivors. Other considerations include the importance of incorporating economic metrics into energy balance intervention trials, the need to establish intermediate biomarkers, and the importance of integrating traditional and nontraditional funding sources. Establishing lifestyle change after cancer diagnosis as a routine part of cancer care will require a multipronged effort to overcome barriers related to study development, funding, and stakeholder engagement. Given the prevalence of obesity and inactivity in cancer survivors in the United States and elsewhere, energy balance interventions hold the potential to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in millions of patients, and it is essential that we move forward in determining their role in cancer care with the same care and precision used to test pharmacologic and other interventions.

Introduction: The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of exercise among cancer survivors has increased in recent years; however, participants dropping out of the trials are rarely described. The objective of the present study was to assess which combinations of participant and exercise program characteristics were associated with dropout from the exercise arms of RCTs among cancer survivors. Methods: This study used data collected in the Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS) study, an international database of RCTs investigating the effects of exercise among cancer survivors. Thirty‐four exercise trials, with a total of 2467 patients without metastatic disease randomized to an exercise arm were included. Harmonized studies included a pre and a posttest, and participants were classified as dropouts when missing all assessments at the post‐intervention test. Subgroups were identified with a conditional inference tree. Results: Overall, 9.6% of the participants dropped out. Five subgroups were identified in the conditional inference tree based on four significant associations with dropout. Most dropout was observed for participants with BMI >28.4 kg/m2, performing supervised resistance or unsupervised mixed exercise (19.8% dropout) or had low‐medium education and performed aerobic or supervised mixed exercise (13.5%). The lowest dropout was found for participants with BMI >28.4 kg/m2 and high education performing aerobic or supervised mixed exercise (5.1%), and participants with BMI ≤28.4 kg/m2 exercising during (5.2%) or post (9.5%) treatment. Conclusions: There are several systematic differences between cancer survivors completing and dropping out from exercise trials, possibly affecting the external validity of exercise effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]