Search

Abstract Background This project aimed to design and evaluate the potential to integrate an exercise oncology service into clinical care in a local healthcare system. The goal was to inform the design of an implementation strategy to promote its sustainable use in standard care. Methods This two-phase, exploratory study used a mixed-methods approach. First, qualitative measures were used to understand the context for exercise integration into oncology care by clinicians and administrators in the healthcare system. Next, the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework guided a comprehensive evaluation of the exercise service. Reach and Adoption were measured via number of patients enrolled in the program relative to those treated. Adoption was measured via referrals from stakeholders. Implementation was described using the program structure and delivery. Maintenance was described using hospital funding decisions. Effectiveness was assessed using the Bellarmine Norton Assessment Tool (BNAT) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Fatigue Scale. Results Phase 1 context analysis suggested critical elements to guide program delivery, including limiting participants to post-primary treatment (surgery, chemotherapy and radiation) and streamlining referral process. The Phase 2 evaluation demonstrated suboptimal program reach (2%); significant program effectiveness (improved physical function (BNAT; p = 0.05 ) and decreased fatigue (p

Abstract Background Structured exercise has an important role in mitigating the extensive side effects caused by ongoing prostate cancer treatments, specifically androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT). Little is known about men’s experiences of, and preferences for, structured exercise programmes during active cancer treatment. This study aimed to inform the acceptability of a 6-month supervised intervention that emphasised increasing and varied intensities of aerobic and resistance exercise, by exploring the experiences of men who participated. Methods Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with an interviewer independent of the exercise study and data was analysed using a descriptive qualitative design. Results Twelve prostate cancer patients were interviewed including participants who completed (n = 9) and withdrew from (n = 3) the intervention. Four main themes captured how men experienced the intervention: (1) Navigating the Unknown: Building confidence amidst vulnerability (subtheme- pushing the limits), (2) Building Trust: The credibility and approach of the exercise instructor (subtheme- appropriateness of supervised vs. independent exercise), (3) Flexibility in Delivery, (4) Finding Purpose: Exercise as a means of escapism and regaining control during treatment. Conclusion While an initial lack of self-confidence can be a barrier to exercise participation, exercise programmes have the potential to provide psychosocial benefits, rebuild confidence and empower men throughout their cancer treatment and into recovery. Structured exercise is acceptable during treatment including RT and can offer a form of escapism and sense of control for men navigating their cancer journey. Trust building, flexible delivery and credibility alongside a challenging exercise prescription are important facilitators of acceptability for men. Strategies to embed exercise from the point of diagnosis through ADT and RT should reflect men’s experiences of exercise during treatment. Trial registration The trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as of the 14th of December 2021 (NCT05156424).

Introduction: Cancer rates increase with age, and older cancer survivors have unique medical care needs, making assessment of health status and identification of appropriate supportive resources key to delivery of optimal cancer care. Comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) help determine an older person’s functional capabilities as cancer care providers plan treatment and follow-up care. Despite its proven utility, research on implementation of CGA is lacking.Methods: Guided by a qualitative description approach and through interviews with primary care providers and oncologists, our goal was to better understand barriers and facilitators of CGA use and identify training and support needs for implementation. Participants were identified through Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network partner listservs and a national cancer and aging organization. Potential interviewees, contacted via email, were provided with a description of the study purpose. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. The interview guide explored providers’ knowledge and use of CGAs. For codebook development, three representative transcripts were independently reviewed and coded by four team members. The interpretive process involved reflecting, transcribing, coding, and searching for and identifying themes.Results: Providers shared that, while it would be ideal to administer CGAs with all new patients, they were not always able to do this. Instead, they used brief screening tools or portions of CGAs, or both. There was variability in how CGA domains were assessed; however, all considered CGAs useful and they communicated with patients about their benefits. Identified facilitators of implementation included having clinic champions, an interdisciplinary care team to assist with implementation and referrals for intervention, and institutional resources and buy-in. Barriers noted included limited staff capacity and competing demands on time, provider inexperience, and misaligned institutional priorities.Discussion: Findings can guide solutions for improving the broader and more systematic use of CGAs in the care of older cancer patients. Uptake of processes like CGA to better identify those at risk of poor outcomes and intervening early to modify treatments are critical to maximize the health of the growing population of older cancer survivors living through and beyond their disease.

Resistance exercise (RE) has been demonstrated to result in a myriad of benefits for individuals treated for cancer, including improvements in muscle mass, strength, physical function, and quality of life. Though this has resulted in the development of recommendations for RE in cancer management from various international governing bodies, there is also increasing recognition of the need to improve the design of RE interventions in oncology. The design and execution of RE trials are notoriously complex, attempting to account for numerous cancer/treatment related symptoms/side effects. Further, the design of exercise trials in oncology also present numerous logistical challenges, particularly those that are scaled for effectiveness, where multi-site trials with numerous exercise facilities are almost a necessity. As such, this review paper highlights these considerations, and takes evidence from relevant areas (RE trials/recommendations in oncology, older adults, and other clinical populations), and provide a practical framework for consideration in the design and delivery of RE trials. Ultimately, the purpose of this framework is to provide suggestions for researchers on how to design/conduct RE trials for individuals with cancer, rather than synthesizing evidence for guidelines/recommendations on the optimal RE dose/program.

Abstract Background Exercise intervention research has shown promising results in preventing and reversing the side effects caused by prostate cancer and its’ treatment. However, there are still unanswered questions and the need for additional research. As the field of exercise oncology in the context of prostate cancer presents unique challenges and complexities, seeking the advice of experienced exercise oncology researchers before initiating a similar trial could help to design more effective and efficient studies and help avoid pitfalls. Methods A qualitative descriptive study design and a nonprobability, purposive sampling method was employed. An interview guide was developed and included topics such as recruitment, retention, programme goals, research design, health considerations, treatment considerations, adverse events, exercise prescription and outcome tools. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted and interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Eight individuals with extensive experience working with prostate cancer patients in exercise oncology research settings were interviewed. Four main themes and seven subthemes were generated and supported by the data. Theme 1 highlighted the critical role of recruitment, with associated subthemes on recruitment barriers and recruitment methods. Theme 2 explored the positives and negatives of home-based programmes. Theme 3 focused on specific health characteristics, exercise prescription and outcome measure factors that must be considered when working with prostate cancer cohorts. Finally, theme 4 centered around the emotional dimensions present in exercise oncology trials, relating to both researchers and study participants. Conclusion Exercise oncology remains a challenging area in which to conduct research. Learning from experienced personnel in the field offers valuable information and guidance that could impact the success of future trials.

Background Despite exercise being regularly recommended for individuals with cancer, notable and consistent gaps remain in the design, utilization and uptake of cancer exercise services embedded into healthcare. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a longstanding, cancer center-embedded, cancer exercise program (the Moving On Program) within the Prisma Health Cancer Institute, on body composition, fatigue, and physical function in adult survivors of cancer. Materials and Methods Moving On, is a 12-week, thrice weekly, aerobic and resistance exercise program designed for adults who complete their primary treatment for any cancer diagnosis at Prisma Health. In a retrospective analysis of data collected between 2014 and 2020, we assessed changes in body composition, fatigue and physical function (6-minute walk test (6MWT)) at baseline and follow-up using paired t-tests. A Bonferroni adjustment (α=0.05/10=0.005) was used to reduce the chance of committing a type I error. Results Participants who completed both baseline and follow up assessments were included in our analyses (n=369, mean=60.3 10.6 years, male=111, female=258). The most prevalent cancer sites were breast cancer (32%) and blood/lymphoma (9.7%). Individuals exhibited signi cant improvements in body composition variables (arm lean mass (p=0.003, ES=0.158), total % fat (p

Summary: Background: Exercise is recommended for people with cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the harms of exercise in patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included published and unpublished controlled trials comparing exercise interventions versus controls in adults with cancer scheduled to undergo systemic treatment. The primary outcomes were adverse events, health-care utilization, and treatment tolerability and response. Eleven electronic databases and trial registries were systematically searched with no date or language restrictions. The latest searches were performed on April 26, 2022. The risk of bias was judged using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes was assessed using GRADE. Data were statistically synthesised using pre-specified random-effect meta-analyses. The protocol for this study was registered in the PROESPERO database (ID: CRD42021266882). Findings: 129 controlled trials including 12,044 participants were eligible. Primary meta-analyses revealed evidence of a higher risk of some harms, including serious adverse events (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.87 [1.47–2.39], I2 = 0%, n = 1722, k = 10), thromboses (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.67 [1.11–2.51], I2 = 0%, n = 934, k = 6), and fractures (risk ratio [95% CI]: 3.07 [3.03–3.11], I2 = 0%, n = 203, k = 2) in intervention versus control. In contrast, we found evidence of a lower risk of fever (risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.69 [0.55–0.87], I2 = 0% n = 1109, k = 7) and a higher relative dose intensity of systemic treatment (difference in means [95% CI]: 1.50% [0.14–2.85], I2 = 0% n = 1110, k = 13) in intervention versus control. For all outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence due to imprecision, risk of bias, and indirectness, resulting in very low certainty of evidence. Interpretation: The harms of exercise in patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment are uncertain, and there is currently insufficient data on harms to make evidence-based risk-benefits assessments of the application of structured exercise in this population. Funding: There was no funding for this study.