Search

Supplemental digital content is available in the text. Purpose: While general guidelines (such as CONSORT or Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template) exist to enhance the reporting of exercise interventions in the field of exercise science, there is inadequate detail facilitating the standardized reporting of resistance training adherence in the oncology setting. The purpose of this study was to apply a novel method to report resistance training dose, adherence, and tolerance in patients with cancer. Methods: A total of 47 prostate cancer patients (70.1 ± 8.9 yr, body mass index, 28.6 ± 4.0) with bone metastatic disease completed an exercise program for 12 wk. We assessed traditional metrics of adherence (attendance and loss to follow-up), in addition to novel proposed metrics (exercise-relative dose intensity, dose modification, and exercise interruption). Total training volume in kilograms (repetitions × sets × training load (weight)) was calculated for each patient. Results: Attendance assessed from traditional metrics was 79.5% ± 17.0% and four patients (9%) were lost to follow-up. The prescribed and actual cumulative total dose of resistance training was 139,886 ± 69,150 kg and 112,835 ± 83,499 kg, respectively, with a mean exercise-relative dose intensity of 77.4% ± 16.6% (range: 19.4% –99.4%). Resistance training was missed (1–2 consecutive sessions) or interrupted (missed ≥3 consecutive sessions) in 41 (87%) and 24 (51%) participants, respectively. Training dose was modified (reduction in sets, repetitions, or weight) in 40 (85%) of patients. Importantly, using attendance as a traditional metric of adherence, these sessions would have all counted as adherence to the protocol. Conclusions: Traditional reporting metrics of resistance training in exercise oncology may overestimate exercise adherence. Our proposed metrics to capture resistance training dose, adherence, and tolerance may have important applications for future studies and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exercise has been shown to be safe and effective for patients with prostate cancer (PrCa). The monitoring of resistance exercise (RE) intensity is an emerging area of interest in RE prescription. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is one of the most commonly used methods but has not yet been validated in this population. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between RPE and RE intensity in PrCa. Data for this study were abstracted from baseline upper- and lower-body strength assessments from 2 previous trials (Individual Diet and Exercise Adherence Pilot Trial; Livestrong, Austin, TX, USA) in our laboratory investigating functional outcomes in patients with PrCa undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). A total of 75 participants from both trials were included in this study. Ratings of perceived exertion corresponding to 50, 70, and 90% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) were extracted from the results of participants' upper- and lower-body 1RM strength tests. The changes in RPE across increasing intensities were assessed using separate univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). For each ANOVA, RPE was used as the dependent variable and intensity (50, 70, and 90%) used as the fixed factor. A univariate ANOVA revealed a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) among the RPE values for each intensity for both upper- and lower-body lifts. The results of our analyses suggest that RPE values rise linearly in response to increases in exercise intensity. Our study supports the concept that RPE may be a practical training tool to accurately estimate RE intensity in PrCa survivors undergoing ADT. Practitioners may consider using RPE to monitor and adjust RE intensity in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the foundation of treatment for prostate cancer, the physiological impacts of ADT result in functional decline and enhanced risk of chronic disease and metabolic syndrome.Purpose: The Individualized Diet and Exercise Adherence Pilot Trial (IDEA-P) is a single-blind, randomized, pilot trial comparing the effects of a group-mediated, cognitive-behavioral (GMCB) exercise and dietary intervention (EX+D) with those of a standard-of-care (SC) control during the treatment of prostate cancer patients undergoing ADT.Methods: A total of 32 prostate cancer patients (M age = 66.28, SD = 7.79) undergoing ADT were randomly assigned to the 12-week EX+D intervention (n = 16) or control (n = 16). The primary outcome in IDEA-P was change in mobility performance with secondary outcomes including body composition and muscular strength. Blinded assessment of outcomes were obtained at baseline and at 2- and 3-month follow-ups.Results: Favorable adherence and retention rates were observed, and no serious intervention-related adverse events were documented. Intent-to-treat ANCOVA controlling for baseline value and ADT duration demonstrated that EX+D resulted in significantly greater improvements in mobility performance (p < .02), muscular strength (p < .01), body fat percentage (p < .05), and fat mass (p < .03) at 3-month follow-up, relative to control.Conclusion: Findings from the IDEA-P trial suggest that a GMCB-based EX+D intervention resulted in significant, clinically meaningful improvements in mobility performance, muscular strength, and body composition, relative to controls. Collectively, these results suggest that the EX+D was a safe and well-tolerated intervention for prostate cancer patients on ADT. The utility of implementing this approach in the treatment of prostate cancer patients on ADT should be evaluated in future large-scale efficacy trials.Clinical Trial information: NCT02050906. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]