PurposeThe presence of bone metastases has excluded participation of cancer patients in exercise interventions and is a relative contraindication to supervised exercise in the community setting because of concerns of fragility fracture. We examined the efficacy and safety of a modular multimodal exercise program in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases.MethodsBetween 2012 and 2015, 57 prostate cancer patients (70.0 ± 8.4 yr; body mass index, 28.7 ± 4.0 kg·m−2) with bone metastases (pelvis, 75.4%; femur, 40.4%; rib/thoracic spine, 66.7%; lumbar spine, 43.9%; humerus, 24.6%; other sites, 70.2%) were randomized to multimodal supervised aerobic, resistance, and flexibility exercises undertaken thrice weekly (EX; n = 28) or usual care (CON; n = 29) for 3 months. Physical function subscale of the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 was the primary end point as an indicator of patient-rated physical functioning. Secondary end points included objective measures of physical function, lower body muscle strength, body composition, and fatigue. Safety was assessed by recording the incidence and severity of any adverse events, skeletal complications, and bone pain throughout the intervention.ResultsThere was a significant difference between groups for self-reported physical functioning (3.2 points; 95% confidence interval, 0.4–6.0 points; P = 0.028) and lower body muscle strength (6.6 kg; 95% confidence interval, 0.6–12.7; P = 0.033) at 3 months favoring EX. However, there was no difference between groups for lean mass (P = 0.584), fat mass (P = 0.598), or fatigue (P = 0.964). There were no exercise-related adverse events or skeletal fractures and no differences in bone pain between EX and CON (P = 0.507).ConclusionsMultimodal modular exercise in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases led to self-reported improvements in physical function and objectively measured lower body muscle strength with no skeletal complications or increased bone pain.Trial Registration: ACTRN12611001158954.

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.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews peripheral muscles, and we presented the results narratively. Limited data were available for level of physical activity, adverse events, performance status, body weight and overall survival. Main results We identified six RCTs, involving 221 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 59 to 70 years; the sample size ranged from 20 to 111 participants. Overall, we found that the risk of bias in the included studies was high, and the quality of evidence for all outcomes was low. Study characteristics We looked for all research studies (randomised controlled trials) published up to July 2018. We found six studies which included 221 participants, with an average age ranging from 59 to 70 years. These studies included di erent numbers of people, ranging from 20 to 111. Key results Our results showed that, compared to those who did not exercise, people with lung cancer who did exercise were fitter and had a better quality of life. We did not find any di erence in muscle strength, shortness of breath, tiredness, feelings of anxiety and depression, or lung function. No serious harms were reported in people with lung cancer who exercised, but only three studies talked about harms. Quality of the evidence The results of this review are not clear, mainly because of the small number of studies found, the small numbers of people in those studies, and because the studies did not seem to have been carried out to a high standard.

Introduction: Women with breast cancer are often prescribed aromatase inhibitors, which can cause rapid loss of bone mass leading to significant potential for morbidity. Vibration training has been shown to be helpful in reducing bone turnover in postmenopausal women without cancer. Aim: To examine the effect of vibration stimulus on markers of bone turnover in breast cancer patients receiving aromatase inhibitors. Methods: Thirty-one breast cancer survivors undergoing treatment with aromatase inhibitors were randomized to vibration stimulus (n = 14) or usual care control (n = 17). Low-frequency and low-magnitude vibration stimulus (27-32 Hz, 0.3g) was delivered in supervised sessions via standing on a vibration platform for 20 minutes, 3 times per week for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was blood markers of bone resorption (serum N-telopeptide X/creatine) and formation (serum type 1 procollagen N-terminal propeptide; P1NP). Other study outcomes body composition as well as measures of physical functioning. Outcomes were compared between groups using analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline values as well as time on aromatase inhibitors. Outcomes: On average, participants were 61.5 years old and overweight (ie, body mass index = 28.5 kg/m2). Following vibration training, there was no significant difference between groups for bone resorption (adjusted group difference 0.5, P = .929) or formation (adjusted group difference 5.3, P = .286). There were also no changes in any measure of physical functioning body composition. Conclusions: Short-term low-magnitude vibration stimulus does not appear to be useful for reducing markers of bone turnover secondary to aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer patients; nor is it useful in improving physical function or symptoms. However, further investigations with larger samples and higher doses of vibration are warranted. Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12611001094965).

This narrative review highlights inconsistency in the methods used to collect, process, and report accelerometry data across cancer survivor studies. Accelerometry has potential to add detailed knowledge of the levels and patterns of physical activities and sedentary behaviors across the cancer spectrum. Recommendations are made to improve data processing and reporting methods to maximize the scientific validity of future accelerometer research in this field.