Purpose To understand how frequently exercise is discussed and/or prescribed as a supportive care measure and the barriers and facilitators to exercise uptake for men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) at a regional cancer centre. Methods An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted at a regional cancer centre in three stages: (1) Retrospective chart review of men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT to identify the frequency of discussion and/or prescription of supportive care measures; (2) prospective patient survey exploring barriers and facilitators to exercise; and (3) prospective clinician survey exploring barriers, facilitators and awareness of exercise guidelines in men with prostate cancer. Results Files of 100 men receiving ADT (mean age 73 years; mean ADT duration =12 months) in the medical oncology ( n = 50) and radiation oncology ( n = 50) clinics were reviewed. Exercise was discussed with 16% of patients and prescribed directly to 5%. Patient survey ( n = 49). 44.2% of patients reported participating in exercise at a high level. Common barriers to exercise participation included fatigue (51.0%), cancer/treatment-related weakness (46.9%) and joint stiffness (44.9%). 36.7% of patients reported interest in a supervised exercise program. Clinician survey ( n = 22). 36.4% identified one or more exercise guidelines, and 40.9% correctly identified national exercise guidelines. Clinicians reported low knowledge of referral pathways to a supervised exercise program (27.3%). Clinicians believe physiotherapists (95.5%) are most suited to exercise prescription and 72.7% stated that exercise counselling should be part of supportive care. Limited time (63.6%) and patient safety (59.1%) were the two most common barriers to discussing exercise with patients. Clinicians reported that only 21.9% of their patients asked about exercise. The most endorsed facilitators to increase exercise uptake were patient handouts (90.9%) and integration of exercise specialists into the clinical team (86.4%). Conclusion Despite a third of patient respondents indicating an interest in a supervised exercise program, only 16% of patients with prostate cancer undergoing ADT at a regional cancer centre engaged in a discussion about exercise with their treating clinicians. Physical limitations and fatigue were the greatest barriers for patients. Clinicians indicated a need for more clinician education and better integration of exercise specialists into clinical care. A tailored, integrated approach is needed to improve the uptake of exercise in men with prostate cancer. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06512-2.

Background Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy in Australia. Up to a third of patients who have undergone surgery with curative intent for colorectal cancer will have a recurrence of disease leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Regional Australians have disproportionately worse outcomes. Aim To identify factors associated with recurrence in colorectal cancer patients treated at a regional Australian hospital. Methods This study is a retrospective cohort analysis. Consecutive patients who have undergone curative resection at a regional public and private hospital by three surgeons from a single surgical practice for either rectal cancer or colon cancer were included. Prognostic indicators of recurrence were examined via both univariate and multivariate time‐to‐event analyses. Results Three hundred nine patients were included with 43 recurrences. Thirty presented with distant metastases, seven presented with locoregional recurrence and six presented with locoregional as well as distant recurrence. In univariable analysis, higher rates of recurrence were associated with tumour type, higher AJCC summary stage, higher preoperative levels of CA19‐9, perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, <12 nodes examined, positive lymph nodes and emergency surgery status. On multivariable analysis recurrence remained associated with tumours with a mucinous and/or signet cell component, positive nodes and <12 lymph nodes examined. Conclusion A combination of patient and treatment factors are relevant in determining the risk of recurrence for stage I–III colorectal cancer. This study emphasises the importance of histology in determining risk, particularly the number of nodes examined. CEA 19–9 may also be a useful pre‐operative predictor of recurrence.