A multi-centre investigation of delivering national guidelines on exercise training for men with advanced prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy in the UK NHS

Supported exercise TrAining for Men wIth prostate caNcer on Androgen deprivation therapy (STAMINA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention compared with optimised usual care, including internal pilot and parallel process evaluation

BACKGROUND

UK national clinical guidance recommends that men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy are offered twice weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise to address iatrogenic harm caused by treatment. Very few NHS trusts have established adequate provision of such services. Furthermore, interventions fail to demonstrate sustained behaviour change. The STAMINA lifestyle intervention offers a system-level change to clinical care delivery addressing barriers to long-term behaviour change and implementation of new prostate cancer care pathways. This trial aims to establish whether STAMINA is clinically and cost-effective in improving cancer-specific quality of life and/or reducing fatigue compared to optimised usual care. The process evaluation aims to inform the interpretation of results and, if the intervention is shown to benefit patients, to inform the implementation of the intervention into the NHS.

METHODS

Men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 697) will be identified from a minimum of 12 UK NHS trusts to participate in a multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial. Consenting men will have a 'safety to exercise' check and be randomly allocated (5:4) to the STAMINA lifestyle intervention (n = 384) or optimised usual care (n = 313). Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-month post-randomisation. The two primary outcomes are cancer-specific quality of life and fatigue. The parallel process evaluation will follow a mixed-methods approach to explore recruitment and aspects of the intervention including, reach, fidelity, acceptability, and implementation. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention versus optimised usual care and a discrete choice experiment will explore patient preferences.

DISCUSSION

The STAMINA lifestyle intervention has the potential to improve quality of life and reduce fatigue in men on androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Embedding supervised exercise into prostate cancer care may also support long-term positive behaviour change and reduce adverse events caused by treatment. Findings will inform future clinical care and could provide a blueprint for the integration of supervised exercise and behavioural support into other cancer and/or clinical services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 46385239, registered on 30/07/2020. Cancer Research UK 17002, retrospectively registered on 24/08/2022.

Efficacy of multidisciplinary interventions in preventing metabolic syndrome and improving body composition in prostate cancer patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Exercise is known to reduce adverse side effects of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) on quality of life, bone health and fatigue for prostate cancer (PCa) patients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of multidisciplinary interventions on body composition and metabolic syndrome (MetS) in ADT-treated PCa patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted based on searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Scopus databases from inception to March 2023. Participants included ADT-treated PCa patients who received multidisciplinary interventions including exercise, diet, nutrition, pharmacotherapy, bariatric surgery, or psychological/behavioural therapy. Primary outcomes were changes in body composition and MetS, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a secondary outcome. After meta-analysis, results were reported in mean difference, 95% confidence interval and p-value, with forest plots. Additionally, we conducted subgroup analyses to compare the effect of different interventions.

RESULTS

Thirty-three articles met the eligibility criteria out of 1443 articles and 28 studies were included in meta-analysis. Of 33 studies, 17 included exercise-only interventions and 10 included exercise + diet/nutrition interventions, but no studies included diet/nutrition-only interventions. All studies employed multidisciplinary approaches in developing or delivering the interventions. Most studies (85%) had low-moderate risk of bias, thus providing good evidence to this review. Overall, interventions had a positive effect on body composition measures; lean mass (LM):0.82 kg (95% CI:0.47,1.17;p < 0.00001), body fat mass (BFM):-0.68 kg (95% CI:-1.12,-0.24;p = 0.002), fat-free mass:0.75 kg (95% CI:0.14,1.37;p = 0.02) and body fat percentage (BFP):-0.99% (95% CI:-1.29,-0.68;p < 0.00001), as well as on MetS; waist circumference:-1.95 cm (95% CI:-3.10,-0.79;p = 0.0009), systolic blood pressure:-3.43 mmHg (95% CI:-6.36,-0.50;p = 0.02) and diastolic blood pressure:-2.48 mmHg (95% CI:-4.19,-0.76;p = 0.005). Subgroup-analyses showed that a combined approach including exercise + diet/nutrition was most effective in improving BFP, WC, SBP and DBP whereas exercise was more effective in improving LM and BFM.

CONCLUSIONS

In ADT-treated PCa patients, multidisciplinary interventions, especially those combining exercise and diet/nutrition, can improve body composition and metabolic health.

Study protocol for two pilot randomised controlled trials aimed at increasing physical activity using electrically assisted bicycles to enhance prostate or breast cancer survival

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 1.4 and 2.3 million new cases of prostate cancer and breast cancer respectively were diagnosed globally. In the UK, prostate cancer is the most common male cancer, while breast cancer is the most common female cancer. Engaging in physical activity (PA) is a key component of treatment. However, rates of PA are low in these clinical populations. This paper describes the protocol of CRANK-P and CRANK-B, two pilot randomised controlled trials, involving an e-cycling intervention aimed at increasing PA in individuals with prostate cancer or breast cancer respectively.

METHODS

These two trials are single-centre, stratified, parallel-group, two-arm randomised waitlist-controlled pilot trials in which forty individuals with prostate cancer (CRANK-P) and forty individuals with breast cancer (CRANK-B) will be randomly assigned, in a 1:1 allocation ratio, to an e-cycling intervention or waitlist control. The intervention consists of e-bike training with a certified cycle instructor, followed by the provision of an e-bike for 12 weeks. Following the intervention period, participants in the e-bike condition will be directed to community-based initiatives through which they can access an e-bike. Data will be collected at baseline (T0), immediately post intervention (T1) and at 3-month follow-up (T2). In addition, in the intervention group, data will be collected during the intervention and follow-up periods. Quantitative and qualitative methods will be used. The primary objectives are to determine effective recruitment strategies, establish recruitment and consent rates, adherence and retention in the study, and determine the feasibility and acceptability of the study procedures and intervention. The potential impact of the intervention on clinical, physiological and behavioural outcomes will be assessed to examine intervention promise. Data analyses will be descriptive.

DISCUSSION

The findings from these trials will provide information on trial feasibility and highlight the potential of e-cycling as a strategy to positively impact the health and behaviour of individuals with prostate cancer and breast cancer. If appropriate, this information can be used to design and deliver a fully powered definitive trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRANK-B: [ISRCTN39112034]. CRANK-P [ISRCTN42852156]. Registered [08/04/2022] https://www.isrctn.com .

Increased use of 6-monthly gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy for prostate cancer: a capacity and cost-minimization analysis for England

AIMS

The National Health Service (NHS) in England is facing extreme capacity pressures. The backbone of prostate cancer care is gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) therapy, commonly administered every month or 3 months. We estimated the cost and capacity savings associated with increased use of 6-monthly GnRHa therapy in England.

METHODS

A capacity and cost-minimization model including a societal perspective was developed (in Microsoft Excel) to generate cost and capacity estimates for GnRHa drug acquisition and administration for "Current practice" and for a "Base case" scenario. In the "Base case" scenario, 50% of patients who were receiving monthly or 3-monthly GnRHa therapy in "Current practice" switched/transitioned to a 6-monthly formulation. Cost/capacity estimates were calculated per patient per administration and scaled to annualized population levels. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of individual model assumptions: 1 tested the impact of drug acquisition costs; 2 and 3 tested the level of nurse grade and the time associated with treatment administration, respectively; 4 tested the rate of switch/transition to 6-monthly GnRHa therapy; and 5 tested differing diagnostic patterns following the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

RESULTS

Compared with "Current practice", the "Base case" scenario was associated with annual cost savings of £5,164,296 (148,478 fewer appointments/year and 37,119 fewer appointment-hours/year). The largest savings were in drug administration (£2.2 million) and acquisition (£1.6 million) costs. Annual societal cost savings totaled £1.4 million, mainly in reduced appointment-related travel, productivity and leisure time opportunity losses. Increased use of 6-monthly versus monthly or 3-monthly GnRHa therapy consistently achieved system-wide annual cost and capacity savings across all sensitivity analysis scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Our holistic model suggests that switching/transitioning men from monthly or 3- monthly GnRHa therapy to a 6-monthly formulation can reduce NHS cost and capacity pressures and the societal and environmental costs associated with prostate cancer care.

Nationwide Industry-Led Community Exercise Program for Men With Locally Advanced, Relapsed, or Metastatic Prostate Cancer on Androgen-Deprivation Therapy

PURPOSE

Androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with considerable side effects and secondary comorbidities such as overweight/obesity and cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of an industry-led, treatment-integrated, community-based exercise program on outcomes of body weight, cardiovascular health, and physical function.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PCa patients with locally advanced, relapsed, or metastatic disease receiving leuprorelin acetate were enrolled across multiple sites in Australia and assigned supervised group exercise undertaken weekly or biweekly (ie, 16 exercise sessions in total) for 10-18 weeks, consisting of aerobic and resistance training performed at moderate-to-vigorous intensity.

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2020, 760 participants completed the baseline and follow-up assessment. Participants were age 48-94 years, and most were either overweight (42.1%) or obese (38.1%). Program compliance was high, with 90% of participants completing all 16 exercise sessions. There was a small but significant reduction in waist circumference (-0.9 cm; 95% CI [-1.2 to -0.5]; P < .001) and no change in weight or body mass index. Systolic (-3.7 mmHg; 95% CI [-4.8 to -2.6]; P < .001) and diastolic (-1.7 mmHg; 95% CI [-2.3 to -1.0]; P < .001) blood pressure were significantly lower after the program. Furthermore, significant improvements were seen in cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength (P < .001). For most of the investigated outcomes, participants with poorer initial measures had the greatest benefit from participating in the program.

CONCLUSION

The community exercise program was feasible and effective in preventing weight gain, reducing blood pressure, and improving physical function in patients with PCa on androgen-deprivation therapy.

Exercise as a supportive care strategy in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy at a regional cancer centre: a survey of patients and clinicians

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.

Implementation barriers to integrating exercise as medicine in oncology: an ecological scoping review

Purpose

While calls have been made for exercise to become standard practice in oncology, barriers to implementation in real-world settings are not well described. This systematic scoping review aimed to comprehensively describe barriers impeding integration of exercise into routine oncology care within healthcare systems.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted across six electronic databases (since 2010) to identify barriers to implementing exercise into real-world settings. An ecological framework was used to classify barriers according to their respective level within the healthcare system.

Results

A total of 1,376 results were retrieved; 50 articles describing implementation barriers in real-world exercise oncology settings were reviewed. Two hundred and forty-three barriers were identified across all levels of the healthcare system. Nearly 40% of barriers existed at the organizational level (n = 93). Lack of structures to support exercise integration and absence of staff/resources to facilitate its delivery were the most common issues reported. Despite the frequency of barriers at the organizational level, organizational stakeholders were largely absent from the research.

Conclusions

Implementing exercise into routine cancer care is hindered by a web of interrelated barriers across all levels of the healthcare system. Organizational barriers are central to most issues. Future work should take an interdisciplinary approach to explore best practices for overcoming implementation barriers, with organizations as a central focus.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

This blueprint of implementation barriers highlights critical issues that need to be overcome to ensure people with cancer have access to the therapeutic benefits of exercise during treatment and beyond.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01080-0.

Embedding supervised exercise training for men on androgen deprivation therapy into standard prostate cancer care: a feasibility and acceptability study (the STAMINA trial)

Lifestyle interventions involving exercise training offset the adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Yet provision of integrated exercise pathways in cancer care is sparse. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of an embedded supervised exercise training intervention into standard prostate cancer care in a single-arm, multicentre prospective cohort study. Feasibility included recruitment, retention, adherence, fidelity and safety. Acceptability of behaviourally informed healthcare and exercise professional training was assessed qualitatively. Despite the imposition of lockdown for the COVID-19 pandemic, referral rates into and adherence to, the intervention was high. Of the 45 men eligible for participation, 79% (n = 36) received the intervention and 47% (n = 21) completed the intervention before a government mandated national lockdown was enforced in the United Kingdom. Patients completed a mean of 27 min of aerobic exercise per session (SD = 3.48), at 77% heart rate maximum (92% of target dose), and 3 sets of 10 reps of 3 resistance exercises twice weekly for 12 weeks, without serious adverse event. The intervention was delivered by 26 healthcare professionals and 16 exercise trainers with moderate to high fidelity, and the intervention was deemed highly acceptable to patients. The impact of societal changes due to the pandemic on the delivery of this face-to-face intervention remain uncertain but positive impacts of embedding exercise provision into prostate cancer care warrant long-term investigation.

Barriers and facilitators related to undertaking physical activities among men with prostate cancer: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PC) and its treatments lead to significant acute, chronic, or latent adverse effects that result in declines in patients' physical functions, quality of life and reduced sense of masculinities. Robust evidence shows that physical activity (PA) can improve many health outcomes in men with PC; however, less is known about the facilitators, preferences, and barriers to PA engagement in this population. The purpose of this scoping review is to document the nature and extent of literature related to these aspects of PA participation among men with PC.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of PA among men with PC. Databases searched included Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine Source, and SportDiscus from inception to June 30, 2020. Multiple reviewers were used in all screening and data abstractions.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2788 individual citations after duplicates were removed. Following title and abstract screening, 129 underwent full-text review, and 46 articles were included. Quantitative data related to our research question showed that structured group exercise was the most commonly reported facilitator/preference among men with PC, whereas treatment-related effects and lack of time are the most common barriers. In terms of qualitative data, the most prominent theme noted related to masculinities and gender-specific needs within the context of having PC.

CONCLUSION

Men with PC have unique facilitators and barriers concerning PA. More work is needed from the research and clinical practice perspectives to enable this population to engage and remain in regular PA.

The development of a theory and evidence-based intervention to aid implementation of exercise into the prostate cancer care pathway with a focus on healthcare professional behaviour, the STAMINA trial

Background

Twice-weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise for 12 weeks reduces fatigue and improves quality of life in men on Androgen Deprivation Therapy for prostate cancer. Despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) proposing this as standard of care, it does not routinely take place in practice. Healthcare professionals are in a prime position to deliver and integrate these recommendations. A change in the behaviour of clinical teams is therefore required.

In this paper, we describe the development of a training package for healthcare professionals using theory and evidence to promote delivery of such recommendations as standard care.

Methods

The intervention development process was guided by the Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Wheel. Target behaviours were identified from the literature and thirty-five prostate cancer care healthcare professionals (including oncologists, consultant urologists, clinical nurse specialists, physiotherapists, general practitioners and commissioners) were interviewed to understand influences on these behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used to identify theoretical constructs for change. Behaviour change techniques were selected based on theory and evidence and were translated into intervention content. The intervention was refined with the input of stakeholders including healthcare professionals, patients, and exercise professionals in the form of rehearsal deliveries, focus groups and a workshop.

Results

Seven modifiable healthcare professional target behaviours were identified to support the delivery of the NICE recommendations including identifying eligible patients suitable for exercise, recommending exercise, providing information, exercise referral, providing support and interpret and feedback on progress. Ten domains from the Theoretical Domain’s Framework were identified as necessary for change, including improving knowledge and skills, addressing beliefs about consequences, and targeting social influences. These were targeted through twenty-two behaviour change techniques delivered in a half-day, interactive training package. Based on initial feedback from stakeholders, the intervention was refined in preparation for evaluation.

Conclusions

We designed an intervention based on theory, evidence, and stakeholder feedback to promote and support the delivery of NICE recommendations. Future work will aim to test this training package in a multi-centre randomised trial. If proven effective, the development and training package will provide a template for replication in other clinical populations, where exercise has proven efficacy but is insufficiently implemented.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06266-x.

Towards implementing exercise into the prostate cancer care pathway: development of a theory and evidence-based intervention to train community-based exercise professionals to support change in patient exercise behaviour (The STAMINA trial)

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend that men on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer should receive supervised exercise to manage the side-effects of treatment. However, these recommendations are rarely implemented into practice. Community-based exercise professionals (CBEPs) represent an important target group to deliver the recommendations nationally, yet their standard training does not address the core competencies required to work with clinical populations, highlighting a need for further professional training. This paper describes the development of a training package to support CBEPs to deliver NICE recommendations.

METHODS

Development of the intervention was guided by the Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Wheel. In step one, target behaviours, together with their barriers and facilitators were identified from a literature review and focus groups with CBEPs (n = 22) and men on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 26). Focus group outputs were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify theoretical constructs for change. In step two, behaviour change techniques and their mode of delivery were selected based on psychological theories and evidence to inform intervention content. In step three, the intervention was refined following delivery and subsequent feedback from intervention recipients and stakeholders.

RESULTS

Six modifiable CBEPs target behaviours were identified to support the delivery of the NICE recommendations. Nine domains of the TDF were identified as key determinants of change, including: improving knowledge and skills and changing beliefs about consequences. To target the domains, we included 20 BCTs across 8 training modules and took a blended learning approach to accommodate different learning styles and preferences. Following test delivery to 11 CBEPs and feedback from 28 stakeholders, the training package was refined.

CONCLUSION

Established intervention development approaches provided a structured and transparent guide to intervention development. A training package for CBEPs was developed and should increase trust amongst patients and health care professionals when implementing exercise into prostate cancer care. Furthermore, if proven effective, the development and approach taken may provide a blueprint for replication in other clinical populations where exercise has proven efficacy but is insufficiently implemented.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy

BACKGROUND

Exercise for prostate cancer (PCa) survivors has been shown to be effective in addressing metabolic function and associated co-morbidities, as well as sarcopenia and significant functional impairment resulting from long-term androgen deprivation. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of exercise interventions for PCa, however, is lacking, thus the aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a supervised exercise intervention for long-term PCa survivors who previously received radiation therapy and androgen-deprivation therapy.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis from an Australian healthcare-payer perspective was conducted using patient-level data from a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of supervised exercise training (resistance and aerobic) compared to receiving printed exercise material and a recommendation to exercise in long-term PCa survivors (> 5 years post-diagnosis). Analysis was undertaken for the 6-month supervised exercise portion of the intervention, which involved 100 men aged between 62 and 85 years, 50 in each arm. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

A 6-month supervised exercise intervention for PCa survivors resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AU$64,235 (2018 AUD) at an incremental cost of AU$546 per person and a QALY gain of 0.0085. At a willingness-to-pay of AU$50,000, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective was 41%. Sensitivity analysis showed that maintenance of benefits via a 6-month home-based intervention, immediately following the supervised intervention, lowered the cost per QALY gained to AU$32,051.

DISCUSSION

This is the first cost-effectiveness analysis of exercise for PCa survivors. The intervention was effective, but unlikely to be cost-effective at the generally accepted willingness-to-pay of AU$50,000 per QALY. It is likely that evidence to support cost savings from post-intervention outcomes would reveal greater benefits and contribute to a more comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis. Future RCTs should incorporate longer follow-up durations and collection of data to support modelling to capture future health benefits. Measures of quality of life or utility more sensitive to the impact of physical activity would also improve future economic evaluations.

An integrated model of exercise support for people affected by cancer: consensus through scoping

INTRODUCTION

Exercise support for people with cancer is a national priority. The purpose of this study was to identify the success factors necessary to create a model of exercise support for people affected by cancer in a large city in the north of England.

METHOD

Two groups of participants were recruited; people affected by cancer (n = 26) and professional stakeholders (n = 14) contributing to either focus groups or semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

Results from this study suggest that the promotion of exercise is not a priority in routine cancer care. Patients identified a lack of support and difficulty attaining information as a barrier to becoming active, emphasising a gulf between the patients' needs and the health professionals' priorities. People affected by cancer and professionals agreed that exercise was beneficial to cancer patients both during and after treatment. For an exercise pathway to be successful, key factors were identified including accessibility; tailored support; social interaction; affordability; competence of exercise delivery staff.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus on the importance of exercise and critical factors required to develop a sustainable, accessible and effective service. Evidence to inform the development of an exercise pathway for people affected by cancer is provided.Implications for rehabilitationExercise should be an included component of a cancer treatment plan, discussed and initiated from diagnosis.Health professionals have a responsibility to provide clear, consistent evidence-based advice on exercise.Exercise professionals must be appropriately trained in cancer rehabilitation according to National Institute for Health and care Excellence (2014).Individual assessments of exercise needs, preferences and cancer limitations will result in a bespoke plan of recommendations and support.The option of group activities has the advantage of increased social interaction, peer support and shared experiences.Available exercise/physical activity services should be accessible and affordable but may involve a modest contribution.

The role of exercise in the management of adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a rapid review

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia, accounting for one quarter of all new cancer diagnoses for males. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard first-line therapy for metastatic PCa but is also used across much of the spectrum of disease. Unfortunately, debilitating adverse effects are a significant and largely unavoidable feature of ADT. A recent systematic review of adverse effects of ADT identified 19 sub-groups classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. The potential for multiple simultaneous adverse effects, their associated management and the impact of adverse effects on cancer outcomes and quality of life are important considerations in the treatment and supportive care of men with PCa. Exercise is increasingly being recognized as an efficacious strategy in managing these adverse effects.

METHODS

A rapid review was undertaken to examine the role of exercise in the management of the most commonly reported ADT adverse effects classified according to the CTCAE sub-groups. A systematic search was conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and Google for the years 2010 to September 2019 to identify the benefits of exercise in managing the adverse effects of ADT for PCa.

RESULTS

There is strong evidence for exercise as medicine in addressing several of the adverse effects of PCa such as loss of muscle mass and strength, fatigue and declining physical function. Moderate level evidence for PCa exists for exercise-induced improvements in depression and anxiety, bone loss, and sexual dysfunction. While evidence of the effectiveness of exercise is lacking for many adverse effects of ADT for PCa, evidence in the cancer population as a whole or other clinical populations is strong, and many clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a fundamental part of their clinical management. With the exception of gynaecomastia and breast pain, there is increasing evidence (PCa, cancer or other clinical populations) to suggest that exercise has the potential to reduce and even prevent many of the adverse effects of ADT, thus improving survivorship outcomes for men with PCa.

CONCLUSION

Exercise has the potential to reduce and even prevent many of the adverse effects of ADT, thus improving survivorship outcomes for men with PCa. The use of exercise for PCa management has the potential to translate into health and economic benefits in improved quality of life and fewer complications, resulting in savings to the health care system, enhanced productivity and reduced patient and carer burden. Exercise thus has the potential to improve quality of life for this population as well as generate significant cost savings.

Improving Physical and Mental Health in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Androgen Deprivation Therapy: Strategies to Promote and Improve Physical Activity Quality and Quantity

OBJECTIVE

Prostate cancer continues to be one of the highest-incident cancers among men. Reducing serum testosterone with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a common effective treatment. While well-demonstrated for cancer suppression, there are numerous adverse effects caused by ADT that can contribute to short- and long-term prognosis. Increased levels of physical activity (PA) during treatment may reduce these side effects. However, uptake of PA is low. The purpose of this review is to identify and evaluate the current literature on strategies to promote and increase the levels of PA in patients with prostate cancer undergoing ADT.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Scopus, and grey literature were searched using Google Scholar up until April 2020.

CONCLUSION

At present the most appropriate modes and dosages of PA for specific ADT toxicities is not known. It is established that some PA in the form of exercise, whether aerobic or resistance, is better than being sedentary for improvements in physical health, but beyond this prescription specifics have not been established. Further research is required to understand the impact of PA on the mental and physical health of men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Being physically active and avoiding sedentary behaviour is important for men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT, especially the implementation of strength training. PA in the form of exercise can assist in reducing the adverse physical side effects in the short- and long-term, with limited understanding of the effects on mental health. PA improves mental health outcomes across populations, which may also translate to men with prostate cancer, although further research is required. An important strategy to improve PA within the prostate cancer population is to provide an early referral to an exercise professional, such as an accredited exercise physiologist/clinical exercise physiologist or physical therapist/physiotherapist, and is supported by research as best practice for people affected by cancer undergoing active treatment.

Brief behavioural intervention, delivered as standard care, to support physical activity engagement in men with prostate cancer: a pilot study protocol

Introduction

Physical activity is beneficial to men with prostate cancer, but there remain barriers to fulfilling the potential of National Health Service trusts to support men with prostate cancer to be physically active. This article describes protocols for two pilot studies, each conducted in a different setting, designed to assess the potential of a behavioural intervention to affect patients’ motivation to exercise. The intervention is theory based and inspired by recent empirical observations.

Methods and analysis

The intervention consists of a 10 min talk, delivered to patients by a man with a history of prostate cancer treatment and a good experience of exercise, as part of their standard care. This talk either takes place in a preradical prostatectomy seminar (study one), or a post-treatment seminar designed to assist patients in adjusting to life after treatment (study two). Outcomes will be compared between patients attending the existing seminar format, and patients attending the novel seminar format. The two primary outcomes are: (1) differences in self-reported physical activity before and 90 days after the seminar and (2) the likelihood of the patient seeing an in-house exercise physiotherapist in those 90 days. Data on quality of life, fatigue and exercise behavioural regulations will also be captured at the same time points.

Ethics and dissemination

These two projects have been approved by internal clinical audit committees due to their focus on service improvement. Findings from these pilot studies will be presented at oncology meetings and submitted for publication in academic journals.

Breast, Prostate, and Colorectal Cancer Survivors' Experiences of Using Publicly Available Physical Activity Mobile Apps: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Physical activity (PA) can improve a range of outcomes following a cancer diagnosis. These include an improvement in experience of side effects of treatment (eg, fatigue) and management of comorbid conditions. PA might also increase survival and reduce recurrence. Digital interventions have shown potential for PA promotion among cancer survivors, but most in a previous review were Web-based, and few studies used mobile apps. There are many PA apps available for general public use, but it is unclear whether these are suitable as a PA intervention after a cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought posttreatment nonmetastatic breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors' opinions of using smartphone apps to promote PA and gathered their views on existing publicly available PA apps to inform a future intervention.

METHODS

Each participant was randomly assigned to download 2 of 4 apps (Human, The Walk, The Johnson & Johnson Official 7 Minute Workout, and Gorilla Workout). Participants used each app for 1 week consecutively. In-depth semistructured telephone interviews were then conducted to understand participants' experiences of using the apps and how app-based PA interventions could be developed for cancer survivors. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants took part: 50% (16/32) had prostate cancer, 25% (8/32) had breast cancer, and 25% (8/32) had colorectal cancer. Three core themes were identified. The first theme was that multiple factors affect engagement with PA apps and this is highly personalized. Factors affecting engagement included participants' perceptions of (1) the advantages and disadvantages of using apps to support PA, (2) the relevance of the app to the user (eg, in terms of cancer-related factors, their PA goals, the difficulty level of the app, the way in which they interact with their mobile phone, and the extent to which the app fits with their self-identity), (3) the quality of the app (eg, usability, accuracy, quality of production, and scientific evidence-base), and (4) the behavior change techniques used to promote PA. In the second theme, participants recommended that apps that promote walking are most appealing, as walking removes many barriers to PA. Finally, the participants suggested that PA apps should be integrated into cancer care, as they valued guidance and recommendations from health care professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

This sample of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors was receptive to the use of apps to promote PA. Although no publicly available PA app was deemed wholly suitable, many suggestions for adaptation and intervention development were provided. The results can inform the development of an app-based PA intervention for cancer survivors. They also highlight the wide-ranging and dynamic influences on engagement with digital interventions, which can be applied to other evaluations of mobile health products in other health conditions and other health behaviors.