Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Affected patients frequently experience debilitating disease-related symptoms, including dyspnea, cough, fatigue, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and pain, despite the progresses achieved in term of treatment efficacy. Physical activity and exercise are nonpharmacological interventions that have been shown to improve fatigue, quality of life, cardiorespiratory fitness, pulmonary function, muscle mass and strength, and psychological status in patients with lung cancer. Moreover, physical fitness levels, especially cardiorespiratory endurance and muscular strength, are demonstrated to be independent predictors of survival. Nevertheless, patients with lung cancer frequently present insufficient levels of physical activity and exercise, and these may contribute to quality of life impairment, reduction in functional capacity with skeletal muscle atrophy or weakness, and worsening of symptoms, particularly dyspnea. The molecular bases underlying the potential impact of exercise on the fitness and treatment outcome of patients with lung cancer are still elusive. Counteracting specific cancer cells’ acquired capabilities (hallmarks of cancer), together with preventing treatment-induced adverse events, represent main candidate mechanisms. To date, the potential impact of physical activity and exercise in lung cancer remains to be fully appreciated, and no specific exercise guidelines for patients with lung cancer are available. In this article, we perform an in-depth review of the evidence supporting physical activity and exercise in lung cancer and suggest that integrating this kind of intervention within the framework of a global, multidimensional approach, taking into account also nutritional and psychological aspects, might be the most effective strategy.

Background: Despite the benefits related to physical exercise, large numbers of cancer patients are not sufficiently active. Methods: To investigate exercise levels and preferences in cancer patients, a cross-sectional study was conducted on a random sample of 392 cancer outpatients who anonymously completed a questionnaire investigating general and medical characteristics, and expressed willingness to participate in exercise programs. Current exercise levels were estimated with the Leisure Score Index (LSI). Results: Most patients (93%) were insufficiently active but 80% declared an interest in exercise programs. Patients preferred oncologist-instructed programs and specified particular exercise needs. Multivariate logistic regression showed that willingness to exercise was associated with education (OR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.15–3.04 beyond age 14 years vs. up to 14 years) and current physical activity (OR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.92–3.63 for sweat-inducing activity >2 times/week vs. <1 time/week). Patients given chemotherapy were less inclined to exercise (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.23–0.86) than those who did not. LSI was lower if cancer stage was advanced (β: -0.36; 95% CI: −0.75 to −0.02) than if it was in remission. High LSI was also associated with longer education, lower BMI, and longer time after diagnosis. Conclusion: Cancer patients are insufficiently active but are willing to participate in personalized exercise programs. Information from this survey may help in designing personalized interventions so these patients will achieve sufficient exercise.

This review aims to summarize the recommendations endorsed by scientific societies regarding physical activity for patients with cancer. A systematic search was conducted to identify guidelines endorsed by scientific societies and published in the last 15 years dedicated to physical activity for cancer patients. The AGREE II instrument was used to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Results are presented as qualitative synthesis. A total of 11 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Seven were considered high quality, scoring ≥60% in the AGREE II tool. All the guidelines recommended to include aerobic and resistance training as types of activities. Regarding the physical activity dosage, most suggested a generic 150minutes/week of moderate-intensity activity plus resistance training twice a week. Three guidelines reported instructions for exercise prescription, including frequency, intensity, and duration of training sessions. Six guidelines reported exercise testing/medical clearance instructions, 9 provided considerations regarding adaptation/precautions, and 7 detailed the specialists for referral. Four guidelines considered motivational aspects related to physical activity and cancer. Although important steps have been made in the more recent recommendations, effort is needed to produce high-quality research in the exercise-oncology field, with the ultimate aim of developing more tailored guidelines.

Introduction: Although the literature supports the importance of physical activity in the oncological context, in Italy a large number of patients are not sufficiently active. Methods: The present study aimed to explore factors influencing an active lifestyle in cancer patients during oncological treatments. Semi-structured focus groups, including 18 patients with different cancer types, were conducted at the Oncology Unit in the University Hospital Trust of Verona (Italy). The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed with content analysis. Results: According to the Health Belief Model, transcripts were categorized into the following themes: benefits, barriers, and cues to action. Patients reported a series of physical, physiological, and psychological benefits deriving from an active lifestyle. The main barriers hampering the physical activity participation were represented by treatment-related side effects, advanced disease, and some medical procedures, for example, ileostomy. Several strategies that can trigger patients to exercise were identified. Medical advice, social support from family and friends, features such as enjoyment, setting goals, and owning an animal can motivate patients to perform physical activity. At the same time, an individualized program based on patients’ characteristics, an available physical activity specialist to consult, more detailed information regarding physical activity in the oncological setting, and having accessible structures were found important facilitators to implementing active behavior. Conclusions: Overall, patients have a positive view regarding physical activity, and a variety of obstacles and cues to action were recognized. Considering this information may help to improve adherence to a physical activity program over time, consequently increasing the expected benefits.

To assess the prognostic impact of TP53 mutations in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC patients treated with TKIs. Studies exploring the clinical outcomes of EGFR mutant/TP53 wild-type versus EGFR/TP53 co-mutant patients treated with TKIs were selected. Data were cumulated by adopting a fixed and random-effect model. Overall, 29 trials were eligible. The PFS analysis showed that TP53 co-mutant group has shorter PFS versus EGFR mutant/TP53 wild-type group (HR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.51-1.83, heterogeneity I² =20%, p = 0.18). Patients affected by EGFR/TP53 co-mutant NSCLC have a higher chance of shorter OS versus EGFR mutant/TP53 wild type (HR= 1.89, 95% CI 1.67-2.14, heterogeneity I² = 21%; p = 0.19). The subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between first-second versus third-generation TKIs in both PFS and OS (p = 0.31, p = 0.08). TP53 mutations represent a clinically relevant mechanism of resistance to EGFR-TKIs, regardless of their generation. A personalized therapeutical approach should be explored in dedicated clinical trials.