Kathryn H. Schmitz, PhD, MPH, FACSM Kerry S. Courneya, PhD Charles Matthews, PhD, FACSM Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, PhD Daniel A. Galvão, PhD Bernardine M. Pinto, PhD Melinda L. Irwin, PhD, FACSM Kathleen Y. Wolin, ScD, FACSM Roanne J. Segal, MD, FRCP Alejandro Lucia, MD, PhD Carole M. Schneider, PhD, FACSM Vivian E. von Gruenigen, MD Anna L. Schwartz, PhD, FAAN Early detection and improved treatments for cancer have resulted in roughly 12 million survivors alive in the United States today. This growing population faces unique challenges from their disease and treatments, including risk for recurrent cancer, other chronic diseases, and persistent adverse effects on physical functioning and quality of life. Historically, clinicians advised cancer patients to rest and to avoid activity; however, emerging research on exercise has challenged this recommendation. To this end, a roundtable was convened by American College of Sports Medicine to distill the literature on the safety and efficacy of exercise training during and after adjuvant cancer therapy and to provide guidelines. The roundtable concluded that exercise training is safe during and after cancer treatments and results in improvements in physical functioning, quality of life, and cancer-related fatigue in several cancer survivor groups. Implications for disease outcomes and survival are still unknown. Nevertheless, the benefits to physical functioning and quality of life are sufficient for the recommendation that cancer survivors follow the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, with specific exercise programming adaptations based on disease and treatment-related adverse effects. The advice to "avoid inactivity," even in cancer patients with existing disease or undergoing difficult treatments, is likely helpful.

Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence‐based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health‐related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home‐based or community‐based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.

Purpose: Androgen suppression therapy (AST) results in musculoskeletal toxicity that reduces physical function and quality of life. This study examined the impact of a combined resistance and aerobic exercise program as a countermeasure to these AST-related toxicities. Patients and Methods: Between 2007 and 2008, 57 patients with prostate cancer undergoing AST (commenced > 2 months prior) were randomly assigned to a program of resistance and aerobic exercise (n = 29) or usual care (n = 28) for 12 weeks. Primary end points were whole body and regional lean mass. Secondary end points were muscle strength and function, cardiorespiratory capacity, blood biomarkers, and quality of life. Results: Analysis of covariance was used to compare outcomes for groups at 12 weeks adjusted for baseline values and potential confounders. Patients undergoing exercise showed an increase in lean mass compared with usual care (total body, P = .047; upper limb, P < .001; lower limb, P = .019) and similarly better muscle strength (P < .01), 6-meter walk time (P = .024), and 6-meter backward walk time (P = .039). Exercise also improved several aspects of quality of life including general health (P = .022) and reduced fatigue (P = .021) and decreased levels of C-reactive protein (P = .008). There were no adverse events during the testing or exercise intervention program. Conclusion: A relatively brief exposure to exercise significantly improved muscle mass, strength, physical function, and balance in hypogonadal men compared with normal care. The exercise regimen was well tolerated and could be recommended for patients undergoing AST as an effective countermeasure to these common treatment-related adverse effects.

This individual patient data meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise on quality of life (QoL) and physical function (PF) in patients with cancer, and to identify moderator effects of demographic (age, sex, marital status, education), clinical (body mass index, cancer type, presence of metastasis), intervention-related (intervention timing, delivery mode and duration, and type of control group), and exercise-related (exercise frequency, intensity, type, time) characteristics. Relevant published and unpublished studies were identified in September 2012 via PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, reference checking and personal communications. Principle investigators of all 69 eligible trials were requested to share IPD from their study. IPD from 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4519 patients) that evaluated the effects of exercise compared to a usual care, wait-list or attention control group on QoL and PF in adult patients with cancer were retrieved and pooled. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the effects of the exercise on post-intervention outcome values (z-score) adjusting for baseline values. Moderator effects were studies by testing interactions. Exercise significantly improved QoL (β=0.15, 95%CI=0.10;0.20) and PF (β=0.18, 95%CI=0.13;0.23). The effects were not moderated by demographic, clinical or exercise characteristics. Effects on QoL (βdifference_in_effect=0.13, 95%CI=0.03;0.22) and PF (βdifference_in_effect=0.10, 95%CI=0.01;0.20) were significantly larger for supervised than unsupervised interventions. In conclusion, exercise, and particularly supervised exercise, effectively improves QoL and PF in patients with cancer with different demographic and clinical characteristics during and following treatment. Although effect sizes are small, there is consistent empirical evidence to support implementation of exercise as part of cancer care.

Since Exercise and Sports Science Australia (ESSA) first published its position statement on exercise guidelines for people with cancer, there has been exponential growth in research evaluating the role of exercise pre-, during and post-cancer treatment. The purpose of this report is to use the current scientific evidence, alongside clinical experience and exercise science principles to update ESSA's position statement on cancer-specific exercise prescription. Reported in this position statement is a summary of the benefits accrued through exercise following a cancer diagnosis and the strengths and limitations of this evidence-base. An exercise prescription framework is then proposed to enable the application of cancer-specific considerations for individualisation, specificity, safety, feasibility and progression of exercise for all patients. Additional specific exercise prescription considerations are provided for the presence of haematological, musculoskeletal, systemic, cardiovascular, lymphatic, gastrointestinal, genitourinary and neurological disease- and treatment-related concerns, as well as presence of co-morbid chronic disease. Further, we also identify and discuss cancer-specific pragmatic issues and barriers requiring consideration for exercise prescription. While for the majority, multimodal, moderate to high intensity exercise will be appropriate, there is no set prescription and total weekly dosage that would be considered evidence-based for all cancer patients. Targeted exercise prescription, which includes the provision of behaviour change advice and support, is needed to ensure greatest benefit (as defined by the patient) in the short and longer term, with low risk of harm.

Purpose: To present an overview of exercise interventions in cancer patients during and after treatment and evaluate dose-training response considering type, frequency, volume, and intensity of training along with expected physiological outcomes.Methods: The review is divided into studies that incorporated cardiovascular training, combination of cardiovascular, resistance, and flexibility training, and resistance training alone during and after cancer management. Criteria for inclusion were based on studies sourced from electronic and nonelectronic databases and that incorporated preintervention and postintervention assessment with statistical analysis of data.Results: Twenty-six published studies were summarized. The majority of the studies demonstrate physiological and psychological benefits. However, most of these studies suffer limitations because they are not randomized controlled trials and/or use small sample sizes. Predominantly, studies have been conducted with breast cancer patients using cardiovascular training rather than resistance exercise as the exercise modality. Recent evidence supports use of resistance exercise or “anabolic exercise” during cancer management as an exercise mode to counteract side effects of the disease and treatment.Conclusion: Evidence underlines the preliminary positive physiological and psychological benefits from exercise when undertaken during or after traditional cancer treatment. As such, other cancer groups, in addition to those with breast cancer, should also be included in clinical trials to address more specifically dose-response training for this population. Contemporary resistance training designs that provide strong anabolic effects for muscle and bone may have an impact on counteracting some of the side effects of cancer management assisting patients to improve physical function and quality of life.