Anthracyclines are one of the most effective chemotherapy agents and have revolutionized cancer therapy. However, anthracyclines can induce cardiac injuries through ‘multiple-hits', a series of cardiovascular insults coupled with lifestyle risk factors, which increase the risk of developing short- and long-term cardiac dysfunction and cardiovascular disease that potentially lead to premature mortality following cancer remission. Therefore, the management of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity is a serious unmet clinical need. Exercise therapy, as a non-pharmacological intervention, stimulates numerous biochemical and physiologic adaptations, including cardioprotective effects, through the cardiovascular system and cardiac muscles, where exercise has been proposed to be an effective clinical approach that can protect or reverse the cardiotoxicity from anthracyclines. Many preclinical and clinical trials demonstrate the potential impacts of exercise on cardiotoxicity; however, the underlying mechanisms as well as how to implement exercise in clinical settings to improve or protect against long-term cardiovascular disease outcomes are not clearly defined. In this review, we summarize the current evidence in the field of “exercise cardio-oncology” and emphasize the utilization of exercise to prevent and manage anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicities across high-risk and vulnerable populations diagnosed with cancer.

Advanced and metastatic cancers significantly alter body composition, leading to decreased lean mass and variable effects on fat mass. These effects on body composition are associated with significant physical dysfunction and poor prognosis in patients with cancer. Whilst exercise and nutritional interventions are likely to be of benefit in counteracting these effects, relatively little is known about using such interventions in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. Therefore, in this systematic review we examine the effect of exercise and combined exercise and nutritional interventions on lean mass and fat mass among patients diagnosed with advanced or metastatic cancer. Following PRISMA guidelines, we identified 20 articles from PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and REHABDATA. Overall, advanced or metastatic cancer populations comprising of mixed cancer types were most commonly examined (n = 8) with exercise or combined exercise and nutritional interventions being well-tolerated with few adverse effects. Both intervention approaches may preserve lean mass, while only combined interventions may lead to alterations in fat mass. However, further exercise and nutritional studies are needed to definitively understand their effects on body composition. As exercise and nutrition-related research continues in this understudied population, the knowledge gained will help guide supportive clinical treatments.

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers constitute over 25% of global cancer cases annually, with hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancers presenting particularly poor prognosis and challenging surgical treatments. While advancements in clinical care have improved post-operative outcomes over time, surgery for HPB cancers remains associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Patients with HPB cancer are often older, diagnosed at later stages, and have a higher prevalence of co-morbid conditions, leading to reduced life expectancy, suboptimal post-operative recovery, and increased recurrence risk. Exercise and nutrition interventions have emerged as safe non-pharmacological strategies to enhance clinical outcomes among cancer survivors, but their potential in the pre-operative period for patients with HPB cancer remains underexplored. This narrative review evaluates existing evidence on exercise and nutritional interventions during pre-operative prehabilitation for HPB cancer populations, focusing on clinically relevant post-operative outcomes related to frailty and malnutrition. We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify studies utilizing a prehabilitation intervention in HPB cancer populations with exercise and nutritional components. The currently available evidence suggests that incorporating exercise and nutrition into prehabilitation programs offers a critical opportunity to enhance post-operative outcomes, mitigate the risk of comorbidities, and support overall survivorship among HPB cancer populations. This review underscores the need for further research to optimize the timing, duration, and components of pre-operative prehabilitation programs, emphasizing patient-centered, multidisciplinary approaches in this evolving field.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the criterion validity of Activities Completed over Time (ACT24), an automated previous-day recall tool designed for mobile devices for 1) estimating sedentary versus active time compared with an activPAL, and 2) estimating time spent in activity domains (e.g., work, household, leisure) compared with direct observation (DO). Methods: Over a 7-d study period, 53 participants were sent invitations to complete three automated ACT24 recalls and to wear an activPAL device. A subset (N = 24) consented to two, 3-h video-recorded DO sessions. activPAL and ACT24 data were matched by date, and agreement for sedentary versus active time was compared between methods using paired t-tests for mean differences and spearman correlations. We compared DO and ACT24 results by domain for overall time use and separately for sedentary and active time using κ statistics and tested mean differences with linear mixed models. Results: Compared with the activPAL, the mean difference in ACT24 sedentary time was 1.9% (mean (95% confidence interval), −0.17 (−0.75 to 0.40) h·d⁻¹), and the mean difference for ACT24 active time was 2.2% (0.14 (−0.32 to 0.60) h·d⁻¹). Correlations were R = 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.76) and R = 0.65 (0.44 to0.78) for sedentary and active time, respectively. Domain-specific agreement was substantial for leisure-time, work, and shopping/errands (κ range, 0.63–0.79), moderate for transportation (κ = 0.49), and fair for personal care and household activities (κ = 0.24 and 0.33). ACT24 estimates of average time within each domain were not significantly different from DO. Conclusions: The present study confirms that ACT24 is accurate for group-level estimation of active and sedentary time. Domain-specific agreement tended to be higher for more commonly reported activities and those that were of longer duration.

Background: Skeletal muscle loss is prevalent throughout the cancer continuum and correlated with morbidity and mortality. Resistance exercise has been trialed to mitigate skeletal muscle loss. This systematic review summarizes and qualitatively synthesizes the effects of resistance exercise on muscle-related outcomes in adult cancer populations, including skeletal muscle mass, performance and muscle-related biomarkers. Methods: The systematic review protocol was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). We searched electronic databases including AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, CIRRIE, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PEDro, REHABDATA, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus from inception to December 2021. We included randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of resistance exercise on muscle-related outcomes in adult cancer populations. Interventions that involved any resistance exercise were included. Muscle-related outcomes were categorized as skeletal muscle mass (e.g., lean mass, appendicular muscle mass), muscle performance (e.g., muscle strength, physical function), and muscle-related biomarkers (e.g., muscle cells, metabolic/inflammatory markers). Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane ROB tool. Results: A total of 102 studies from 101 randomized controlled trials were included. The majority of studies focused on breast cancer (46%) and those who completed treatment (43%). Resistance exercise interventions were largely 3–4 months long (48%), combined with aerobic exercise (56%), at a vigorous intensity (25%), and in-person/supervised settings (57%). Among the studies assessing muscle mass, performance, and biomarkers (n = 42, 83, and 22, respectively), resistance exercise interventions improved upper/lower body or appendicular muscle mass (67%–100%), muscle strength (61%–68%), and physical function (74%–100%). Most biomarkers did not show significant changes (75%–100%) or showed inconsistent results. Conclusions: Generally, resistance exercise had positive effects on skeletal muscle mass and performance with no negative effects compared to controls. Our findings demonstrated that resistance exercise may be an effective strategy to attenuate deterioration or exert improvements in muscle mass and performance outcomes.