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.

To systematically evaluate the safety, feasibility, and effect of exercise among women with stage II+ breast cancer. CINAHL, Cochrane, Ebscohost, MEDLINE, Pubmed, ProQuest Health and Medical Complete, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, Science Direct and SPORTDiscus were searched for articles published before March 1, 2017. Randomized, controlled, exercise trials involving at least 50% of women diagnosed with stage II+ breast cancer were included. Risk of bias was assessed and adverse event severity was classified using the Common Terminology Criteria. Feasibility was evaluated by computing median (range) recruitment, withdrawal, and adherence rates. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate exercise safety and effects on health outcomes only. The influence of intervention characteristics (mode, supervision, duration and timing) on exercise outcomes were also explored. There were no differences in adverse events between exercise and usual care (risk difference: <0.01 ([95% CI: -0.01, 0.01], P=0.38). Median recruitment rate was 56% (1%-96%), withdrawal rate was 10% (0%-41%) and adherence rate was 82% (44%-99%). Safety and feasibility outcomes were similar, irrespective of exercise mode, supervision, duration, or timing. Effects of exercise for quality of life, fitness, fatigue, strength, anxiety, depression, body mass index and waist circumference compared with usual care were significant (standardized mean difference range: 0.17-0.77, P<0.05). The findings support the safety, feasibility, and effects of exercise for those with stage II+ breast cancer, suggesting that national and international exercise guidelines appear generalizable to women with local, regional, and distant breast cancer.

Introduction: Cancer-related pain is common and undertreated. Exercise is known to have a pain-relieving effect in non-cancer pain. Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate (1) the effect of exercise on cancer-related pain in all cancers, and (2) whether the effect of exercise differed according to exercise mode, degree of supervision, intervention duration and timing (during or after cancer treatment), pain types, measurement tool and cancer type. Methods: Electronic searches were undertaken in six databases to identify exercise studies evaluating pain in people with cancer, published prior to 11 January 2023. All stages of screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two authors. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used and overall strength of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed overall and by study design, exercise intervention and pain characteristics. Results: In total, 71 studies reported in 74 papers were eligible for inclusion. The overall meta-analysis included 5877 participants and showed reductions in pain favouring exercise (standardised mean difference − 0.45; 95% confidence interval − 0.62, − 0.28). For most (> 82%) of the subgroup analyses, the direction of effect favoured exercise compared with usual care, with effect sizes ranging from small to large (median effect size − 0.35; range − 0.03 to − 1.17). The overall strength of evidence for the effect of exercise on cancer-related pain was very low. Conclusion: The findings provide support that exercise participation does not worsen cancer-related pain and that it may be beneficial. Better pain categorisation and inclusion of more diverse cancer populations in future research would improve understanding of the extent of benefit and to whom. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021266826.