Introduction: The American College of Sports Medicine convened an International Multidisciplinary Roundtable on Exercise and Cancer in March 2018 to evaluate and translate the evidence linking physical activity and cancer prevention, treatment, and control. This article discusses findings from the Roundtable in relation to the biologic and epidemiologic evidence for the role of physical activity in cancer prevention and survival. Results: The evidence supports that there are a number of biologically plausible mechanisms, whereby physical activity can influence cancer risk, and that physical activity is beneficial for the prevention of several types of cancer including breast, colon, endometrial, kidney, bladder, esophageal, and stomach. Minimizing time spent in sedentary behavior may also lower risk of endometrial, colon and lung cancers. Conversely, physical activity is associated with higher risk of melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer. Further, physical activity before and after a cancer diagnosis is also likely to be relevant for improved survival for those diagnosed with breast and colon cancer; with data suggesting that postdiagnosis physical activity provides greater mortality benefits than prediagnosis physical activity. Conclusions: Collectively, there is consistent, compelling evidence that physical activity plays a role in preventing many types of cancer and for improving longevity among cancer survivors, although the evidence related to higher risk of melanoma demonstrates the importance of sun safe practices while being physically active. Together, these findings underscore the importance of physical activity in cancer prevention and control. Fitness and public health professionals and health care providers worldwide are encouraged to spread the message to the general population and cancer survivors to be physically active as their age, abilities, and cancer status will allow.

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 Relevant published and unpublished studies were identified in September 2012 via PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, reference checking and personal communications.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: Secondary lymphedema is associated with adverse physical and psychosocial consequences among women with breast cancer (BC). This article describes the prevalence and incidence of lymphedema between 6 and 18 months after BC treatment; personal, treatment, and behavioral correlates of lymphedema status; and the presence of other upper-body symptoms (UBS) and function (UBF). Patients and Methods: A population-based sample of Australian women (n = 287) with recently diagnosed, invasive BC were evaluated on five occasions using bioimpedance spectroscopy. Lymphedema was diagnosed when the ratio of impedance values, comparing treated and untreated sides, was three standard deviations more than normative data. UBF was assessed using the validated Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. Results: From 6 to 18 months after surgery, 33% (n = 62) of the sample were classified as having lymphedema; of these, 40% had long-term lymphedema. Although older age, more extensive surgery or axillary node dissection, and experiencing one or more treatment-related complication(s) or symptom(s) at baseline were associated with increased odds, lower socioeconomic status, having a partner, greater child care responsibilities, being treated on the dominant side, participation in regular activity, and having good UBF were associated with decreased odds of lymphedema. Not surprisingly, lymphedema leads to reduced UBF; however, BC survivors report high prevalences of other UBS (34% to 62%), irrespective of their lymphedema status. Conclusion: Lymphedema is a public health issue deserving greater attention. More systematic surveillance for earlier detection and the potential benefits of physical activity to prevent lymphedema and mitigate symptoms warrant further clinical integration and research.