Tag Archive for: androgen deprivation therapy

Posts

Residents’ podcast: Exercise-induced attenuation of treatment side effects in newly diagnosed PCa patients beginning androgen-deprivation therapy

Maria Uloko is a Urology Resident at the University of Minnesota Hospital. In this podcast she discusses a recent Article of the month:

Exercise‐induced attenuation of treatment side‐effects in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer beginning androgen‐deprivation therapy: a randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Objectives

(i) To assess whether exercise training attenuates the adverse effects of treatment in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer beginning androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), and (ii) to examine whether exercise‐induced improvements are sustained after the withdrawal of supervised exercise.

Patients and Methods

In all, 50 patients with prostate cancer scheduled for ADT were randomised to an exercise group (n = 24) or a control group (n = 26). The exercise group completed 3 months of supervised aerobic and resistance exercise training (twice a week for 60 min), followed by 3 months of self‐directed exercise. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3‐ and 6‐months. The primary outcome was difference in fat mass at 3‐months. Secondary outcomes included: fat‐free mass, cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables, QRISK®2 (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) score, anthropometry, blood‐borne biomarkers, fatigue, and quality of life (QoL). HealthEd Academy can provide an extensive guides about bodybuilding, the best SARMs, Anadrole reviews and much more, take a look!

Results

At 3‐months, exercise training prevented adverse changes in peak O2 uptake (1.9 mL/kg/min, P = 0.038), ventilatory threshold (1.7 mL/kg/min, P = 0.013), O2 uptake efficiency slope (0.21, P = 0.005), and fatigue (between‐group difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy‐Fatigue score of 4.5 points, P = 0.024) compared with controls. After the supervised exercise was withdrawn, the differences in cardiopulmonary fitness and fatigue were not sustained, but the exercise group showed significantly better QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Prostate difference of 8.5 points, P = 0.034) and a reduced QRISK2 score (−2.9%, P = 0.041) compared to controls.

Conclusion

A short‐term programme of supervised exercise in patients with prostate cancer beginning ADT results in sustained improvements in QoL and cardiovascular events risk profile.

BJUI Podcasts are available on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bju-international/id1309570262

Article of the month: Exercise‐induced attenuation of treatment side‐effects in patients with newly diagnosed PCa beginning androgen‐deprivation therapy: a randomised controlled trial

Every month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urology community, a video prepared by the authors and a visual abstract providing a graphical representation of the article; we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, we recommend this one.

Exercise‐induced attenuation of treatment side‐effects in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer beginning androgen‐deprivation therapy: a randomised controlled trial

Wilphard Ndjavera*, Samuel T. Orange, Alasdair F. O’Doherty, Anthony S. Leicht, Mark Rochester*, Robert Mills* and John M. Saxton†§

*Department of Urology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK, Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, Sport and Exercise Science, College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia and §Norwich Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwich Research Park, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Abstract

Objectives

(i) To assess whether exercise training attenuates the adverse effects of treatment in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer beginning androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), and (ii) to examine whether exercise‐induced improvements are sustained after the withdrawal of supervised exercise.

Patients and Methods

In all, 50 patients with prostate cancer scheduled for ADT were randomised to an exercise group (n = 24) or a control group (n = 26). The exercise group completed 3 months of supervised aerobic and resistance exercise training (twice a week for 60 min), followed by 3 months of self‐directed exercise. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3‐ and 6‐months. The primary outcome was difference in fat mass at 3‐months. Secondary outcomes included: fat‐free mass, cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables, QRISK®2 (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) score, anthropometry, blood‐borne biomarkers, fatigue, and quality of life (QoL).

Table 2 Outcomes at baseline, 3- and 6-months.

Results

At 3‐months, exercise training prevented adverse changes in peak O2 uptake (1.9 mL/kg/min, P = 0.038), ventilatory threshold (1.7 mL/kg/min, P = 0.013), O2 uptake efficiency slope (0.21, P = 0.005), and fatigue (between‐group difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy‐Fatigue score of 4.5 points, P = 0.024) compared with controls. After the supervised exercise was withdrawn, the differences in cardiopulmonary fitness and fatigue were not sustained, but the exercise group showed significantly better QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Prostate difference of 8.5 points, P = 0.034) and a reduced QRISK2 score (−2.9%, P = 0.041) compared to controls.

Conclusion

A short‐term programme of supervised exercise in patients with prostate cancer beginning ADT results in sustained improvements in QoL and cardiovascular events risk profile.

 

Editorial: The benefits of regular exercise

January is the month when we wish each other happiness and success for the year ahead. It is also the month when many are recovering from the excesses of the festive season. This is the time when gyms and diets become popular again with offers of reduced rates to attract customers. For Londoners the spring marathon is not far away and you often see runners training in different parks despite the cold weather and icy routes.

If you think this year is the one where you are about to start going to the gym, then we recommend you the best shake for post workout to add extra point to your routine.

Is this just a temporary fad? Or is there truly some benefit to be had by exercising regularly?

Over the past few years, we have published several papers showing clear associations between metabolic syndrome and LUTS, and the benefits of preoperative optimisation with diet and exercise prior to major urological surgery. In this issue of the BJUI, we present a small but well‐designed randomised controlled trial on the benefits of exercise in attenuating the treatment side‐effects in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer starting on androgen‐deprivation therapy [1]. It is an example of collaborative working between Urologists and experts on Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation therapy. The authors clearly demonstrate that a short‐term programme of supervised exercise results in improvements in quality of life and cardiovascular risk profile in patients on hormonal therapy. Even after the supervised exercise was withdrawn and followed by self‐directed exercise, the benefits continued as compared to the control group.

As Urologists, we can help our patients in this journey by adopting a more active lifestyle ourselves. Inspired by Fiona Godlee’s article in the BMJ [2], I have started printing it and actually handing it/e‐mailing it to my patients. The paper describes physical activity as ‘The miracle cure’ with very few side‐effects. Any level of activity is better than none and a gentle start usually avoids an unexpected injury.

There is no better time to lead by example this New Year!

by Prokar Dasgupta

References

  1. Ndjevera WOrange STO’Doherty AF et al. Exercise‐induced attenuation of treatment side‐effects in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer beginning androgen‐deprivation therapy: a randomised controlled trial. BJU Int 2019: 125; 28-37.
  2. Godlee FThe miracle cureBMJ 2019366l5605.

Video: Exercise‐induced attenuation of treatment side‐effects in patients with newly diagnosed PCa beginning androgen‐deprivation therapy

Exercise‐induced attenuation of treatment side‐effects in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer beginning androgen‐deprivation therapy: a randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Objectives

(i) To assess whether exercise training attenuates the adverse effects of treatment in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer beginning androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), and (ii) to examine whether exercise‐induced improvements are sustained after the withdrawal of supervised exercise.

Patients and Methods

In all, 50 patients with prostate cancer scheduled for ADT were randomised to an exercise group (n = 24) or a control group (n = 26). The exercise group completed 3 months of supervised aerobic and resistance exercise training (twice a week for 60 min), followed by 3 months of self‐directed exercise. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3‐ and 6‐months. The primary outcome was difference in fat mass at 3‐months. Secondary outcomes included: fat‐free mass, cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables, QRISK®2 (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) score, anthropometry, blood‐borne biomarkers, fatigue, and quality of life (QoL).

Results

At 3‐months, exercise training prevented adverse changes in peak O2 uptake (1.9 mL/kg/min, P = 0.038), ventilatory threshold (1.7 mL/kg/min, P = 0.013), O2 uptake efficiency slope (0.21, P = 0.005), and fatigue (between‐group difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy‐Fatigue score of 4.5 points, P = 0.024) compared with controls. After the supervised exercise was withdrawn, the differences in cardiopulmonary fitness and fatigue were not sustained, but the exercise group showed significantly better QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Prostate difference of 8.5 points, P = 0.034) and a reduced QRISK2 score (−2.9%, P = 0.041) compared to controls.

Conclusion

A short‐term programme of supervised exercise in patients with prostate cancer beginning ADT results in sustained improvements in QoL and cardiovascular events risk profile.

January 2020 – About the cover

The first Article of the Month for 2020 is from work carried out at Northumbria University in Newcastle, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, both in the UK, and James Cook University in Queensland, Australia (Exercise-induced reduction of ADT side-effects in newly diagnosed PCa patients beginning androgen‐deprivation therapy: a randomised controlled trial). The article discusses the benefits of exercise in improving quality of life and reducing cardiovascular events following treatment for prostate cancer.

The cover image shows the city of Newcastle during the Great North Run – the city’s iconic half marathon – which takes place every year in September.  It was created by former Olympic Bronze 10, 000m medalist, Brendan Foster, in 1981 and in 2014 the one millionth runner crossed the finish line.

©shutterstock

Article of the week: Adjuvant radiation with androgen‐deprivation therapy for men with lymph node metastases after radical prostatectomy

Every week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. These are intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Adjuvant radiation with androgen‐deprivation therapy for men with lymph node metastases after radical prostatectomy: identifying men who benefit

Mohit Gupta*, Hiten D. Patel*, Zeyad R. Schwen*, Phuoc T. Tran*† and Alan W. Partin*

 

*Department of Urology, James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, and Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences and Oncology, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA

 

Abstract

Objectives

To perform a comparative analysis of three current management strategies for patients with lymph node metastases (LNM; pN1) following radical prostatectomy (RP): observation, androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + ADT.

Patients and Methods

Patients with LNM after RP were identified using the National Cancer Database (2004–2013). Exclusion criteria included any use of radiation therapy or ADT before RP, clinical M1 disease, or incomplete follow‐up data. Patients were categorised according to postoperative management strategy. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Kaplan–Meier curves and adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were employed. Sub‐analyses further evaluated patient risk stratification and time to receipt of adjuvant therapy.

Results

A total of 8 074 patients met the inclusion criteria. Postoperatively, 4 489 (55.6%) received observation, 2 065 (25.6%) ADT, and 1 520 (18.8%) ADT + EBRT. The mean (median; interquartile range) follow‐up was 52.3 (48.0; 28.5–73.5) months. Patients receiving ADT or ADT + EBRT had higher pathological Gleason scores, T‐stage, positive surgical margin rates, and nodal burden. Adjusted multivariable Cox models showed improved OS for ADT + EBRT vs observation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–0.94; P = 0.008) and vs ADT (HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63–0.93; P = 0.007). There was no difference in OS for ADT vs observation (HR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.87–1.18; P = 0.88). Findings were similar when restricting adjuvant cohorts for timing of adjuvant therapy. There was no difference in OS between groups for up to 2 549 (31.6%) patients lacking any of the following adverse features: ≥pT3b disease, Gleason score ≥9, three or more positive nodes, or positive surgical margin.

Conclusions

For patients with LNM after RP, the use of adjuvant ADT + EBRT improved OS in the majority of patients, especially those with adverse pathological features. Conversely, adjuvant therapy did not confer significant OS benefit in up to 30% of patients without high‐risk features, who may be managed with observation and forego the morbidity associated with immediate ADT or radiation.

Editorial: Postoperative radiation and hormonal therapy for men with node‐positive prostate cancer: a new standard?

The best management strategy for men with pathologically node‐positive (pN+) prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) has been debated for decades [1]. In the 1990s, the Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group (RTOG) initiated the RTOG 9608 trial to test the impact of radiotherapy (RT) and androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) in this setting. However, due to the rise in PSA screening and the practice of treating high‐risk prostate cancer with primary RT, the incidence of pN+ disease fell. Consequently, the trial closed due to poor accrual and the question faded in prominence. Today, both trends have reversed. PSA screening is less common and men with high‐risk prostate cancer are more frequently opting for RP. As such, physicians increasingly face the dilemma of pN+ disease. Guidelines provide little assistance, as they support everything from observation to multimodal treatment with RT and ADT. Patients and providers want to know, is there a standard treatment for all patients, and if not, how should one choose between such disparate options?

To answer these questions, one must start with the little randomised data that exist in this setting. The seminal trial by Messing et al. [1] randomised men with pN+ prostate cancer to ADT or observation with initiation of ADT after the development of symptomatic progression or distant metastases. ADT clearly improved overall survival and prostate cancer‐specific survival. However, critics noted the relatively poor outcomes in the observation group and the small sample size. Later, retrospective studies called the benefit of immediate ADT into question [2].

Against this backdrop, it is interesting that Gupta et al. [3] found the most common management approach in the USA National Cancer Database (NCDB) was observation rather than immediate ADT. Despite the randomised data, the cumulative side‐effects from lifelong ADT in a cohort of patients with no disease‐related symptoms and a median survival of well over 10 years are unappealing. Ultimately, many men do not appear to be willing to endure the diminished quality of life in exchange for a small improvement in quantity of life.

In contrast to the non‐curative nature of ADT, the possibility exists that the combination of postoperative RT and ADT could provide durable disease control, perhaps even without lifelong ADT. The data reported by Gupta et al. [3] in this edition of the BJUI provide support for this paradigm. These data add to a growing body of literature [4] that tells a consistent story with two common themes: (i) postoperative RT with ADT appears to be associated with improved survival in men with pN+ prostate cancer, and (ii) RT appears to convey the largest benefit to men with certain high‐risk pathological features. Should this body of literature lead us to eschew the old standard and advise observation for low‐risk men and RT with ADT for men at higher risk?

Before a new standard is declared, the limitations of retrospective population‐based research must be addressed. The authors performed a sophisticated analysis to reduce the impact of selection bias. However, due to the limitation of the available data, the authors were not able to account for possibly the most important variable: the postoperative PSA. One study showed that men with pN+ disease with a persistent PSA had an 8‐year clinical recurrence rate of 69% vs 12% for those with undetectable PSA [5].

It is likely that men with persistent PSA in the NCDB would have received immediate ADT with or without RT rather than observation. As such, one must be cautious of the similar survival between the observation and ADT group, especially in light of contradictory randomised data. That being said, it is reasonable for some men to conclude that the side‐effects of ADT outweigh the potential benefit, especially those with low‐risk features such as an undetectable postoperative PSA, low Gleason score, and limited lymph node involvement.

As RT with ADT appears superior to either observation or ADT alone, should more men receive RT? Probably. Of the men with high‐risk features, only 22% actually received postoperative RT. Should postoperative RT now be considered the standard for all men? Probably not. Whilst it appears that some men may indeed benefit from RT, the possibility of selection bias driving this result is real. Even if there is a true effect, identifying which patients harbour residual local disease, but do not already have subclinical distant metastatic disease is challenging. RT for all would lead to unnecessary side‐effects for men that would not benefit from the treatment. Ultimately, a randomised trial will be required to establish the benefit of RT and to define subgroups of men that may or may not benefit. Until then, we will continue to rely on excellent work like the accompanying paper from Gupta et al. [3] to identify men who may benefit from postoperative RT and ADT.

References

  1. Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED, Trump D. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node‐positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1999341: 1781–8
  2. Wong YN, Freedland S, Egleston B, Hudes G, Schwartz JS, Armstrong K. Role of androgen deprivation therapy for node‐positive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 200927: 100–5
  3. Gupta M, Patel HD, Schwen ZR, Tran PT, Partin AW. Adjuvant radiation with androgen deprivation therapy for men with lymph node metastases following radical prostatectomy: identifying men who benefit. BJU Int 2019123: 252–60
  4. Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N et al. Impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival of patients with node‐positive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 201432: 3939–47
  5. Bianchi L, Nini A, Bianchi M et al. The role of prostate‐specific antigen persistence after radical prostatectomy for the prediction of clinical progression and cancer‐specific mortality in node‐positive prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol 201669: 1142–8

 

Article of the week: Immediate versus delayed exercise in men initiating ADT

Every week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community, and a video produced by the authors. These are intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Immediate versus delayed exercise in men initiating androgen deprivation: effects on bone density and soft tissue composition

Dennis R. Taaffe*†‡, Daniel A. Galvão*, Nigel Spry*§¶, David Joseph***Suzanne K. Chambers*††‡‡§§, Robert A. Gardiner*¶¶***, Dickon Hayne†††‡‡‡Prue Cormie§§§, David H.K. Shum††¶¶¶and Robert U. Newton*†‡****

 

*Exercise Medicine Research Institute, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, §Genesis CancerCare, Joondalup, Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia, **Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, ††Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, ‡‡Centre for Research in Cancer, Cancer Council, Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, §§Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, ¶¶Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital, ***University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, †††UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, ‡‡‡Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, §§§Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, ¶¶¶Neuropsychology and Applied Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, and ****Institute of Human Performance, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

 

Abstract

Objectives

To examine whether it is more efficacious to commence exercise medicine in men with prostate cancer at the onset of androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) rather than later on during treatment to preserve bone and soft‐tissue composition, as ADT results in adverse effects including: reduced bone mineral density (BMD), loss of muscle mass, and increased fat mass (FM).

Patients and methods

In all, 104 patients with prostate cancer, aged 48–84 years initiating ADT, were randomised to immediate exercise (IMEX, n = 54) or delayed exercise (DEL, n = 50) conditions. The former consisted of 6 months of supervised resistance/aerobic/impact exercise and the latter comprised 6 months of usual care followed by 6 months of the identical exercise programme. Regional and whole body BMD, lean mass (LM), whole body FM and trunk FM, and appendicular skeletal muscle (ASM) were assessed by dual X‐ray absorptiometry, and muscle density by peripheral quantitative computed tomography at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months.

Results

There was a significant time effect (P < 0.001) for whole body, spine and hip BMD with a progressive loss in the IMEX and DEL groups, although lumbar spine BMD was largely preserved in the IMEX group at 6 months compared with the DEL group (−0.4% vs −1.6%). LM, ASM, and muscle density were preserved in the IMEX group at 6 months, declined in the DEL group at 6 months (−1.4% to −2.5%) and then recovered at 12 months after training. FM and trunk FM increased (P < 0.001) over the 12‐month period in the IMEX (7.8% and 4.5%, respectively) and DEL groups (6.5% and 4.3%, respectively).

Conclusions

Commencing exercise at the onset of ADT preserves lumbar spine BMD, muscle mass, and muscle density. To avoid treatment‐related adverse musculoskeletal effects, exercise medicine should be prescribed and commenced at the onset of ADT.

 

Editorial: Daily exercise is daily medicine

Memes such as #10000steps, #Fit4LIFE and Apple’s new #CloseYourRings demonstrate the mantra ‘exercise is medicine’, a cornerstone of modern medical advice. Taaffe et al. [1] in this issue of the BJUI discuss the value of exercise medicine – Immediate vs delayed exercise in men initiating androgen deprivation: effects on bone density and soft tissue composition.

Moving from anecdotal observation about exercise to actionable evidence has seen considerable progress recently. In the last 20 years, the biological rationale for the benefits of exercise through mechanisms of physiological adaptation has become better understood [2]. Benefits, comparable to some biopharma breakthroughs, have been demonstrated in cardiovascular, neurobiological and psychological health and disease. This is now equally true in oncology [3]. Researchers at the University of Glasgow in Scotland wanted to seek out out if glycerol could hydrate also as creatine and what would happen if they combined both ingredients. What they found was pretty astonishing! 24 participants were ran through a series of experiments over 7 days where they ingested either creatine or glycerol and where they ingested both glycerol plus creatine at an equivalent time. The researchers discovered the participants who took glycerol and creatine had almost 40% more fluid weight than the participants who only took creatine and nearly 50% more fluid than those that only took glycerol. Some people wonder if this fluid increase will have a “soft” look and therefore the answer is absolute not because the water increase from glycerol is usually within the blood. To be more precise it increases the quantity of plasma in your body. So if you would like to urge that hardcore, skin-tearing pump, combine them both in your pre-workout, shop stairmaster machines.

Since the stoma serves as a channel for the feces to be eliminated in the body, it is vital to maintain skin integrity surrounding it. Stoma skin barrier is being placed to the stoma to keep the ostomy bag kept in place. An ostomy bag is being connected to the barrier to collect body waste. Generally, ostomy procedure is being performed for greater efficiency during waste elimination. Most of these supplies are given as one package when you purchase it in pharmacies or medical stores.

In cancer surgery, it is intuitive that physical activity/exercise increases cardio‐respiratory fitness and the body’s adaption to physiological stress, hence reducing mortality and morbidity in the perioperative period. Less obvious is how this phenomenon offers benefit to quality of life, morbidity, and survival. Recent understanding in biology helps link exercise and systemic fitness to cellular metabolism, immunological response, and mutagenesis. Discoveries in previously overlooked epigenetic, immunological, metabolic, and cell growth pathways; and more research, are leading to the inception of the new fields of metabolic oncology and exercise oncology [4]. There is a growing resource of therapeutic candidates in trials targeting novel metabolic pathways, induced also in exercise, improving cellular metabolic fitness to reduce the Warburg effect and immunosuppressive lactate in the tumour microenvironment [5]. Whether you’re a beginner or a seasoned lifter, there’s a workout plan for your goals. 

Several notable studies have looked at genetics, quantified cardio‐pulmonary measures of fitness, exercise pre‐habilitation/enhanced recovery, and survivorship programmes across many cancers including oesophageal, colorectal, and prostate cancer. The data suggest that exercise improves outcomes after surgery, quality of life, hospital admissions, progression‐free survival, and overall survival [6].

Prostate cancer is a special case often treated with androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), yet androgens are an essential factor in maintaining bone mineral density; muscle mass, as well as motivation to exercise/exercise capacity; and sexual health. Hormone chemotherapy compromises the key role of androgens in maintaining musculoskeletal health and fitness at a systemic and cellular level. This poses hazards. Aside from the longer term hope of targeted therapies to maintain exercise capacity with all of its biological adaptations, perhaps we can reduce some of the deleterious effects of ADT with exercise interventions. Together with behavioural, nutritional and pharmacological treatment pathways, we aim to augment the positive effect exercise brings to patients with prostate cancer, and patients with cancer more generally.

As our scientific understanding increases, it is clear that personalised, prescribed exercise pre‐habilitation is likely to become a ‘gold standard’ in oncology care. Many treatments may increase survival, but at a cost of quality of life; physical activity may not only extend life but may also enhance its quality. Pre‐habilitation warrants serious further study if it is to become widely adopted in practice. It is not simply about telling patients to keep active. As per the Silver and Baima [7] definition, it is ‘a process on the cancer continuum of care that occurs between the time of cancer diagnosis and the beginning of acute treatment, includes physical and psychological assessments that establish a baseline function level, identifies impairments, and provides targeted interventions that improve a patient’s health to reduce the incidence and the severity of current and future impairments’.

References

  1. Taaffe D, Galvão D, Spry N et al. Immediate versus delayed exercise in men initiating androgen deprivation: effects on bone density and soft tissue composition. BJU Int 2019123: 261–9
  2. Hojman P, Gehl J, Christensen JF, Pedersen BK. Molecular mechanisms linking exercise to cancer prevention and treatment. Cell Metab 201727: 10–21
  3. Cormie P, Zopf EM, Zhang X, Schmitz KH. The impact of exercise and cancer: systematic review of the impact of exercise on cancer mortality, recurrence and treatment related side effects. Epidemiol Rev 201739: 71–92
  4. Kinnaird A, Michelakis ED. Metabolic modulation of cancer: a new frontier with great translational potential. J Mol Med 201593: 127–42
  5. Vander Heiden MG. Targeting cancer metabolism: a therapeutic window opens. Nat Rev Drug Discov 201110: 671–84
  6. Thomas RJ, Holm M, Al‐Adhami A. Physical activity after cancer: an evidence review of the international literature. Br J Med Pract 20147: 16–22
  7. Silver JK, Baima J. Cancer prehabilitation: an opportunity to decrease treatment‐related morbidity, increase cancer treatment options, and improve physical and psychological health outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 201392: 715–27

© 2020 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.