Schmitz, Kathryn H

Abstract Background The number of cancer survivors aged older than 65 years is rising rapidly. Current evidence‐based exercise guidelines lack specific guidance for older cancer survivors as a result of insufficient evidence. An expert panel was convened to develop consensus‐based recommendations for exercise in older cancer survivors. Methods The development of recommendations was guided by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Evidence‐to‐Decision framework for good practice statements. The panel drew from the available literature, a Delphi survey of exercise and health professionals, other exercise guidelines, clinical and research expertise, and interest‐holder input provided by a community advisory board of older cancer survivors and caregivers ( n = 11). Recommendations had to be deemed accessible (i.e., no added barriers) to older cancer survivors and feasible to implement. The panel voted on the strength of the recommendation for or against each statement, with consensus set at 85% agreement. Results Consensus was reached on 11 recommendations covering the following areas: medical evaluation/clearance for exercise, pre‐exercise assessment, exercise prescription, exercise tolerance and safety, exercise delivery, and behavioral support. The recommendations aimed to promote engagement in and uptake of appropriately prescribed exercise programming by older cancer survivors, while keeping barriers and risks as low as possible. Conclusions Older cancer survivors can benefit from appropriately prescribed exercise, which should be an essential component of their cancer care. Exercise and health professionals need to consider the unique needs of older cancer survivors to ensure that exercise is safe and effective for this population, while also reducing barriers to reach as many people as possible.

AbstractIntroductionThe American College of Sports Medicine provided guidelines for exercise prescriptions in cancer survivors for specific cancer‐ and treatment‐related health outcomes. However, there was insufficient evidence to generate exercise prescriptions for 10 health outcomes of cancer treatment. We sought to update the state of evidence.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of these 10 understudied health outcomes (bone health, sleep, cardiovascular function, chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), cognitive function, falls and balance, nausea, pain, sexual function, and treatment tolerance) and provided an update of evidence.ResultsWhile the evidence base for each outcome has increased, there remains insufficient evidence to generate exercise prescriptions. Common limitations observed across outcomes included: variability in type and quality of outcome measurement tools, variability in definitions of the health outcomes, a lack of phase III trials, and a majority of trials investigating breast or prostate cancer survivors only.ConclusionWe identified progress in the field of exercise oncology for several understudied cancer‐ and treatment‐related health outcomes. However, we were not able to generate exercise prescriptions due to continued insufficient evidence base. More work is needed to prescribe exercise as medicine for these understudied health outcomes, and our review highlights several strategies to aid in research acceleration within these areas of exercise oncology.

Background and Aims: We present findings from the inaugural American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) International Multidisciplinary Roundtable, which was convened to evaluate the evidence for physical activity as a means of preventing or modifying the course of NAFLD. Approach and Results: A scoping review was conducted to map the scientific literature and identify key concepts, research gaps, and evidence available to inform clinical practice, policymaking, and research. The scientific evidence demonstrated regular physical activity is associated with decreased risk of NAFLD development. Low physical activity is associated with a greater risk for disease progression and extrahepatic cancer. During routine health care visits, all patients with NAFLD should be screened for and counseled about physical activity benefits, including reduction in liver fat and improvement in body composition, fitness, and quality of life. While most physical activity benefits occur without clinically significant weight loss, evidence remains limited regarding the association between physical activity and liver fibrosis. At least 150 min/wk of moderate or 75 min/wk of vigorous-intensity physical activity are recommended for all patients with NAFLD. If a formal exercise training program is prescribed, aerobic exercise with the addition of resistance training is preferred. Conclusions: The panel found consistent and compelling evidence that regular physical activity plays an important role in preventing NAFLD and improving intermediate clinical outcomes. Health care, fitness, and public health professionals are strongly encouraged to disseminate the information in this report. Future research should prioritize determining optimal strategies for promoting physical activity among individuals at risk and in those already diagnosed with NAFLD.

PURPOSE: Exercise has been underutilized in people with advanced or incurable cancer despite the potential to improve physical function and reduce psychosocial morbidity, especially for people with bone metastases because of concerns over skeletal complications. The International Bone Metastases Exercise Working Group (IBMEWG) was formed to develop best practice recommendations for exercise programming for people with bone metastases on the basis of published research, clinical experience, and expert opinion. METHODS: The IBMEWG undertook sequential steps to inform the recommendations: (1) modified Delphi survey, (2) systematic review, (3) cross-sectional survey to physicians and nurse practitioners, (4) in-person meeting of IBMEWG to review evidence from steps 1-3 to develop draft recommendations, and (5) stakeholder engagement. RESULTS: Recommendations emerged from the contributing evidence and IBMEWG discussion for pre-exercise screening, exercise testing, exercise prescription, and monitoring of exercise response. Identification of individuals who are potentially at higher risk of exercise-related skeletal complication is a complex interplay of these factors: (1) lesion-related, (2) cancer and cancer treatment–related, and (3) the person-related. Exercise assessment and prescription requires consideration of the location and presentation of bone lesion(s) and should be delivered by qualified exercise professionals with oncology education and exercise prescription experience. Emphasis on postural alignment, controlled movement, and proper technique is essential. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, the perceived risk of skeletal complications should be weighed against potential health benefits on the basis of consultation between the person, health care team, and exercise professionals. These recommendations provide an initial framework to improve the integration of exercise programming into clinical care for people with bone metastases.

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.

Abstract The recent pace, extent, and impact of paradigm-changing cancer prevention science has been remarkable. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) convened a 3-day summit, aligned with five research priorities: (i) Precancer Atlas (PCA). (ii) Cancer interception. (iii) Obesity-cancer linkage, a global epidemic of chronic low-grade inflammation. (iv) Implementation science. (v) Cancer disparities. Aligned with these priorities, AACR co-led the Lancet Commission to formally endorse and accelerate the NCI Cancer Moonshot program, facilitating new global collaborative efforts in cancer control. The expanding scope of creative impact is perhaps most startling—from NCI-funded built environments to AACR Team Science Awarded studies of Asian cancer genomes informing global primary prevention policies; cell-free epigenetic marks identifying incipient neoplastic site; practice-changing genomic subclasses in myeloproliferative neoplasia (including germline variant tightly linked to JAK2 V617F haplotype); universal germline genetic testing for pancreatic cancer; and repurposing drugs targeting immune- and stem-cell signals (e.g., IL-1β, PD-1, RANK-L) to cancer interception. Microbiota-driven IL-17 can induce stemness and transformation in pancreatic precursors (identifying another repurposing opportunity). Notable progress also includes hosting an obesity special conference (connecting epidemiologic and molecular perspectives to inform cancer research and prevention strategies), co-leading concerted national implementation efforts in HPV vaccination, and charting the future elimination of cancer disparities by integrating new science tools, discoveries and perspectives into community-engaged research, including targeted counter attacks on e-cigarette ad exploitation of children, Hispanics and Blacks. Following this summit, two unprecedented funding initiatives were catalyzed to drive cancer prevention research: the NCI Cancer Moonshot (e.g., PCA and disparities); and the AACR-Stand Up To Cancer bold “Cancer Interception” initiative.

Introduction. High BMI is a risk factor for upper body breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) onset. Black cancer survivors are more likely to have high BMI than White cancer survivors. While observational analyses suggest up to 2.2 times increased risk of BCRL onset for Black breast cancer survivors, no studies have explored race or other social factors that may affect BCRL severity, operationalized by interlimb volume difference (ILD).Materials and Methods. ILD was measured by perometry for 296 overweight (25 > BMI < 50) Black (n=102) or White (n=194) breast cancer survivors (>6 months from treatment) in the WISER Survivor trial. Multivariable linear regression examined associations between social and physical factors and ILD.Results. Neither Black race (−0.26,p=0.89) nor BMI (0.22,p=0.10) was associated with ILD. Attending college (−4.89,p=0.03) was the strongest factor associated with ILD, followed by having more lymph nodes removed (4.75,p=0.01), >25% BCRL care adherence (4.10,p=0.01), and years since treatment (0.55,p<0.001).Discussion. Neither race nor BMI was associated with ILD among overweight cancer survivors. Education, a proxy for resource level, was the strongest factor associated with greater ILD. Tailoring physical activity and weight loss interventions designed to address BCRL severity by resource rather than race should be considered.

Cancer rehabilitation is a rapidly emerging and evolving medical field in both Europe and the United States, in large part because of increases in the number of cancer survivors. Although few argue with the need to restore function and quality of life to patients affected by cancer and its treatments, differences exist between European countries with regard to the funding, accessibility, and even the definition of cancer rehabilitation services. In the United States, there is tremendous variability in the provision of rehabilitation services resulting from a variety of factors, including a lack of highly trained cancer rehabilitation physicians and therapists as well as a lack of comprehensive cancer rehabilitation programs, even at the majority of top cancer centers. Although studies evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs in the cancer setting, particularly exercise, have influenced clinical decision‐making in both Europe and the United States for some time, this emerging evidence base also is now starting to influence guideline and policy making. Coordinated research efforts are essential to establish a robust framework to support future investigation and establish shared initiatives. Determining the best way forward for cancer survivors will require investment in large‐scale prospective cohort studies that sufficiently describe their rehabilitation needs through the continuum of the survivorship experience. Cancer 2013;119(11 suppl):2170‐8. © 2013 American Cancer Society.