Sandra C Hayes1, Robert U Newton2, Rosalind R Spence3, Daniel A Galvão4. 1. Queensland University of Technology, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Australia. Electronic address: sc.hayes@qut.edu.au. 2. Edith Cowan University, Exercise Medicine Research Institute, Australia; The University of Queensland, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, Australia. 3. Queensland University of Technology, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Australia. 4. Edith Cowan University, Exercise Medicine Research Institute, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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 cancerpatients. 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.
Authors: Erik D Hanson; Mohamdod Alzer; Jackson Carver; Cameron K Stopforth; Alexander R Lucas; Young E Whang; Matthew I Milowsky; David B Bartlett; Michael R Harrison; Rhonda L Bitting; Allison M Deal; Lee Stoner; A C Hackney; Claudio L Battaglini Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2022-03-19 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Pedro Lopez; Daniel A Galvão; Dennis R Taaffe; Robert U Newton; Giovani Souza; Gabriel S Trajano; Ronei S Pinto Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 4.239
Authors: Alberto Codima; Willian das Neves Silva; Ana Paula de Souza Borges; Gilberto de Castro Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-05-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Holly E L Evans; Cynthia C Forbes; Corneel Vandelanotte; Daniel A Galvão; Robert U Newton; Gary Wittert; Suzanne Chambers; Ganessan Kichenadasse; Nicholas Brook; Danielle Girard; Camille E Short Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2020-09-23
Authors: Pedro Lopez; Dennis R Taaffe; Robert U Newton; Laurien M Buffart; Daniel A Galvão Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Michael P Gustafson; Courtney M Wheatley-Guy; Allison C Rosenthal; Dennis A Gastineau; Emmanuel Katsanis; Bruce D Johnson; Richard J Simpson Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 13.751