Building the plane while it's flying: implementation lessons from integrating a co-located exercise clinic into oncology care.

BACKGROUND: Despite its therapeutic role during cancer treatment, exercise is not routinely integrated into care and implementation efforts are largely absent from the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate a strategy to integrate the workflow of a co-located exercise clinic into routine care within a private oncology setting in two clinics in the metropolitan region of Western Australia. METHODS: This prospective evaluation utilised a mixed methods approach to summarise lessons learned during the implementation of an integrated exercise workflow and supporting implementation plan. Data collection was informed by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. Reports detailing utilisation of the exercise service and its referral pathways, as well as patient surveys and meeting minutes documenting the implementation process informed the evaluation. RESULTS: The co-located exercise service achieved integration into routine care within the clinical oncology setting. Patient utilisation was near capacity (reach) and 100% of clinicians referred to the service during the 13-month evaluation period (adoption). Moreover, ongoing adaptations were made to improve the program (implementation) and workflows were integrated into standard operating practices at the clinic (maintenance). The workflow performed as intended for ~70% of exercise participants (effectiveness); however, gaps were identified in utilisation of the workflow by both patients and clinicians. CONCLUSION: Integration of exercise into standard oncology care is possible, but it requires the ongoing commitment of multiple stakeholders across an organisation. The integrated workflow and supporting implementation plan greatly improved utilisation of the co-located exercise service, demonstrating the importance of targeted implementation planning. However, challenges regarding workflow fidelity within and across sites limited its success highlighting the complexities inherent in integrating exercise into clinical oncology care in a real-world setting.

Implementation barriers to integrating exercise as medicine in oncology: an ecological scoping review.

PURPOSE: While calls have been made for exercise to become standard practice in oncology, barriers to implementation in real-world settings are not well described. This systematic scoping review aimed to comprehensively describe barriers impeding integration of exercise into routine oncology care within healthcare systems. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted across six electronic databases (since 2010) to identify barriers to implementing exercise into real-world settings. An ecological framework was used to classify barriers according to their respective level within the healthcare system. RESULTS: A total of 1,376 results were retrieved; 50 articles describing implementation barriers in real-world exercise oncology settings were reviewed. Two hundred and forty-three barriers were identified across all levels of the healthcare system. Nearly 40% of barriers existed at the organizational level (n = 93). Lack of structures to support exercise integration and absence of staff/resources to facilitate its delivery were the most common issues reported. Despite the frequency of barriers at the organizational level, organizational stakeholders were largely absent from the research. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing exercise into routine cancer care is hindered by a web of interrelated barriers across all levels of the healthcare system. Organizational barriers are central to most issues. Future work should take an interdisciplinary approach to explore best practices for overcoming implementation barriers, with organizations as a central focus. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This blueprint of implementation barriers highlights critical issues that need to be overcome to ensure people with cancer have access to the therapeutic benefits of exercise during treatment and beyond.

Safety, Effectiveness, and Uptake of Exercise Medicine Integrated Within a Cancer Care Center.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and acceptability of an exercise clinic co-located within a cancer treatment center to identify best practices for integrating exercise medicine into cancer care. DATA SOURCES: Two-hundred thirty-seven patients were referred to the exercise clinic and completed self-report health and demographic questionnaires. Further assessments were conducted at baseline on 67 patients and following completion of the exercise program by 46 patients. Endpoints included muscular strength, physical function, cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, quality of life, and fatigue scores. Adverse events were tracked throughout exercise participation to evaluate program safety. CONCLUSION: Exercise programming co-located and aligned with cancer treatment in a real-world clinical setting appears to be safe with only four minor exercise-related adverse events. Effectiveness was demonstrated by all physical performance (2.9%-9.5%), strength (7.4%-27.6%), and balance (10.1%) improving and some patients reported outcomes exhibiting modest but clinically relevant benefit. Importantly, no outcomes including fatigue worsened even though the patients were undergoing radiation and/or chemotherapy. Assessment of patient physical and self-reported outcomes should be co-located where they receive oncological treatment and/or exercise medicine to increase uptake of this aspect of the service. Future work should incorporate and describe program and implementation design to help identify best practices in exercise oncology programming. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses are a primary driver of exercise among patients receiving treatment for cancer. Their regular patient interactions offer a practical opportunity to collect and record important exercise-related information from patients. As organizations look to develop plans to implement exercise into standard practice, input from nurses is critical to ensure program feasibility.

We have the program, what now? Development of an implementation plan to bridge the research-practice gap prevalent in exercise oncology.

BACKGROUND: Exercise has emerged as a promising therapy for people with cancer. Novel programs have been developed to translate research into practice; however, implementation barriers have limited their success in part because successful translation of exercise oncology research into practice requires context-specific implementation plans. The aim of this study was to employ the implementation mapping protocol to develop an implementation plan to support programming of a co-located exercise clinic and cancer treatment center. METHODS: The Implementation Mapping protocol, which consists of five specific iterative tasks, was used. A stakeholder advisory group advised throughout the process. RESULTS: A comprehensive needs assessment was used to identify the organization's general manager as the program adopter; oncologists, center leaders, and various administrative staff as program implementers; and the operations manager as the program maintainer. Twenty performance objectives were identified. The theoretical domains framework was used to identify likely determinants of change, which informed the selection of eight individual implementation strategies across the individual and organizational levels. Finally, an evaluation plan was developed which will be used to measure the success of the implementation plan in the project's next phase. CONCLUSION: The Implementation Mapping protocol provided a roadmap to guide development of a comprehensive implementation plan that considered all ecological domains, was informed by theory, and demonstrated an extensive understanding of the implementation context. Strong research-practitioner partnerships and effective stakeholder engagement were critical to development of the plan.

If you build it, will they come? Evaluation of a co-located exercise clinic and cancer treatment centre using the RE-AIM framework.

OBJECTIVE: Employ the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance framework to evaluate the effectiveness of a co-located exercise clinic model in increasing access to exercise for people undergoing cancer treatment in a private clinic in Western Australia. METHODS: This retrospective evaluation utilised a mixed-method approach to gather feedback from key stakeholder groups involved with the exercise clinic. Questionnaires and workout summary sheets were gathered from 237 exercise clinic participants over the 50-month evaluation period. These were supplemented by survey results from 119 patients who received cancer treatment at the facility, and semi-structured interviews from seven radiation oncologists, eight nurses, and three accredited exercise physiologists involved with the exercise clinic. RESULTS: The co-located clinic demonstrated positive outcomes related to effectiveness and adoption. Participant feedback indicated satisfaction with the exercise programming (effectiveness), and clinicians were receptive to referring patients to the clinic (adoption). However, no clear implementation or maintenance plan was employed and overall reach (12%) remained suboptimal throughout the evaluation period. CONCLUSION: Co-locating an exercise clinic into a treatment facility does not in itself overcome the logistical challenges of providing integrated exercise services to people during cancer treatment. To enhance its utilisation, an implementation plan needs to accompany the intervention.

Perineural invasion by prostate adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies predicts bone metastasis: Ten year data from the TROG 03.04 RADAR Trial.

AIMS: Perineural invasion (PNI) by prostatic adenocarcinoma is debated as a prognostic parameter. This study investigates the prognostic predictive value of PNI in a series of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation using 10 years outcome data from the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial. METHODS: Diagnostic prostate biopsies from 976 patients were reviewed and the presence of PNI noted. Patients were followed for 10 years according to the trial protocol or until death. The primary endpoint for the study was time to bone metastasis. Secondary endpoints included time to soft tissue metastasis, transition to castration resistance, prostate cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: PNI was detected in 449 cases (46%), with 234 cases (24%) having PNI in more than one core. The presence of PNI was significantly associated with higher ISUP grade, clinical T staging category, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, and percent positive biopsy cores. The cumulative probability of bone metastases according to PNI status was significant over the 10 years follow-up interval of the study (log-rank test P < 0.0001). PNI was associated with all endpoints on univariable analysis. After adjusting for baseline clinicopathological and treatment factors, bone metastasis was the only endpoint in which PNI retained its prognostic significance (hazard ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.92, P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The association between PNI and the development of bone metastases supports the inclusion of this parameter as a component of the routine histology report. Further this association suggests that evaluation of PNI may assist in selecting those patients who should be monitored more closely during follow-up.

Radiation Dose Escalation or Longer Androgen Suppression to Prevent Distant Progression in Men With Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: 10-Year Data From the TROG 03.04 RADAR Trial.

PURPOSE: To clarify the relative effects of duration of androgen suppression (AS) and radiation dose escalation (RDE) on distant progression (DP) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Participants with locally advanced prostate cancer in the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial were randomized to 6 or 18 months AS ± 18 months zoledronic acid (Z). The trial incorporated a RDE program by stratification at randomization and dosing options were 66, 70, or 74 Gy external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), or 46 Gy EBRT plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDRB). The primary endpoint for this study was distant progression (DP). Secondary endpoints included local progression, bone progression, prostate cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Effect estimates for AS duration and RDE were derived using Fine and Gray competing risk models adjusting for use of Z, age, tumor stage, Gleason grade group, prostate-specific antigen, and treatment center. Cumulative incidence at 10 years was estimated for each RDE group. RESULTS: A total of 1051 out of 1071 randomized subjects were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Compared with 6 months AS, 18 months AS significantly reduced DP independently of radiation dose (subhazard ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.87; P = .002). No statistically significant interaction between effect of AS duration and RT dose was observed (Wald test P = .76). In subgroup analyses, DP was significantly reduced by the longer duration of AS in the 70 Gy and HDRB groups but not in the 66 Gy and 74 Gy. Compared with 70 Gy, HDRB significantly reduced DP (subhazard ratio 0.68 [95% CI, 0.57-0.80]; P < .0001) independently of AS duration. At 10 years, adjusted cumulative incidences were 26.1% (95% CI, 18.9%-33.2%), 26.7% (22.9%-30.6%), 24.9% (20.0%-29.8%) and 19.7% (15.5%-23.8%) for DPs in the respective radiation dose groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 6 months AS, 18 months AS reduced DP independently of radiation dose. Men treated with HDRB gained a significant benefit from a longer duration of AS. Evidence of improved oncologic outcomes for HDRB compared with dose-escalated EBRT needs to be confirmed in a randomized trial.

Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): 10-year results from a randomised, phase 3, factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of androgen suppression for men with locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy with curative intent is yet to be defined. Zoledronic acid is effective in preventing androgen suppression-induced bone loss, but its role in preventing castration-sensitive bone metastases in locally advanced prostate cancer is unclear. The RADAR trial assessed whether the addition of 12 months of adjuvant androgen suppression, 18 months of zoledronic acid, or both, can improve outcomes in men with locally advanced prostate cancer who receive 6 months of androgen suppression and prostatic radiotherapy. This report presents 10-year outcomes from this trial. METHODS: For this randomised, phase 3, 2 × 2 factorial trial, eligible men were 18 years or older with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2b-4, N0 M0 tumours or T2a, N0 M0 tumours provided Gleason score was ≥7 and baseline prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration was ≥10 µg/L). We randomly allocated participants in a 2 × 2 factorial design by computer-generated randomisation (using the minimisation technique, and stratified by centre, baseline PSA concentration, clinical tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to four treatment groups. Patients in the control group received 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) and radiotherapy alone (short-term androgen suppression [STAS]); this treatment was either followed by another 12 months of adjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly; intermediate-term androgen suppression [ITAS]), or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months, intravenously) starting at randomisation (STAS plus zoledronic acid), or both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). All patients received radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, starting from the end of the fifth month of androgen suppression; dosing options were 66, 70, and 74 Gy in 2-Gy fractions per day, or 46 Gy in 2-Gy fractions followed by a high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost dose of 19·5 Gy in 6·5-Gy fractions. Treatment allocation was open label. The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality and was analysed according to intention-to-treat using competing-risks methods. The trial is closed to follow-up and this is the final report of the main endpoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856. FINDINGS: Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were enrolled and randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), ITAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 10·4 years (IQR 7·9-11·7). At this 10-year follow-up, no interactions were observed between androgen suppression and zoledronic acid so the treatment groups were collapsed to compare treatments according to duration of androgen suppression: 6 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy (6AS+RT) versus 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy (18AS+RT) and to compare treatments according to whether or not patients received zoledronic acid. The total number of deaths was 375 (200 men receiving 6AS+RT and 175 men receiving 18AS+RT), of which 143 (38%) were attributable to prostate cancer (81 men receiving 6AS+RT and 62 men receiving 18AS+RT). When analysed by duration of androgen suppression, the adjusted cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 13·3% (95% CI 10·3-16·0) for 6AS+RT versus 9·7% (7·3-12·0) for 18AS+RT, representing an absolute difference of 3·7% (95% CI 0·3-7·1; sub-hazard ratio [sHR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50-0·98], adjusted p=0·035). The addition of zoledronic acid did not affect prostate cancer-specific mortality; the adjusted cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 11·2% (95% CI 8·7-13·7) with zoledronic acid vs 11·7% (9·2-14·1) without, representing an absolute difference of -0·5% (95% CI -3·8 to 2·9; sHR 0·95 [95% CI 0·69-1·32], adjusted p=0·78). Although safety analysis was not prespecified for this 10-year analysis, one new serious adverse event (osteonecrosis of the mandible, in a patient who received 18 months of androgen suppression plus zoledronic acid) occurred since our previous report, bringing the total number of cases of this serious adverse event to three (<1% out of 530 patients who received zoledronic acid evaluated for safety) and the total number of drug-related serious adverse events to 12 (1% out of all 1065 patients evaluable for safety). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy is a more effective treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer than 6 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, but the addition of zoledronic acid to this treatment regimen is not beneficial. Evidence from the RADAR and French Canadian Prostate Cancer Study IV trials suggests that 18 months of androgen suppression with moderate radiation dose escalation is an effective but more tolerable option than longer durations of androgen suppression for men with locally advanced prostate cancer including intermediate and high risk elements. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand, University of Newcastle (Australia), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund, and Maitland Cancer Appeal.

Mechanical suppression of osteolytic bone metastases in advanced breast cancer patients: a randomised controlled study protocol evaluating safety, feasibility and preliminary efficacy of exercise as a targeted medicine.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal metastases present a major challenge for clinicians, representing an advanced and typically incurable stage of cancer. Bone is also the most common location for metastatic breast carcinoma, with skeletal lesions identified in over 80% of patients with advanced breast cancer. Preclinical models have demonstrated the ability of mechanical stimulation to suppress tumour formation and promote skeletal preservation at bone sites with osteolytic lesions, generating modulatory interference of tumour-driven bone remodelling. Preclinical studies have also demonstrated anti-cancer effects through exercise by minimising tumour hypoxia, normalising tumour vasculature and increasing tumoural blood perfusion. This study proposes to explore the promising role of targeted exercise to suppress tumour growth while concomitantly delivering broader health benefits in patients with advanced breast cancer with osteolytic bone metastases. METHODS: This single-blinded, two-armed, randomised and controlled pilot study aims to establish the safety, feasibility and efficacy of an individually tailored, modular multi-modal exercise programme incorporating spinal isometric training (targeted muscle contraction) in 40 women with advanced breast cancer and stable osteolytic spinal metastases. Participants will be randomly assigned to exercise or usual medical care. The intervention arm will receive a 3-month clinically supervised exercise programme, which if proven to be safe and efficacious will be offered to the control-arm patients following study completion. Primary endpoints (programme feasibility, safety, tolerance and adherence) and secondary endpoints (tumour morphology, serum tumour biomarkers, bone metabolism, inflammation, anthropometry, body composition, bone pain, physical function and patient-reported outcomes) will be measured at baseline and following the intervention. DISCUSSION: Exercise medicine may positively alter tumour biology through numerous mechanical and non-mechanical mechanisms. This randomised controlled pilot trial will explore the preliminary effects of targeted exercise on tumour morphology and circulating metastatic tumour biomarkers using an osteolytic skeletal metastases model in patients with breast cancer. The study is principally aimed at establishing feasibility and safety. If proven to be safe and feasible, results from this study could have important implications for the delivery of this exercise programme to patients with advanced cancer and sclerotic skeletal metastases or with skeletal lesions present in haematological cancers (such as osteolytic lesions in multiple myeloma), for which future research is recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: anzctr.org.au , ACTRN-12616001368426 . Registered on 4 October 2016.

Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of a 10-Week Resistance and Aerobic Exercise Intervention During Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Treatment in Rectal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment (CRT) in rectal cancer patients is associated with a reduction in physical capacity, lean mass and increased fatigue. As a countermeasure to these treatment-related adverse effects, we examined the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a 10-week exercise program during CRT. METHODS: Ten rectal cancer patients (7 men, aged 27-70 years, body mass index = 26.4 ± 3.8 kg/m2) receiving CRT undertook supervised resistance and aerobic exercise twice weekly. Assessments were undertaken pre- and post-intervention for upper and lower body muscle strength by 1-RM, muscle endurance, physical performance tests, body composition by dual X-ray absorptiometry, quality of life, and fatigue. RESULTS: There was a significant loss in appendicular skeletal muscle (-1.1 kg, P = .012), and fat mass (-0.8 kg, P = .029) following CRT. Despite the loss in skeletal muscle, leg press ( P = .030) and leg extension ( P = .046) strength improved by 27.2% and 22.7%, respectively, and leg press endurance by 76.7% ( P = .007). Changes in strength were accompanied by improved performance ( P < .05) in 6-m fast walking speed (6.9%) and dynamic balance as determined by the 6-m backwards walk (15.5%). There was minimal change in quality of life and fatigue, and no adverse events related to training. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise during neoadjuvant CRT appears to be feasible and well tolerated in rectal cancer patients and may enhance physical function while minimizing adverse changes in body composition and cancer-related fatigue. These initial findings need to be confirmed in randomized controlled trials.

Can exercise suppress tumour growth in advanced prostate cancer patients with sclerotic bone metastases? A randomised, controlled study protocol examining feasibility, safety and efficacy.

INTRODUCTION: Exercise may positively alter tumour biology through numerous modulatory and regulatory mechanisms in response to a variety of modes and dosages, evidenced in preclinical models to date. Specifically, localised and systemic biochemical alterations produced during and following exercise may suppress tumour formation, growth and distribution by virtue of altered epigenetics and endocrine-paracrine activity. Given the impressive ability of targeted mechanical loading to interfere with metastasis-driven tumour formation in human osteolytic tumour cells, it is of equal interest to determine whether a similar effect is observed in sclerotic tumour cells. The study aims to (1) establish the feasibility and safety of a combined modular multimodal exercise programme with spinal isometric training in advanced prostate cancer patients with sclerotic bone metastases and (2) examine whether targeted and supervised exercise can suppress sclerotic tumour growth and activity in spinal metastases in humans. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A single-blinded, two-armed, randomised, controlled and explorative phase I clinical trial combining spinal isometric training with a modular multimodal exercise programme in 40 men with advanced prostate cancer and stable sclerotic spinal metastases. Participants will be randomly assigned to (1) the exercise intervention or (2) usual medical care. The intervention arm will receive a 3-month, supervised and individually tailored modular multimodal exercise programme with spinal isometric training. Primary endpoints (feasibility and safety) and secondary endpoints (tumour morphology; biomarker activity; anthropometry; musculoskeletal health; adiposity; physical function; quality of life; anxiety; distress; fatigue; insomnia; physical activity levels) will be measured at baseline and following the intervention. Statistical analyses will include descriptive characteristics, t-tests, effect sizes and two-way (group × time) repeated-measures analysis of variance (or analysis of covariance) to examine differences between groups over time. The data-set will be primarily examined using an intention-to-treat approach with multiple imputations, followed by a secondary sensitivity analysis to ensure data robustness using a complete cases approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of Edith Cowan University and the Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group. If proven to be feasible and safe, this study will form the basis of future phase II and III trials in human patients with advanced cancer. To reach a maximum number of clinicians, practitioners, patients and scientists, outcomes will be disseminated through national and international clinical, conference and patient presentations, as well as publication in high-impact, peer-reviewed academic journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN 12616000179437.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Presurgical Exercise in Survivors of Rectal Cancer Scheduled to Receive Curative Resection.

BACKGROUND: Localized rectal carcinoma is invasive, with surgical resection the standard treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of a supervised presurgical exercise intervention in patients with rectal cancer prior to rectal resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve patients volunteered to undertake twice-weekly aerobic and resistance exercise for ∼16 weeks prior to surgery. At baseline, presurgery, and ∼8 weeks postsurgery, muscle strength and physical performance, body composition, quality of life, and fatigue were assessed. RESULTS: Ten patients completed training, with 80% completing more than one-half of the exercise sessions. Muscle strength improved 9% to 29% at presurgery, although this was not statistically significant, and declined postsurgery (P < .05). Importantly, postsurgery strength levels were comparable with pretraining levels. Lean mass was preserved at presurgery despite neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment, whereas postsurgery lean mass decreased (P < .05) compared with baseline (-3.2 ± 5.4 kg) and presurgery (-3.7 ± 5.4 kg). There were no substantial changes in quality of life or fatigue. CONCLUSION: Presurgical exercise is feasible, leading to modest improvements in some outcomes despite chemoradiation treatment. The detrimental effects of surgery were evident, especially in relation to lean mass. As such, exercise may facilitate recovery by enhancing presurgery physical reserve capacity, thereby providing a buffer to declines following surgery.

Feasibility of Presurgical Exercise in Men With Prostate Cancer Undergoing Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Prostatectomy is associated with short- and long-term morbidity, which includes attenuation of muscle function and deterioration of lean body mass. Physical function is a known predictor of morbidity and mortality, with initial evidence indicating that presurgical exercise is associated with fewer postsurgical complications and shorter hospitalization. The aim was to determine the feasibility of a supervised presurgical exercise program for prostate cancer (PCa) patients scheduled for prostatectomy. METHODS: Ten men (68+6.4 years old) with localized PCa undertook a 6-week resistance and aerobic exercise program prior surgery. Training was undertaken twice weekly and patients were assessed at baseline, presurgery, and 6 weeks postsurgery. Outcome measures included muscle and physical performance, body composition, urinary incontinence and questionnaire. RESULTS: Muscle strength increased by 7.5% to 24.3% ( P < .05) from baseline to presurgery but decreased to pretraining levels postsurgery, except for knee extensor strength ( P = .247). There were significant improvements ( P < .05) in the 6-m fast walk (9.3%), 400-m walk (7.4%), and chair rise (12.3%) at presurgery. Following surgery, improvements in physical performance were maintained. There was no change in lean or fat mass prior to surgery, but lean mass declined by 2.7 kg ( P = .014) following surgery. There were no adverse effects from the exercise program. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise undertaken prior to prostatectomy improved muscle and physical performance, with functional benefits maintained 6 weeks postsurgery. Presurgical exercise for PCa patients has the potential to facilitate recovery by improving physical reserve capacity, especially in men with poor muscle nd physical performance.

Oligometastatic bone disease in prostate cancer patients treated on the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether eradication of oligometastases by stereotactic body radiation therapy or other means will result in cure or prolongation of survival in some cases, or merely provide palliation. We address this issue with prospectively collected progression and treatment data from the TROG 03.04 RADAR randomised controlled trial for men with locally advanced prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: Three Fine and Gray competing risk survival models with time-dependent covariates were used to determine whether metastatic progression status at first diagnosis of bony metastases, i.e. number of bony sites involved and presence of prior or simultaneous other sites of progression, impacts on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) when adjusted for baseline prognostic factors and allocated primary treatment. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2014, 176 of the 1071 subjects developed bone metastases, 152 developed other sites of progression and 91 died of PC. All subjects received secondary treatment using androgen suppression but none received extirpative treatments. The three models found evidence: 1 - of a clear prognostic gradient according to number of bony metastatic sites; 2 - that other sites of progression contributed to PCSM to a lesser extent than bone progression; and 3 - that further bony metastatic progression in men with up to 3 bony metastases had a major impact on PCSM. CONCLUSION: Randomised trials are essential to determine the value of extirpative treatment for oligometastatic bony metastases due to PC.

Radiation dose escalation or longer androgen suppression for locally advanced prostate cancer? Data from the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial.

BACKGROUND: The relative effects of radiation dose escalation (RDE) and androgen suppression (AS) duration on local prostatic progression (LP) remain unclear. METHODS: We addressed this in the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial by incorporating a RDE programme by stratification at randomisation. Men were allocated 6 or 18 months AS±18 months zoledronate (Z). The main endpoint was a composite of clinically diagnosed LP or PSA progression with a PSA doubling time ⩾6 months. Fine and Gray competing risk modelling with adjustment for site clustering produced cumulative incidence estimates at 6.5 years for each RDE group. RESULTS: Composite LP declined coherently in the 66, 70 and 74 Gy external beam dosing groups and was lowest in the high dose rate brachytherapy boost (HDRB) group. At 6.5 years, adjusted cumulative incidences were 22%, 15%, 13% and 7% respectively. Compared to 6 months AS, 18 months AS also significantly reduced LP (p<0.001). Post-radiation urethral strictures were documented in 45 subjects and increased incrementally in the dosing groups. Crude incidences were 0.8%, 0.9%, 3.8% and 12.7% respectively. CONCLUSION: RDE and increasing AS independently reduce LP and increase urethral strictures. The risks and benefits to the individual must be balanced when selecting radiation dose and AS duration.

The effect, moderators, and mediators of resistance and aerobic exercise on health-related quality of life in older long-term survivors of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The current study examined effects, moderators (for whom), and mediators (working mechanisms) of 12 months of exercise on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in older long-term survivors of prostate cancer. METHODS: In total, 100 men aged 71.7 years (standard deviation, 6.4 years) were randomly assigned to 6 months of supervised aerobic and resistance exercise followed by 6 months of a home-based exercise maintenance program (EX group) or printed education material regarding physical activity for 12 months (PA group). Assessments took place at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Generalized estimating equations were used to study the effects of EX versus PA on HRQoL at 6 and 12 months, adjusting for baseline HRQoL. The authors examined potential sociodemographic and clinical moderators by adding interaction terms, and potential physical and psychological mediators using the product-of-coefficients test. RESULTS: At 6 months, significant beneficial effects were found for global QoL, physical function, and social function in the EX group compared with the PA group. For physical function, beneficial effects were sustained at 12 months. Moderation analyses demonstrated larger effects of EX versus PA for patients who were married, started exercising sooner after their diagnosis, and previously used bisphosphonates. Changes in lower body functional performance significantly mediated the effect of EX on global QoL, physical function, and social function. No mediating effects on HRQoL were found for aerobic fitness, physical activity, fatigue, distress, or falls self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic and resistance exercise appears to have beneficial effects on HRQoL among older, long-term survivors of prostate cancer. Effects were moderated by marital status, time since diagnosis, and use of bisphosphonates, and were mediated by lower body functional performance.

Technical quality assurance during the TROG 03.04 RADAR prostate radiotherapy trial: are the results reflected in observed toxicity rates?

INTRODUCTION: Multicentre radiotherapy clinical trials can incorporate quality assurance (QA) procedures for ensuring consistent application of the trial protocol in the planning, delivery and reporting of participant treatments. Subsequently detected variations from trial protocol have previously been shown to reduce treatment efficacy, although little has been shown for toxicity rates. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of QA measures and protocol variations on toxicity incidence in the context of a prostate radiotherapy trial. METHODS: Using QA records from the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial, the impact of variations on gastrointestinal (GI) and genito-urinary (GU) toxicities was investigated. RESULTS: Protocol variation rates were lower than reported in previous studies, and showed little correlation with GI toxicity outcomes. Variations classified as 'major' showed a non-significant trend for increased toxicity relative to those classified as 'minor'. Results from a Level III phantom-based dosimetry study showed some correlation with GI toxicity, whereas ranking on a set-up accuracy study did not impact on toxicity. Toxicity in general increased with the number of participants accrued per centre, at odds with previous reports relating to disease progression, with a potential link to increases in low-mid-range rectal doses in the cohort from higher-accruing centres. No QA-related variables correlated with GU toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Besides non-significant trends, minimal association was observed between QA variables and toxicity rates for the RADAR trial. The intention of the trial's QA programme was to reduce treatment variations and minimise toxicity in the context of a relevantly advanced treatment approach.

Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, with or without 18 months of zoledronic acid, is more effective than 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression plus radiotherapy with or without zoledronic acid. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2a N0 M0 prostatic adenocarcinomas with prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥10 µg/L and a Gleason score of ≥7, or T2b-4 N0 M0 tumours regardless of PSA and Gleason score). We randomly allocated patients by computer-generated minimisation--stratified by centre, baseline PSA, tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost--to one of four groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Patients in the control group were treated with neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) for 6 months (short-term) and radiotherapy alone (designated STAS); this procedure was either followed by another 12 months of androgen suppression with leuprorelin (intermediate-term; ITAS) or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months for 18 months, intravenously; STAS plus zoledronic acid) or by both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality. This analysis represents the first, preplanned assessment of oncological endpoints, 5 years after treatment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856. FINDINGS: Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), ITAS (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 7·4 years (IQR 6·5-8·4). Cumulative incidences of prostate cancer-specific mortality were 4·1% (95% CI 2·2-7·0) in the STAS group, 7·8% (4·9-11·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 7·4% (4·6-11·0) in the ITAS group, and 4·3% (2·3-7·3) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 17·0% (13·0-22·1), 18·9% (14·6-24·2), 19·4% (15·0-24·7), and 13·9% (10·3-18·8), respectively. Neither prostate cancer-specific mortality nor all-cause mortality differed between control and experimental groups. Cumulative incidence of PSA progression was 34·2% (28·6-39·9) in the STAS group, 39·6% (33·6-45·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 29·2% (23·8-34·8) in the ITAS group, and 26·0% (20·8-31·4) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Compared with STAS, no difference was noted in PSA progression with ITAS or STAS plus zoledronic acid; however, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced PSA progression (sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). Cumulative incidence of local progression was 4·1% (2·2-7·0) in the STAS group, 6·1% (3·7-9·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 1·5% (0·5-3·7) in the ITAS group, and 3·4% (1·7-6·1) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were noted between groups. Cumulative incidences of bone progression were 7·5% (4·8-11·1), 14·6% (10·6-19·2), 8·4% (5·5-12·2), and 7·6% (4·8-11·2), respectively. Compared with STAS, STAS plus zoledronic acid increased the risk of bone progression (SHR 1·90, 95% CI 1·14-3·17; p=0·012), but no differences were noted with the other two groups. Cumulative incidence of distant progression was 14·7% (10·7-19·2) in the STAS group, 17·3% (13·0-22·1) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 14·2% (10·3-18·7) in the ITAS group, and 11·1% (7·6-15·2) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were recorded between groups. Cumulative incidence of secondary therapeutic intervention was 25·6% (20·5-30·9), 28·9% (23·5-34·5), 20·7% (16·1-25·9), and 15·3% (11·3-20·0), respectively. Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced the need for secondary therapeutic intervention (SHR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·95; p=0·024); no differences were noted with the other two groups. An interaction between trial factors was recorded for Gleason score; therefore, we did pairwise comparisons between all groups. Post-hoc analyses suggested that the reductions in PSA progression and decreased need for secondary therapeutic intervention with ITAS plus zoledronic acid were restricted to tumours with a Gleason score of 8-10, and that ITAS was better than STAS in tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Long-term morbidity and quality-of-life scores were not affected adversely by 18 months of androgen suppression or zoledronic acid. INTERPRETATION: Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid was more effective for treatment of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of 8-10, and ITAS alone was effective for tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Nevertheless, these findings are based on secondary endpoint data and post-hoc analyses and must be regarded cautiously. Long- term follow-up is necessary, as is external validation of the interaction between zoledronic acid and Gleason score. STAS plus zoledronic acid can be ruled out as a potential therapeutic option. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, Abbott Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, University of Newcastle (Australia), Calvary Health Care (Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Maitland Cancer Appeal, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand.