Physical activity and psychological support can replace "another pill" to manage cancer-related symptoms in children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer.

The management of cancer-related symptoms with nonpharmacological treatment has been proven effective, but more studies are still required to strengthen the scientific evidence. Given the state of the evidence, one might wonder about the perceptions of pediatric oncology experts, healthcare providers and CAM providers regarding the use of supportive care in pediatric oncology. Related to this important question, Mora et al. recently published an exploratory qualitative study entitled "Supportive care for cancer-related symptoms in pediatric oncology: a qualitative study among healthcare providers" in the BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Journal. The data generated by the authors provided new insights and perspectives to the current literature. However, their findings must be put into perspective to increase the scope of the original article and to highlight that physical activity and psychosocial interventions are powerful nonpharmacological interventions to manage cancer-related symptoms.

Behavioral physical activity intervention coupled with standard post-cancer directed treatment care to mitigate chronic pain in childhood cancer survivors: A protocol for a single-center, pilot randomized controlled trial.

Background: Long term survivors of childhood cancer have a high prevalence of chronic pain. Novel, multidisciplinary approaches to manage pain, are needed to allow for a reduction in the use of opioids for pain management. Physical activity is highly effective in managing chronic pain in children and adolescents, however, evidence about the combination of physical activity intervention and pain medications in chronic pain management in childhood cancer survivors is lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effects of a behavioral physical activity intervention integrated into standard post cancer directed treatment care to mitigate chronic pain in this unique population. Methods: This is a single site pilot randomized controlled trial of a 16-week physical activity intervention coupled with standard care. The primary aim is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the physical activity intervention in childhood cancer survivors with chronic pain. Secondary aims include evaluating the differences in functional and psychosocial outcomes along with self-reported pain scores and cumulative dose of pain medications between the exercise group and standard cancer care group. The physical activity intervention is a home-based program structured to increase patients' physical activity behavior and to favor low intensity bodily movement using aerobic exercise and resistance training. Conclusions: This study will demonstrate that behavioral supportive measures like physical activity may be a novel means to improve cancer related chronic pain in young survivors of childhood cancer and decrease medication usage for pain along with improvement in functional and psychosocial outcomes.

Dose Delays, Dose Reductions, and Relative Total Dose Intensity in Patients With Advanced Cancer Who Exercised During Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Treatment.

BACKGROUND: When it comes to chemotherapy, maintaining the dose and schedule of treatment are of vital importance, as clinical evidence suggests that dose intensity is associated with optimal treatment outcomes for various tumors. Yet, reduced dose intensity is a common method of mitigating the chemotherapy-induced side effects. Exercise has been shown to attenuate chemotherapy-related symptoms that frequently cluster together. Understanding this, we conducted a retrospective analysis in patients with advanced disease treated with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens and who completed exercise training during treatment. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively in a chart review of 184 patients, aged 18 years or older and treated for Stage IIIA-IV cancer. Data collection included baseline patient demographics and clinical characteristics, including age at diagnosis, cancer stage at initial diagnosis, chemotherapy regimen, and planned dose and schedule. Cancer types included brain (6.5%), breast (35.9%), colorectal (8.7%), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (7.6%), Hodgkin's lymphoma (11.4%), non-small cell lung (16.8%), ovarian (10.9%), and pancreatic (2.2%). All patients completed at least 12 weeks of prescribed, individualized exercise. Each program included cardiovascular, resistance training, and flexibility components, under the supervision of a certified exercise oncology trainer once a week. RESULTS: RDI was measured for each myelosuppressive agent in a regimen over the entire chemotherapy course and then averaged across the myelosuppressive agents in a regimen. An RDI of less than 85% was designated as the clinically meaningful threshold for reduction in RDI based on previously published studies. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of patients across regimens had dose delays (18.3%-74.3%) and dose reductions (18.1%-84.6%). Between 12% and 83.9% of patients missed at least 1 dose of a myelosuppressive agent that was part of their standard regimen. Overall, 50.8% of patients received less than 85% of the RDI. In short, patients with advanced cancer and an exercise adherence above 84.3% saw fewer chemotherapy dose delays and dose reductions. These delays and reductions occurred significantly less frequently compared to the published norms in the sedentary population (P < .05).

Tai Chi for cancer survivors: A systematic review toward consensus-based guidelines.

To manage acute, long-term, and late effects of cancer, current guidelines recommend moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic and resistance exercise. Unfortunately, not all cancer survivors are able or willing to perform higher intensity exercise during difficult cancer treatments or because of other existing health conditions. Tai Chi is an equipment-free, multicomponent mind-body exercise performed at light-to-moderate intensity that may provide a more feasible alternative to traditional exercise programs for some cancer survivors. This systematic review evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of Tai Chi across the cancer care continuum. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, and CINAHL databases for interventional studies from inception to 18 September 2020. Controlled trials of the effects of Tai Chi training on patient-reported and objectively measured outcomes in cancer survivors were included. Study quality was determined by the RoB 2 tool, and effect estimates were evaluated using the Best Evidence Synthesis approach. Twenty-six reports from 14 trials (one non-randomized controlled trial) conducted during (n = 5) and after treatment (after surgery: n = 2; after other treatments: n = 7) were included. Low-level evidence emerged to support the benefits of 40-60 min of thrice-weekly supervised Tai Chi for 8-12 weeks to improve fatigue and sleep quality in cancer survivors. These findings need to be confirmed in larger trials and tested for scaling-up potential. Insufficient evidence was available to evaluate the effects of Tai Chi on other cancer-related outcomes. Future research should examine whether Tai Chi training can improve a broader range of cancer outcomes including during the pre-treatment and end of life phases.

Exercise Therapy and Radiation Therapy for Cancer: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Exercise therapy (ET) is shown to improve toxicity and surrogates of survival for patients receiving chemotherapy. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines lack recommendations for concurrent radiation therapy (RT) and ET. The main objective was to determine the impact of concurrent ET + RT with respect to (1) acceptability, feasibility, safety; and (2) to demonstrate how incorporating ET in cancer treatment can enhance patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and physical function-defined as strength or exercise capacity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A PICOS/PRISMA selection protocol was used to search PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Review for prospective randomized controlled trials evaluating concurrent ET + RT, including >10 patients and with 1 or more study arms. Acceptability, feasibility, and safety rates were calculated. PROs were assessed with study-specific metrics. Physical function was defined as improvements in strength or range of motion. Statistically significant improvement was defined by P <.05. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 693 screened studies including 1563 patients (831 receiving exercise, 732 controls) with localized breast cancer (67.1% of patients), prostate cancer (27.4%), head and neck cancers (2.8%), and spinal metastases (2.8%) were assessed. Objective 1: Among 3385 patients approached for ET, 1864 (55.1%) accepted the treatment; of those, 1563 patients (83.9%) completed the trials. Objective 2: Statistical improvements were noted in these PROs: quality of life (14 of 15 studies), fatigue (12 of 16 studies), mood/depression (9 of 13), and anxiety (6 of 7). Physical function improved statically in 16 of 16 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Combination ET + RT is safe and well-tolerated with improvements in PROs and physical function. Additional studies are needed in patients with metastatic cancers to assess survival and to compare effectiveness of different exercise regimens.

Synergy Between Licensed Rehabilitation Professionals and Clinical Exercise Physiologists: Optimizing Patient Care for Cancer Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES: To differentiate between rehabilitation and exercise training and propose how rehabilitation professionals and exercise physiologists can collaborate to optimize cancer survivor care. DATA SOURCE: Professional organizations and peer-reviewed manuscripts. CONCLUSION: Both professions offer complementary skillsets that, when integrated, optimize the ability of the cancer care team to implement more effective survivorship care plans. Future models of care must incorporate efficient communications between the cancer rehabilitation program and oncology team, include various reimbursement/payment/funding options, and continuously assess program efficacy. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses must be cognizant of physical needs (ie, functional and conditioning status) and cancer-related comorbidities when referring cancer survivors for exercise reconditioning.

Exercise is medicine in oncology: Engaging clinicians to help patients move through cancer.

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.

Dose-response Effects of Aerobic Exercise Among Colon Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that higher volumes of physical activity are associated with a lower risk of disease recurrence among survivors of colon cancer. However, the feasibility and safety of prescribing higher volumes of physical activity to survivors of colon cancer are unknown. Furthermore, the pathways through which exercise may reduce disease recurrence are unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Survivors of stage I to III colon cancer were randomized to usual-care control, 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise (low-dose), or 300 minutes per week of aerobic exercise (high-dose). Changes in soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and vascular adhesion molecule-1 prognostic biomarkers were examined. RESULTS: From January 2015 to February 2016, 39 patients were enrolled (n = 13 usual-care control; n = 14 low-dose; n = 12 high-dose), and 38 participants completed the study (97% follow-up). Over 6 months, the low-dose group completed 142 minutes per week (92.8% adherence), and the high-dose group completed 247 minutes per week (89.0% adherence) of exercise. Compared with the control group, changes in soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 were -134.9 ng/mL (95% confidence interval, -238.1 to -31.6 ng/mL) in the low-dose group and -114.8 ng/mL (95% confidence interval, -222.5 to -7.1 ng/mL) in the high-dose group (linear Ptrend = .023; nonlinear Ptrend = .044). No changes were observed for soluable vascular adhesion molecule-1 (linear Ptrend = .791; nonlinear Ptrend = .604). Non-serious adverse events occurred at similar rates among randomized groups. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Higher volumes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, up to 300 minutes per week, are feasible, safe, and elicit favorable changes in prognostic biomarkers among patients recently treated for stage I to III colon cancer. These data can be used to guide clinical recommendations for patients, and inform future trials.

Acute Inflammatory Response to Low-, Moderate-, and High-Load Resistance Exercise in Women With Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.

Background Resistance exercise is emerging as a potential adjunct therapy to aid in the management of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). However, the mechanisms underlying the relationships between the acute and long-term benefits of resistance exercise on BCRL are not well understood. Purpose To examine the acute inflammatory response to upper-body resistance exercise in women with BCRL and to compare these effects between resistance exercises involving low, moderate, and high loads. The impact on lymphedema status and associated symptoms was also compared. Methods A total of 21 women, 62 ± 10 years old, with BCRL participated in the study. Participants completed low-load (15-20 repetition maximum [RM]), moderate-load (10-12 RM), and high-load (6-8 RM) exercise sessions consisting of 3 sets of 6 upper-body resistance exercises. Sessions were completed in a randomized order separated by a 7- to 10-day wash-out period. Venous blood samples were obtained to assess markers of exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation. Lymphedema status was assessed using bioimpedance spectroscopy and arm circumferences, and associated symptoms were assessed using Visual Analogue Scales for pain, heaviness, and tightness. Measurements were conducted before and 24 hours after the exercise sessions. Results No significant changes in creatine kinase, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α were observed following the 3 resistance exercise sessions. There were no significant changes in arm swelling or symptom severity scores across the 3 resistance exercise conditions. Conclusions The magnitude of acute exercise-induced inflammation following upper-body resistance exercise in women with BCRL does not vary between resistance exercise loads.

The prescription or proscription of exercise in colorectal cancer care.

PURPOSE: Clinical guidelines recommend that oncologists prescribe exercise to their patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). However, 84% of oncologists do not prescribe exercise, citing concerns of safety and feasibility. Data are inadequate regarding the proportion of CRC survivors that could be safely prescribed with the dose of exercise recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), American Cancer Society (ACS), or National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) in an unsupervised setting. METHODS: We reviewed published guidelines for exercise prescription among cancer survivors and extracted health factors that may necessitate referral to trained personnel (physical therapist or exercise professional) for an individualized exercise program or supervision of exercise as recommended by the ACSM/ACS/NCCN. We applied these health factors to a cohort of nonmetastatic CRC survivors 6 months after completing curative care. The primary outcome was the proportion of CRC survivors to whom oncologists could prescribe unsupervised exercise at the dose recommended by the ACSM/ACS/NCCN. RESULTS: Among 351 CRC survivors, 6 months after curative care, 21%-42% of patients could be prescribed with the dose of exercise recommended by the ACSM/ACS/NCCN. Estimates varied as a function of the inclusion or exclusion of several prevalent comorbid health conditions including hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, obesity, and hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSIONS: Our data are consistent with the clinical observation that a large proportion of CRC survivors may be unable to participate in unsupervised exercise 6 months after curative care. These data underscore the need for continued research to clarify the safety and feasibility of prescribing exercise to CRC survivors.

A hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial of an evidence-based exercise intervention for breast cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: The primary aims of this hybrid Type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial were to quantitatively assess whether an evidence-based exercise intervention for breast cancer survivors, Strength After Breast Cancer, was safe and effective in a new setting and to qualitatively assess barriers to implementation. METHODS: A cohort of 84 survivors completed measurements related to limb volume, muscle strength, and body image at baseline, 67 survivors completed measurements 12 months later. Qualitative methods were used to understand barriers to implementation experienced by referring oncology clinicians and physical therapists who delivered the program. RESULTS: Similar to the efficacy trial, the revised intervention demonstrated safety with regard to lymphedema, and led to improvements in lymphedema symptoms, muscular strength, and body image. Comparison of effects in the effectiveness trial to effects in the efficacy trial revealed larger strength increases in the efficacy trial than in the effectiveness trial (P < .04), but few other differences were found. Qualitative implementation data suggested significant barriers around intervention characteristics, payment, eligibility criteria, the referral process, the need for champions (ie, advocates), and the need to adapt during implementation of the intervention, which should be considered in future dissemination and implementation efforts. CONCLUSIONS: This trial successfully demonstrated that a physical therapy led strength training program for breast cancer survivors can be implemented in a community setting while retaining the effectiveness and safety of the clinical trial. However, during the translation process, strategies to reduce barriers to implementation are required. This new program can inform larger scale dissemination and implementation efforts.

Physical functioning and rehabilitation for the cancer survivor.

There are more than 13.8 million survivors of cancer living in the United States. Up to 20% of survivors of childhood-onset and 53% of survivors of adult-onset cancer have problems with physical function as a result of their cancer and or its treatment. These problems may be immediately apparent, during, or soon after initial cancer treatment, or may appear days, months, or years later as the cancer survivor ages. Unfortunately, rehabilitation services and providers are not easily or systematically accessible in today's healthcare system. Rehabilitation services that restore or ameliorate early functional loss or that protect against or minimize the impact of later-onset organ system dysfunction are available, at least in larger comprehensive cancer center settings. This report describes physical function, details the evolution of cancer rehabilitation, and identifies cancer survivors who may benefit from rehabilitation services. Additionally, the evidence for specific approaches to rehabilitation, intervention, and prevention of functional loss are reviewed. Finally, we summarize the mechanisms used to measure physical function and stress the need for additional research to support rehabilitation services for cancer survivors.

Current perspectives and emerging issues on cancer rehabilitation.

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.

A prospective surveillance model for rehabilitation for women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The current model of care for individuals with breast cancer focuses on treatment of the disease, followed by ongoing surveillance to detect recurrence. This approach lacks attention to patients' physical and functional well-being. Breast cancer treatment sequelae can lead to physical impairments and functional limitations. Common impairments include pain, fatigue, upper-extremity dysfunction, lymphedema, weakness, joint arthralgia, neuropathy, weight gain, cardiovascular effects, and osteoporosis. Evidence supports prospective surveillance for early identification and treatment as a means to prevent or mitigate many of these concerns. This article proposes a prospective surveillance model for physical rehabilitation and exercise that can be integrated with disease treatment to create a more comprehensive approach to survivorship health care. The goals of the model are to promote surveillance for common physical impairments and functional limitations associated with breast cancer treatment; to provide education to facilitate early identification of impairments; to introduce rehabilitation and exercise intervention when physical impairments are identified; and to promote and support physical activity and exercise behaviors through the trajectory of disease treatment and survivorship. METHODS: The model is the result of a multidisciplinary meeting of research and clinical experts in breast cancer survivorship and representatives of relevant professional and advocacy organizations. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The proposed model identifies time points during breast cancer care for assessment of and education about physical impairments. Ultimately, implementation of the model may influence incidence and severity of breast cancer treatment-related physical impairments. As such, the model seeks to optimize function during and after treatment and positively influence a growing survivorship community.

Integrating a prospective surveillance model for rehabilitation into breast cancer survivorship care.

At some point during or after treatment, breast cancer may be considered a chronic illness, presenting many choices for managing the disease, its adverse treatment-related effects, other medical comorbidities as well as the biobehavioral burden of having a life-threatening disease, even for individuals with potentially curable breast cancer. Health care models, such as the chronic care model, the medical home, and the shared care model, provide a context for building survivorship health care models. Goals and characteristics of recently proposed shared care models for cancer survivorship health care delivery closely align with the goals and concepts of the prospective surveillance model (PSM) proposed elsewhere in this supplement to the journal Cancer. Given these similarities, along with the growth and expansion of survivorship care models and impending mandates for delivery, there is merit to considering how implementation of the PSM can be integrated with models of survivorship care delivery. The PSM model will likely face many similar challenges and barriers that have impeded widespread dissemination of other survivorship models of care. There exist opportunities to integrate lessons learned as well as to align efforts to achieve greater impact on the shared goal of improving health outcomes for breast cancer survivors.

Upper-body morbidity after breast cancer: incidence and evidence for evaluation, prevention, and management within a prospective surveillance model of care.

The purpose of this paper is to review the incidence of upper-body morbidity (arm and breast symptoms, impairments, and lymphedema), methods for diagnosis, and prevention and treatment strategies. It was also the purpose to highlight the evidence base for integration of prospective surveillance for upper-body morbidity within standard clinical care of women with breast cancer. Between 10% and 64% of women report upper-body symptoms between 6 months and 3 years after breast cancer, and approximately 20% develop lymphedema. Symptoms remain common into longer-term survivorship, and although lymphedema may be transient for some, those who present with mild lymphedema are at increased risk of developing moderate to severe lymphedema. The etiology of morbidity seems to be multifactorial, with the most consistent risk factors being those associated with extent of treatment. However, known risk factors cannot reliably distinguish between those who will and will not develop upper-body morbidity. Upper-body morbidity may be treatable with physical therapy. There is also evidence in support of integrating regular surveillance for upper-body morbidity into the routine care provided to women with breast cancer, with early diagnosis potentially contributing to more effective management and prevention of progression of these conditions.

Tolerability of red yeast rice (2,400 mg twice daily) versus pravastatin (20 mg twice daily) in patients with previous statin intolerance.

Currently, no consensus has been reached regarding the management of hyperlipidemia in patients who develop statin-associated myalgia (SAM). Many statin-intolerant patients use alternative lipid-lowering therapies, including red yeast rice. The present trial evaluated the tolerability of red yeast rice versus pravastatin in patients unable to tolerate other statins because of myalgia. The study was conducted in a community-based setting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A total of 43 adults with dyslipidemia and a history of statin discontinuation because of myalgia were randomly assigned to red yeast rice 2,400 mg twice daily or pravastatin 20 mg twice daily for 12 weeks. All subjects were concomitantly enrolled in a 12-week therapeutic lifestyle change program. The primary outcomes included the incidence of treatment discontinuation because of myalgia and a daily pain severity score. The secondary outcomes were muscle strength and plasma lipids. The incidence of withdrawal from medication owing to myalgia was 5% (1 of 21) in the red yeast rice group and 9% (2 of 22) in the pravastatin group (p = 0.99). The mean pain severity did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. No difference was found in muscle strength between the 2 groups at week 4 (p = 0.61), week 8 (p = 0.81), or week 12 (p = 0.82). The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased 30% in the red yeast rice group and 27% in the pravastatin group. In conclusion, red yeast rice was tolerated as well as pravastatin and achieved a comparable reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in a population previously intolerant to statins.