Translating 2019 ACSM Cancer Exercise Recommendations for a Physiatric Practice: Derived Recommendations from an International Expert Panel.

In 2018, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) reconvened an international, multi-disciplinary group of professionals to review pertinent published literature on exercise for people with cancer. The 2018 roundtable resulted in the publication of three articles in 2019. The three articles serve as an important update to the original ACSM Roundtable on Cancer, which convened in 2010. Although the focus of the three 2019 articles is on exercise, which is only one part of comprehensive cancer rehabilitation, the evidence presented in the 2019 ACSM articles has direct implications for physiatrists and other rehabilitation professionals who care for people with cancer. As such, the narrative review presented here has two primary objectives. First, we summarize the evidence within the three ACSM articles and interpret it within a familiar rehabilitation framework, namely the Dietz model of Cancer Rehabilitation, in order to facilitate implementation broadly within rehabilitation practice. Second, via expert consensus, we have tabulated relevant exercise recommendations for specific cancer populations at different points in the cancer care continuum and translated them into text, tables, and figures for ease of reference. Notably, the authors of this article are members of the Cancer Rehabilitation Physician Consortium (CRPC), a group of physicians who subspecialize in cancer rehabilitation medicine (CRM).

Consensus-Building efforts to identify best tools for screening and assessment for supportive services in oncology.

Purpose: To build consensus around an optimal patient-reported outcome measure of cancer symptoms and patient needs to facilitate patient-provider communication and trigger referrals to supportive services.Methods and materials: The Grid-Enabled Measures platform was used to crowdsource and facilitate collaboration to achieve consensus. Respondents were invited to nominate and independently rate the usefulness of measures that: (1) have been actively used at a healthcare institution, (2) have a multiple choice or yes/no type format, (3) are applicable to adults with cancer, (4) are patient-reported, and 5) have psychometric data if possible. Discussion boards within the GEM workspace allowed respondents to identify barriers to implementing patient assessment and referral systems.Results: 166 individuals from various disciplines from 25 organizations participated. Six instruments were nominated, and 553 rating surveys were submitted. The three most highly-rated overall instruments were the Distress Thermometer, the James Supportive Case Screening, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Participants noted that wide-scale implementation of this process requires both identifying problems and providing clinicians with algorithms to facilitate appropriate referrals.Conclusions: Consensus reported three most highly-related measures as optimal for comprehensive screening and identification for referral by assessing multiple domains of functioning and quality of life.Implications for RehabilitationGaining consensus on the best patient reported outcome measures is an important step towards improving access to cancer rehabilitation services.A consensus agreed on several measures to use for cancer rehabilitation screening. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, National Comprehensive Cancer. Network Distress Thermometer and the James Instrument.The selected measures do not put undue burden on clinicians and patients.