Home-based exercise improves quality of life in breast and prostate cancer survivors: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast (BCa) and prostate (PCa) cancer are two of the most common but survivable cancers. One important component of survivorship that is impacted by treatment long term is diminished quality of life (QoL). Supervised exercise improves QoL and subsequent outcomes but is not accessible for all survivors. Additionally, many factors influence QoL including physical activity (PA), cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), physical function, and fatigue. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to increase access to exercise beyond supervised exercise facilities. Home-based exercise may provide a feasible alternative for cancer survivors especially for those living in rural communities. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim is to investigate the effects of home-based exercise training (Pre-training vs. Post-training) on QoL in BCa/PCa. A secondary aim is to investigate PA, CRF, physical function, and fatigue and potential moderators (age, cancer-type, intervention duration and type). Home-based exercise trials (randomized crossover or quasi-experimental design) with adults (aged 18 years and over) breast or prostate cancer survivors (not currently undergoing chemotherapy or radiation treatment) were eligible for inclusion. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched (inception-December 2022) for studies which included adult BCa or PCa survivors (not currently on chemotherapy/radiation), at least measured QoL, and undergoing unsupervised, home-based exercise training. APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Initially, 819 studies were identified, from which 17 studies (20 effects) involving 692 participants were extracted. Effect sizes were calculated as standardized mean differences (SMD). Data were pooled using a 3-level model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Pooled SMD was used to assess the magnitude of effect, where <0.2, 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 was defined as trivial, small, moderate, and large respectively. RESULTS: Home-based exercise resulted in small improvements in QoL (SMD = 0.30, 95% CI 0.01, 0.60, p = 0.042), PA (SMD = 0.49, 95% CI 0.26, 0.75, p<0.001) and CRF (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI -0.01, 0.91, p = 0.056). Physical function (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI -0.21, 0.21, p = 1.000) and fatigue (SMD = -0.61, 95%CI -1.53, 0.32, p = 0.198) did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based exercise results in small improves QoL in BCa/PCa survivors, independent of cancer type, intervention duration and type, or age. Home-based exercise also improves PA and CRF enhancing survivorship. Therefore, home-based exercise is an efficacious alternative option to improve QoL for BCa and PCa survivors especially for those who live in rural communities or lack access to exercise facilities.

Androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer is not associated with COVID-2019 infection.

BACKGROUND: Androgens may play a role in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and host responses as the virus is dependent on the androgen-regulated protein transmembrane serine protease 2 for cell entry. Studies have indicated that prostate cancer patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and serious complications compared with patients without ADT, but data are inconsistent. METHODS: A total of 655 prostate cancer patients who were under surveillance at two urology departments in Sweden on April 1, 2020 were included in the study as well as 240 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). At follow-up early in 2021, the participants completed a questionnaire containing information about symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Blood samples were also collected for the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (SARS-CoV-2 Total; Siemens). We used multivariable logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between ADT and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was 13.4% among patients receiving ADT and 10.4% among patients without ADT. After adjusting for potential confounders, we observed no differences in symptoms or risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection between patients with and without ADT (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.52-1.85). Higher body mass index, Type 1 diabetes, and prostate cancer severity, defined by high Gleason score (8-10; OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.04-4.09) or elevated levels of prostate-specific antigen (>20 µg/l; OR: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.13-4.07) were associated with increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Overall, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not higher among men with prostate cancer than among men with BPH. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support the hypothesis that ADT use in prostate cancer patients reduces the risk or symptom severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection or that prostate cancer patients are at increased risk of COVID-19 compared with men without prostate cancer.

Pilot Study on the Impact of a Home-Based Exercise Program on Inflammatory Cytokines and Quality of Life in Men with Prostate Cancer Under Active Surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to demonstrate potential translation of pre-clinical studies to a home-based exercise intervention in mediating inflammatory cytokine markers and tumor progression in men under active surveillance for prostate cancer. METHODS: A 2-arm randomized control parallel group design was used. The exercise intervention consisted of 24 weeks of an aerobic and resistance home-based exercise program and results were compared to a waitlist control group. Data were collected at baseline and end of study for eotaxin, interferon-γ (INF-γ), interleukin-12 (IL-12), interleukin-1α (IL-1α), interleukin-5 (IL-5), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), distanced walked during a 6-minute walk test (6MWT), body mass index, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Non-significant decreases were observed in all biomarkers, especially VEGF (pre: 125.16 ± 198.66, post: 80.29 ± 124.30, P = .06) and INF-γ (pre: 152.88 ± 312.71, post: 118.93 ± 158.79, P = .08), in the intervention group; only IL- α (pre: 332.15 ± 656.77, post: 255.12 ± 502.09, P = .20) decreased in the control group while all other biomarkers increased from baseline to end of study. A non-significant increase in 6MWT distance was observed in the intervention group, while a decrease was seen in the control group. Significant decreases in physical function, emotional wellbeing, and total composite scale on the FACIT-F were observed in the intervention group, possibly due to the isolation restrictions of COVID-19. Physical function on the SF-36 significantly increased in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies with powered samples are needed to confirm the trends observed for inflammatory biomarkers and functional fitness.

From uro-oncologists' perspectives: golf as a means of improving wellbeing among prostate cancer survivors.

Prostate cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death among men. Due to related societal limitations, the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic increases physical inactivity, which decreases cancer survivors' functional capacity. As a result, golf might be a good way for prostate cancer survivors who have been fully vaccinated against coronavirus disease to improve their musculoskeletal function, cardiorespiratory fitness, psychological function, and general quality of life. Aerobic activity's ability to adjust hormone levels, prevent obesity, increase immunological function, and lower oxidative stress have all been identified as reasons for its benefit for prostate cancer survivors. Prostate cancer survivors must first complete a fitness evaluation supervised and recommended by a certified clinical exercise physiologist after consultations with a urologic oncologist before enrolling in a cancer-specific community golf program. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing is currently the gold standard technique for the evaluation of cardiopulmonary fitness. Prostate cancer survivors should be placed in a group with regard to their fitness level if they pass this fitness test. Prostate cancer survivors can be grouped into four to five groups at a time. Golfing activities should include warm-up, driving range, and course activities (on-course golf play twice a week for a duration of 90 min per day or 180 min per week at moderate-intensity). From the uro-oncologists' point of view, prostate cancer survivors can benefit from group-based community golf programs that can be recommended and designed for them through the collaboration of their physician and a certified exercise professional.

Implementation and Impact of Choosing Wisely Recommendations in Oncology.

The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, launched in 2012, includes oncology-specific recommendations to promote evidence-based care and deimplementation of low-value practices. However, it is unclear to what extent the campaign has prompted practice change. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the uptake of cancer-specific CW recommendations focusing on the period before the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Grimshaw's deimplementation framework to thematically group the findings and extracted information on implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators from articles reporting on active implementation. In the 98 articles addressing 32 unique recommendations, most reported on passive changes in adherence pre-post publication of CW recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and reduction in staging imaging for early breast cancer were the most commonly evaluated recommendations. Most articles assessing passive changes in adherence pre-post CW publication reported improvement. All articles evaluating active implementation (10 of 98) reported improved compliance (range: 3%-73% improvement). Most common implementation strategies included provider education and/or stakeholder engagement. Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were common barriers; common facilitators included the use of technology and provider education to increase provider buy-in. Given the limited uptake of oncology-specific CW recommendations thus far, more attention toward supporting active implementation is needed. Effective adoption of CW likely requires a multipronged approach that includes building stakeholder buy-in through engagement and education, using technology-enabled forced functions to facilitate change along with policy and reimbursement models that disincentivize low-value care. Professional societies have a role to play in supporting this next phase of CW.

Codesigning a patient support portal with health professionals and men with prostate cancer: An action research study.

INTRODUCTION: The supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer (PCa) have been well documented, but little is known about how an online portal may address these. This study sought to determine priority issues facing men with PCa, barriers and enablers to accessing care and whether health professionals (HPs) and men would support the inclusion of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) comparator tool. METHODS: We conducted four online focus groups with HPs recruited from healthcare services in Victoria, followed by seven online codesign workshops with men with PCa, recruited through the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry, Prostate Cancer Foundation Australia and the Cancer Council Victoria. Men were eligible to participate if they had lived experience of PCa and access to the internet. We analysed focus groups thematically. Workshops were analysed using descriptive-content analysis. RESULTS: HPs (n = 39) highlighted that men had shifting priorities over time, but noted the importance of providing information to men in lay terms to assist in treatment decision-making and side-effect management. HPs identified key enablers to men accessing support services such as practice nurses, partners and having men share their stories with each other. HPs raised financial, cultural, geographic and emotional barriers to accessing supportive care. Inclusion of a PRO comparator tool received mixed support from HPs, with 41% (n = 16) supportive, 49% (n = 19) unsure and 10% (n = 4) not supportive. Men involved in workshops (n = 28) identified informational needs to assist in treatment decision-making and side-effect management as the top priority throughout care. Men described support groups and practice nurses as key enablers. Short consultation times and complex information were described as barriers. Unlike HPs, all men supported the inclusion of a PRO comparator tool in a portal. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a patient support portal should provide information in lay terms that address the shifting priorities of men with PCa. Men with PCa would welcome the development of a portal to centralize support information and a PRO comparator tool to prompt health-seeking behaviour. Future research will implement these findings in the development of a portal, and pilot and evaluate the portal within a population-based sample. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This project adopted a codesign approach including both men with PCa and HPs involved in PCa care. Men with PCa also formed part of the study's steering committee and consumer advisory groups. HPs were consulted in a serious of online focus groups. Subsequently, men with PCa and their support persons participated in workshops. Men with PCa were also involved in the preparation of this manuscript.

Zinc-Loaded Black Phosphorus Multifunctional Nanodelivery System Combined With Photothermal Therapy Have the Potential to Treat Prostate Cancer Patients Infected With COVID-19.

Since 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has swept the world and become a new virus threatening the health of all mankind. The survey found that prostate cancer accounts for one in three male cancer patients infected with COVID-19. This undoubtedly makes prostate cancer patients face a more difficult situation. Prostate cancer is the second most harmful malignant tumor in men because of its insidious onset, easy metastasis, and easy development into castration-resistant prostate cancer even after treatment. Due to its high immunogenicity and a small number of specific infiltrating T cells with tumor-associated antigens in the tissue, it is difficult to obtain a good therapeutic effect with immune checkpoint blocking therapy alone. Therefore, in the current study, we developed a platform carrying Doxorubicin (DOX)-loaded black phosphate nanometer combined with photothermal therapy (PTT) and found this drug combination stimulated the immungentic cell death (ICD) process in PC-3 cells and DC maturation. More importantly, zinc ions have a good immunomodulatory function against infectious diseases, and can improve the killing ability of the nanosystem against prostate cancer cells. The introduction of Aptamer (Apt) enhances the targeting of the entire nanomedicine. We hope that this excellent combination will lead to effective treatment strategies for prostate cancer patients infected with COVID-19.

Impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on prostate cancer care in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 outbreak has affected care for non-COVID diseases like cancer. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on prostate cancer care in the Netherlands. METHODS: Prostate cancer diagnoses per month in 2020-2021 versus 2018-2019 were compared based on preliminary data of the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and nationwide pathology network. Detailed data was retrieved from the NCR for the cohorts diagnosed from March-May 2020 (first COVID-19 wave) and March-May 2018-2019 (reference). Changes in number of diagnoses, age, disease stage and first-line treatment were compared. RESULTS: An initial decline of 17% in prostate cancer diagnoses during the first COVID-19 wave was observed. From May onwards the number of diagnoses started to restore to approximately 95% of the expected number by the end of 2020. Stage at diagnosis remainedstable over time. In low-risk localised prostate cancer radical prostatectomy was conducted more often in week 9-12 (21% versus 12% in the reference period; OR=1.9, 95% CI; 1.2-3.1) and less active surveillance was applied (67% versus 78%; OR=0.6, 95% CI; 0.4-0.9). In the intermediate-risk group, a similar change was observed in week 13-16. Radical prostatectomy volumes in 2020 were comparable to 2018-2019. CONCLUSION: During the first COVID-19 wave the number of prostate cancer diagnoses declined. In the second half of 2020 this largely restored although the number remained lower than expected. Changes in treatment were temporary and compliant with adapted guidelines. Although delayed diagnoses could result in a less favourable stage distribution, possibly affecting survival, this seems not very likely.

Implications and effects of COVID-19 on diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to uncertainty on the optimal management for prostate cancer (PCa). This narrative review aims to shed light on the optimal diagnosis and management of patients with or suspected to have PCa. RECENT FINDINGS: Faecal-oral or aerosol transmission is possible during prostate procedures; caution must be in place when performing digital rectal examinations, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies and prostate surgeries requiring general anaesthesia. Patients must also be triaged using preoperative polymerase chain reaction tests for COVID-19. COVID-19 has accelerated the adoption of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), reducing the need for prostate biopsy unless when absolutely indicated, and the risk of COVID-19 spread can be reduced. Combined with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, amongst other factors, multiparametric MRI could reduce unnecessary biopsies in patients with little chance of clinically significant PCa. Treatment of PCa should be stratified by the risk level and preferences of the patient. COVID-19 has accelerated the development of telemedicine and clinicians should utilise safe and effective teleconsultations to protect themselves and their patients. SUMMARY: COVID-19 transmission during prostate procedures is possible. Patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) of <3 and PSA density <0.15 ng/ml/ml are deemed low-risk and are safe to undergo surveillance without MRI-targeted biopsy. Intermediate- or high-risk patients should be offered definitive treatment within four months or 30days of diagnosis to avoid compromising treatment outcomes; three-month courses of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy can be considered when a delay of surgery is anticipated.

Elastic tubes: the ideal equipment for telehealth exercise medicine in the management of prostate cancer?

Prostate cancer (PCa) affects 1 in 8 men, but exercise therapy has been shown to be a very effective intervention not only to induce physiological benefits but to also reduce the side effects of cancer treatments typically administered during PCa. The COVID19 pandemic has restricted access to exercise clinics, a problem which always existed for people living in rural and remote areas. This caused many exercise physiologists and researchers to transition their clinic-based exercise to online, home-based exercise. We would like to propose that researchers and exercise physiologists should consider the use of elastic tubes in both research and the clinical management of PCa, when exercise programs are administered remotely, as their characteristics make them an ideal exercise equipment. In this article, the characteristics, considerations, and information on quantifying exercise dosage when using elastic tubes in remote exercise delivery are discussed.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis and treatment of men with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostic and treatment activity in 2020 across hospital providers of prostate cancer (PCa) care in the English National Health Service. METHODS: Diagnostic and treatment activity between 23 March (start of first national lockdown in England) and 31 December 2020 was compared with the same calendar period in 2019. Patients newly diagnosed with PCa were identified from national rapid cancer registration data linked to other electronic healthcare datasets. RESULTS: There was a 30.8% reduction (22 419 vs 32 409) in the number of men with newly diagnosed PCa in 2020 after the start of the first lockdown, compared with the corresponding period in 2019. Men diagnosed in 2020 were typically at a more advanced stage (Stage IV: 21.2% vs 17.4%) and slightly older (57.9% vs 55.9% ≥ 70 years; P < 0.001). Prostate biopsies in 2020 were more often performed using transperineal (TP) routes (64.0% vs 38.2%). The number of radical prostatectomies in 2020 was reduced by 26.9% (3896 vs 5331) and the number treated by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) by 14.1% (9719 vs 11 309). Other changes included an increased use of EBRT with hypofractionation and reduced use of docetaxel chemotherapy in men with hormone-sensitive metastatic PCa (413 vs 1519) with related increase in the use of enzalutamide. CONCLUSION: We found substantial deficits in the number of diagnostic and treatment procedures for men with newly diagnosed PCa after the start of the first lockdown in 2020. The number of men diagnosed with PCa decreased by about one-third and those diagnosed had more advanced disease. Treatment patterns shifted towards those that limit the risk of COVID-19 exposure including increased use of TP biopsy, hypofractionated radiation, and enzalutamide. Urgent concerted action is required to address the COVID-19-related deficits in PCa services to mitigate their impact on long-term outcomes.

Androgen deprivation therapy and excess mortality in men with prostate cancer during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Men have a higher risk of death from COVID-19 than women and androgens facilitate entrance of the SARS-CoV-2 virus into respiratory epithelial cells. Thus, androgen deprivation therapy may reduce infection rates and improve outcomes for COVID-19. In the spring of 2020, Sweden was highly affected by COVID-19. The aim was to estimate the impact of androgen deprivation therapy on mortality from COVID-19 in men with prevalent prostate cancer by comparing all-cause mortality in the spring of 2020 to that in previous years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden all men with prostate cancer on March 1 each year in 2015-2020 were followed until June 30 the same year. Exposure to androgen deprivation therapy was ascertained from filled prescriptions for bicalutamide monotherapy, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH), or bilateral orchidectomy. RESULTS: A total of 9,822 men died in March-June in the years 2015-2020, of whom 5,034 men were on androgen deprivation therapy. There was an excess mortality in 2020 vs previous years in all men. The crude relative mortality rate ratio for 2020 vs 2015-2019 was 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.04) in men on GnRH, and 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.05) in men on bicalutamide monotherapy. After multivariable adjustment these ratios were attenuated to 1.00 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.12) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.12), respectively. When restricting the analysis to the regions with the highest incidence of COVID-19 or to the time period between 2 April to 10 June when mortality in 2020 was increased >30% compared to previous years, the results were similar to the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this large national population-based cohort of men with prevalent prostate cancer, there was no clear evidence in support for an effect of androgen deprivation therapy on COVID-19 mortality.

Changes in the ambulatory care of prostate cancer patients during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Literature review and contribution of our group in telematic care.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about changes in the management of urology patients, especially those with prostate cancer. The aim of this work is to show the changes in the ambulatory care practices by individualized telematic care for each patient profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles published from March 2020 to January 2021 were reviewed. We selected those that provided the highest levels of evidence regarding risk in different aspects: screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer. RESULTS: We developed a classification system based on priorities, at different stages of the disease (screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up) to which the type of care given, in-person or telephone visits, was adapted. We established 4 options, as follows: in priority A or low, care will be given by telephone in all cases; in priority B or intermediate, if patients are considered subsidiary of an in-person visit after telephone consultation, they will be scheduled within 3 months; in priority C or high, patients will be seen in person within a margin from 1 to 3 months and in priority D or very high, patients must always be seen in person within a margin of up to 48 h and considered very preferential. CONCLUSIONS: Telematic care in prostate cancer offers an opportunity to develop new performance and follow-up protocols, which should be thoroughly analyzed in future studies, in order to create a safe environment and guarantee oncologic outcomes for patients.