Feasibility, safety, and acceptability of a remotely monitored exercise pilot CHAMP: A Clinical trial of High‐intensity Aerobic and resistance exercise for Metastatic castrate‐resistant Prostate cancer. (12th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kenfield, Stacey A.; Van Blarigan, Erin L.; Panchal, Neil; Bang, Alexander; Zhang, Li; Graff, Rebecca E.; Chen, Yea‐Hung; Ryan, Charles J.; Luke, Anthony; Newton, Robert U.; Tenggara, Imelda; Schultz, Brooke; Wang, Elizabeth; Lavaki, Emil; Zuniga, Kyle; Pinto, Nicole; Borno, Hala; Aggarwal, Rahul; Friedlander, Terence; Koshkin, Vadim S.; Harzstark, Andrea; Small, Eric; Chan, June M.
• Is Part Of: Cancer medicine. Volume 10:Number 22(2021)
• Page Start: 8058
• Page End: 8070
• Publication Date: 2021-10-12
• Subjects: behavioral intervention -- physical activity -- remote -- strength training; 616.994005
• DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4324
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2045-7634

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Exercise may improve clinical and quality of life outcomes for men with prostate cancer. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of remote exercise training in men with metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods: We conducted a pilot RCT (1:1:1 aerobic or resistance exercise 3x/week or usual care) to determine the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of remotely monitored exercise over 12 weeks in 25 men with mCRPC. A prescribed exercise program was based on baseline testing including high‐ and moderate‐intensity aerobic exercise or resistance exercise completed at a local exercise facility. Feasibility was based on attendance, adherence, and tolerance; safety on adverse events; and acceptability on participant interviews. Results: Between March 2016 and March 2020, 25 patients were randomized (8 aerobic, 7 resistance, and 10 control). Twenty‐three men (82%) completed the 12‐week study. Men who completed the remote intervention attempted 90% and 96% of prescribed aerobic and resistance training sessions, respectively, and 86% and 88% of attempted sessions were completed as or more than prescribed. We observed changes in performance tests that corresponded with the exercise prescription. No safety concerns were identified. Ninety percent of participants interviewed were satisfied with the program and would recommend it to others. Conclusions: Remotely monitored exercise training is feasible, safe, and acceptable in men with mCRPC; there was no difference in these outcomes by mode of exercise. Through this research, we provide direction and rationale for future studies of exercise and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Abstract : We conducted a 3‐arm pilot randomized controlled trial to determine the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of two modes of remotely monitored exercise (resistance or aerobic) over 12 weeks compared to usual care in 25 men with metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report that remotely monitored exercise training is feasible, safe, and acceptable in this patient population, with a high satisfaction rate. Through this research we provide direction and rationale for future studies of exercise and clinical outcomes for people with metastatic cancer.