Background Nutrition and physical activity interventions are important components of cancer care. With an increasing demand for services, there is a need to consider flexible, easily accessible, and tailored models of care while maintaining optimal outcomes. Objective This systematic review describes and appraises the efficacy of technology-supported self-guided nutrition and physical activity interventions for people with cancer. Methods A systematic search of multiple databases from 1973 to July 2018 was conducted for randomized and nonrandomized trials investigating technology-supported self-guided nutrition and physical activity interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Outcomes included behavioural, health-related, clinical, health service, or financial measures. Results Sixteen randomized controlled trials representing 2684 participants were included. Most studies were web-based interventions (n=9) and had a 12-week follow-up duration (n=8). Seven studies assessed dietary behaviour, of which two reported a significant benefit on diet quality or fruit and vegetable intake. Fifteen studies measured physical activity behaviour, of which eight studies reported a significant improvement in muscle strength and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Four of the nine studies assessing the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) reported a significant improvement in global HRQoL or a domain subscale. A significant improvement in fatigue was found in four of six studies. Interpretation of findings was influenced by inadequate reporting of intervention description and compliance. Conclusions This review identified short-term benefits of technology-supported self-guided interventions on the physical activity level and fatigue and some benefit on dietary behaviour and HRQoL in people with cancer. However, current literature demonstrates a lack of evidence for long-term benefit. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42017080346; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=80346

BackgroundProstate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in developed countries. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a systemic treatment shown to increase survival in selected patients with prostate cancer. The use of ADT continues to increase for all stages and grades of prostate cancer despite known treatment-induced adverse effects. The primary aim of this study is to examine the efficacy of a targeted, multi-component resistance and impact-loading exercise programme together with a daily protein-, calcium- and vitamin D-enriched supplement on bone health in men treated with ADT for prostate cancer. Secondary aims are to determine the effects of this intervention on measures of total body and regional body composition, cardiometabolic risk, inflammatory markers, health-related quality of life and cognitive function.MethodsThis study is a two-arm randomised controlled trial. Men currently treated with ADT for prostate cancer will be randomised to either a 52-week, community-based, exercise training and nutritional supplementation intervention (n = 51) or usual care control (n = 51). Participants will be assessed at baseline, 26 weeks and 52 weeks for all measures. The primary outcome measures are proximal femur and lumbar spine areal bone mineral density (BMD). Secondary outcomes comprise: changes in tibial and radial bone structure and strength, total body and regional body composition, muscle strength and function, as well as cardiometabolic health, catabolic/inflammatory and anabolic/anti-inflammatory cytokines, health-related quality of life and cognitive function.DiscussionThis study investigates whether a multi-component intervention incorporating a targeted bone and muscle-loading programme in combination with a protein-, calcium- and vitamin D-enriched supplement can ameliorate multiple adverse effects of ADT when compared to usual care. The results will contribute to the development of exercise training and nutrition guidelines for optimising overall health in men treated with ADT for prostate cancer.Trial registrationAustralia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR), ID: ACTRN12614000317695. Registered on 25 march 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2185-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PurposeThe main purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a 12-week, clinician-referred, community-based exercise training program with supervised and unsupervised sessions for men with prostate cancer. The secondary purpose was to determine whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) modified responses to exercise training.MethodsSecondary analysis was undertaken on data from a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial in which 15 clinicians were randomly assigned to refer eligible patients to an exercise training intervention (n = 8) or to provide usual care (n = 7). Data from 119 patients (intervention n = 53, control n = 66) were available for this analysis. Outcome measures included fitness and physical function, anthropometrics, resting heart rate, and blood pressure.ResultsCompared to the control condition, men in the intervention significantly improved their 6-min walk distance (M diff = 49.98 m, p adj = 0.001), leg strength (M diff = 21.82 kg, p adj = 0.001), chest strength (M diff = 6.91 kg, p adj = 0.001), 30-s sit-to-stand result (M diff = 3.38 reps, p adj = 0.001), and reach distance (M diff = 4.8 cm, p adj = 0.024). A significant difference (unadjusted for multiplicity) in favour of men in the intervention was also found for resting heart rate (M diff = −3.76 beats/min, p = 0.034). ADT did not modify responses to exercise training.ConclusionsMen with prostate cancer who act upon clinician referrals to community-based exercise training programs can improve their strength, physical functioning, and, potentially, cardiovascular health, irrespective of whether or not they are treated with ADT.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsClinicians should inform men with prostate cancer about the benefits of exercise and refer them to appropriately qualified exercise practitioners and suitable community-based programs.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12610000609055

End-stage kidney disease is associated with reduced exercise capacity, muscle atrophy, and impaired muscle function. While these may be improved with exercise, single modalities of exercise do not traditionally elicit improvements across all required physiological domains. Blood flow-restricted exercise may improve all of these physiological domains with low intensities traditionally considered insufficient for these adaptions. Investigation of this technique appeals, but is yet to be evaluated, in patients undergoing dialysis. With the use of a progressive crossover design, 10 satellite patients undergoing hemodialysis underwent three exercise conditions over 2 wk: two bouts (10 min) of unrestricted cycling during two consecutive hemodialysis sessions ( condition 1), two bouts of cycling with blood flow restriction while off hemodialysis on 2 separate days ( condition 2), and two bouts of cycling with blood flow restriction during two hemodialysis sessions ( condition 3). Outcomes included hemodynamic responses (heart rate and blood pressure) throughout all sessions, participant-perceived exertion and discomfort on a Borg scale, and evaluation of ultrafiltration rates and dialysis adequacy (Kt/V) obtained post hoc. Hemodynamic responses were consistent regardless of condition. Significant increases in heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and mean arterial blood pressure ( P < 0.05) were observed postexercise followed by a reduction in blood pressures during the 60-min recovery (12, 5, and 11 mmHg for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures, respectively). Blood pressures returned to predialysis ranges following the recovery period. Blood flow restriction did not affect ultrafiltration achieved or Kt/V. Hemodynamic safety and tolerability of blood flow restriction during aerobic exercise on hemodialysis is comparable to standard aerobic exercise.

BackgroundExercise during haemodialysis improves strength and physical function. However, both patients and clinicians are time poor, and current exercise recommendations add an excessive time burden making exercise a rare addition to standard care. Hypothetically, blood flow restriction exercise performed during haemodialysis can provide greater value for time spent exercising, reducing this time burden while producing similar or greater outcomes. This study will explore the efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise for enhancing strength and physical function among haemodialysis patients.MethodsThis is a randomised controlled trial design. A total of 75 participants will be recruited from haemodialysis clinics. Participants will be allocated to a blood flow restriction cycling group, traditional cycling group or usual care control group. Both exercising groups will complete 3 months of cycling exercise, performed intradialytically, three times per week. The blood flow restriction cycling group will complete two 10-min cycling bouts separated by a 20-min rest at a subjective effort of 15 on a 6 to 20 rating scale. This will be done with pressurised cuffs fitted proximally on the active limbs during exercise at 50% of a pre-determined limb occlusion pressure. The traditional cycling group will perform a continuous 20-min bout of exercise at a subjective effort of 12 on the same subjective effort scale. These workloads and volumes are equivalent and allow for comparison of a common blood flow restriction aerobic exercise prescription and a traditional aerobic exercise prescription. The primary outcome measures are lower limb strength, assessed by a three repetition maximum leg extension test, as well as objective measures of physical function: six-minute walk test, 30-s sit to stand, and timed up and go. Secondary outcome measures include thigh muscle cross sectional area, body composition, routine pathology, quality of life, and physical activity engagement.DiscussionThis study will determine the efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise among dialysis patients for improving key physiological outcomes that impact independence and quality of life, with reduced burden on patients. This may have broader implications for other clinical populations with similarly declining muscle health and physical function, and those contraindicated to higher intensities of exercise.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Register: ACTRN12616000121460.

No abstract

ObjectivesWe investigated whether there were differences in associations between cognition with muscle strength, fitness and function in men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with, and without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and non-PCa controls. A secondary aim was to compare differences in the prevalence of cognitive impairment.DesignThis cross-sectional study compared 70 ADT-treated men with PCa aged 50–85 years to non-ADT-treated men (n=52) and non-PCa controls (n=70).SettingUniversity clinical exercise laboratory.InterventionsNil.Primary and secondary outcome measuresStandardised assessments were conducted for cognition (learning, memory, attention, processing speed and executive function), muscle strength (grip strength and leg press), fitness (400 m walk), gait speed (4 m walk) and dual-tasking mobility (timed-up-and-go with a cognitive task).ResultsADT-treated men showed stronger associations between fitness and executive function and task switching relative to controls (both: p≤0.03). For both PCa groups (independent of ADT use), poorer dual-task mobility was more strongly associated with decreased psychomotor attention (both: p≤0.027) and global cognitive function (both: p≤0.031) compared with non-PCa controls. The overall prevalence of cognitive impairment was low (4%–13%) and did not differ between the groups.ConclusionsThe presence of PCa, with or without ADT treatment, did not increase the risk of cognitive impairment relative to non-PCa controls, yet did alter the associations between physical fitness and some measures of functional performance with certain cognitive domains. This highlights the importance of men with PCa maintaining fitness and functional capacity to optimise cognitive health.Trial registration numberThis study was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000317695).

BACKGROUND Blood pressure (BP) is an important modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its long-term monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless devices enable the capture of multiple BP measures during everyday activities and could improve BP monitoring, but little is known about their validity or acceptability. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to validate a wrist-worn cuffless wearable BP device and assess its acceptability among users and health care professionals. METHODS A mixed methods study was conducted to examine the validity and comparability of a wearable cuffless BP device against ambulatory and home devices. BP was measured simultaneously over 24 hours using wearable and ambulatory devices and over 7 days using wearable and home devices. Pearson correlation coefficients compared the degree of association between the measures, and limits of agreement (LOA; Bland-Altman plots) were generated to assess measurement bias. Semistructured interviews were conducted with users and 10 health care professionals to assess acceptability, facilitators, and barriers to using the wearable device. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. RESULTS A total of 9090 BP measurements were collected from 20 healthy volunteers (mean 20.3 years, SD 5.4; N=10 females). Mean (SD) systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) measured using the ambulatory (24 hours), home (7 days), and wearable (7 days) devices were 126 (SD 10)/75 (SD 6) mm Hg, 112 (SD 10)/71 (SD 9) mm Hg and 125 (SD 4)/77 (SD 3) mm Hg, respectively. Mean (LOA) biases and precision between the wearable and ambulatory devices over 24 hours were 0.5 (−10.1 to 11.1) mm Hg for SBP and 2.24 (−17.6 to 13.1) mm Hg for DBP. The mean biases (LOA) and precision between the wearable and home device over 7 days were −12.7 (−28.7 to 3.4) mm Hg for SBP and −5.6 (−20.5 to 9.2) mm Hg for DBP. The wearable BP device was well accepted by participants who found the device easy to wear and use. Both participants and health care providers agreed that the wearable cuffless devices were easy to use and that they could be used to improve BP monitoring. CONCLUSIONS Wearable BP measures compared well against a gold-standard ambulatory device, indicating potential for this user-friendly method to augment BP management, particularly by enabling long-term monitoring that could improve treatment titration and increase understanding of users’ BP response during daily activity and stressors.