Key result
A 6-month aerobic- or resistance-emphasised exercise intervention is feasible for men with prostate cancer undergoing active treatment, demonstrating high retention (75-83%) and attendance (91-92%) despite a low recruitment rate of 19%.
Why the study?
Most exercise interventions for prostate cancer use resistance and aerobic exercise, but the optimal combination for cardiometabolic health and quality of life is unclear.
Is an aerobic-emphasised versus a resistance-emphasised exercise intervention feasible and safe in men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT and RT?
RCT (n=24)
Single-blind (statistician blinded)
1:1 block randomization stratified by prostate cancer risk
No
Is an aerobic-emphasised versus a resistance-emphasised exercise intervention feasible and safe in men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT and RT?
An exercise trial varying resistance and aerobic elements is feasible and safe for men with prostate cancer undergoing active treatment, though strategies are needed to improve recruitment.
Supports feasibility and safety of AE/RE exercise during ADT/RT; extends evidence base while underscoring need for recruitment optimization.
PURPOSE: Most exercise interventions for men with prostate cancer utilise resistance and aerobic exercise, though the optimal combination of each for cardiometabolic health and quality of life outcomes is unclear. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of an aerobic-emphasised (AE) versus a resistance-emphasised (RE) exercise intervention in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT). METHODS: A 6-month two-armed randomised feasibility study was undertaken. Prostate cancer patients (n = 24) undergoing ADT and RT were randomised to either an AE (n = 12) or RE (n = 12) supervised programme. The primary outcome was feasibility, assessed via recruitment, retention, adherence and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-four men were randomised, the recruitment rate was 19%. For AE and RE respectively, retention was 75% and 83%, adherence to the exercise prescription was 80% and 76%, attendance was 91% and 92%, with attendance during RT at 96% and 95%. No serious adverse events were recorded. Preliminary evidence favoured the AE intervention (p < 0.05) for certain quality of life domains and haematology markers and the RE intervention (p = 0.05) for BESS balance scores. Pre- to post-intervention improvements (p < 0.05) were observed in multiple functional fitness outcomes. CONCLUSION: An exercise trial that carefully varies both resistance and aerobic elements is feasible for men with prostate cancer undergoing active treatment. Strategies would have to be implemented to increase recruitment for a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: of December 2021 (NCT05156424).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murphy et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Prostate cancer (n=24). Aerobic-emphasised exercise vs. Resistance-emphasised exercise (30 min resistance, 10 min aerobic) was evaluated on Feasibility (assessed via recruitment, retention, adherence, and safety). A 6-month aerobic- or resistance-emphasised exercise intervention is feasible for men with prostate cancer undergoing active treatment, demonstrating high retention (75-83%) and attendance (91-92%) despite a low recruitment rate of 19%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: