Does Exercise Extend Life After a Prostate Cancer Diagnosis?

Study Warns on Sedentary Behavior and Cancer Mortality | MedPage Today

BLUF — Bottom Line Up Front

Physical activity after a prostate cancer diagnosis is consistently associated with lower rates of death from prostate cancer and from all causes in large observational cohorts — with the biggest apparent benefit tied to vigorous activity (roughly 3+ hours a week) and to men who have had surgery rather than radiation. But no completed randomized controlled trial has yet proven that exercise causes longer survival specifically in prostate cancer, the way one now has in colon cancer (the CHALLENGE trial, NEJM, June 2025). The definitive prostate trial, INTERVAL‑GAP4, could not recruit enough men and closed early in 2023 without reporting survival results. Critically, the same disease and treatments that make exercise beneficial also make it progressively harder to do: surgery and radiation cause short-term deconditioning, ADT drives sarcopenia in roughly 4 in 10 men over time, and later-line systemic therapies — chemotherapy and PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy alike — commonly cause anemia and other blood-count suppression that directly limits exercise capacity. Guideline bodies address this with graded, individualized, symptom-based exercise prescription rather than a single fixed target. For now, exercise is best understood as a well-evidenced, low-risk, guideline-recommended supportive therapy — strongly proven to improve fitness, muscle mass, fatigue, and quality of life, and statistically linked to (but not proven to cause) longer survival. Current guidelines (ASCO, ACS, ACSM) recommend 150–300 minutes/week of moderate aerobic activity or 75–150 minutes/week of vigorous activity, plus resistance training twice weekly, scaled back and individualized as treatment burden increases.

The Question Patients Actually Ask

Almost every man who has sat across from a urologist or medical oncologist after a prostate cancer diagnosis has asked some version of the same question: does staying active actually change my odds? It's a fair question, and for two decades the answer from the research literature has been consistent but frustratingly circumstantial — men who exercise more after diagnosis tend to live longer, but "tend to" is not the same as "because of."

That gap between association and proof is finally starting to close in oncology generally, though not yet definitively in prostate cancer specifically. This piece walks through what the observational data show, what randomized trials have and have not established, why treatment type (surgery versus radiation) appears to matter, the biological mechanisms researchers believe are at work, special considerations for men on ADT, and what the major guideline bodies currently recommend.

What the Observational Evidence Shows

The foundational study in this field remains the Harvard-based Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which followed 2,705 men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer. Men who engaged in at least three hours per week of vigorous activity — biking, jogging, swimming, tennis — had a 61% lower risk of dying specifically of prostate cancer compared with men doing less than one hour a week, and a 49% lower risk of death from any cause. Even brisk walking of 90 minutes or more per week was linked to a 46% reduction in all-cause mortality, though the prostate-cancer-specific benefit of walking alone did not reach statistical significance.

Key numbers from the observational record:

• HPFS cohort (2,705 men): ≥3 hrs/week vigorous activity → 61% lower prostate-cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.39)
• Swedish cohort (4,623 men): walking/bicycling ≥20 min/day → 39% lower prostate-cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.61)
• Pooled analysis across 4 prostate-specific studies: postdiagnosis activity → 30% lower prostate-cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.70)
• Friedenreich et al. meta-analysis (136 studies, all cancer types): postdiagnosis activity → 34% lower cancer-specific mortality overall (HR 0.66)

A separate Swedish cohort of 4,623 men with localized prostate cancer, followed from diagnosis (1997–2002) through 2012, found that men who walked or bicycled at least 20 minutes a day had a 39% lower risk of prostate-cancer-specific death, and those who exercised at least one hour per week had a 32% lower risk, compared with less active men. A broader synthesis by Christine Friedenreich and colleagues, pooling 136 studies across cancer types, found that men with prostate cancer specifically who were more physically active after diagnosis had roughly a 30% lower risk of dying from their disease.

A 2025 Twist: The Treatment Pathway Seems to Matter

One of the more interesting developments in the past year comes from a July 2025 analysis in the British Journal of Cancer by Ki-Yong An, Justin Jeon, Kerry Courneya, and colleagues, drawing on the Prostate Cancer Cohort Study of 830 men in Alberta, Canada. The researchers tested whether the survival benefit of postdiagnosis physical activity differed by treatment type — and it did. Vigorous postdiagnosis activity was associated with meaningfully improved overall and disease-specific survival in men treated with radical prostatectomy, but the association essentially disappeared in men treated with radiation therapy. A related commentary by German urologists Matthias May and colleagues, published two months later in the same journal, called this "a pivotal insight into how therapeutic context may shape the efficacy of exercise" and urged that future trials stratify by treatment modality rather than lumping all prostate cancer patients together.

Why the difference might exist is not settled. Possible explanations under discussion include differing baseline health and comorbidity profiles between surgical and radiation candidates, different patterns of residual disease biology, and the fact that radiation is frequently combined with ADT, which independently affects fatigue, body composition, and cardiovascular risk in ways that could mask or compete with an exercise signal. This finding, if replicated, may eventually help oncologists give more individually tailored exercise guidance rather than a one-size-fits-all recommendation.

Why Exercise Might Help: The Biological Case

Exercise oncology researchers propose several overlapping mechanisms by which physical activity could plausibly slow prostate cancer progression, beyond simply improving general health:

Reduced chronic inflammation. Sustained, low-grade inflammation is associated with tumor growth and progression; regular exercise lowers circulating inflammatory markers.
Myokine signaling. Contracting skeletal muscle releases signaling proteins (myokines) that have been shown in preclinical models to suppress tumor cell growth directly.
Improved immune surveillance. Exercise has been linked to enhanced natural killer (NK) cell activity and improved trafficking of immune cells capable of recognizing tumor cells.
Metabolic and hormonal effects. Exercise improves insulin sensitivity and can favorably alter insulin-like growth factor (IGF) and cholesterol pathways that have been epidemiologically linked to prostate cancer progression.
Reduced treatment-related fatigue and improved treatment tolerance — which may translate into better adherence to systemic therapy over time, an indirect but plausible mortality pathway.

The mechanistic case has grown strong enough that some exercise oncology researchers, including Kerry Courneya (a co-lead of both the INTERVAL‑GAP4 prostate trial and the now-completed CHALLENGE colon cancer trial), argue exercise should increasingly be studied and framed as an active cancer treatment component rather than merely a supportive or lifestyle measure — a position articulated in his 2025 review in the Journal of Sport and Health Science.

A Special Case: Exercise During Androgen Deprivation Therapy

For men on ADT — the hormonal backbone of treatment for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer, and familiar to most IPCSG readers — exercise carries a more immediate and better-proven benefit than the mortality question: it directly counteracts several of ADT's most disruptive side effects.

ADT reliably causes loss of lean muscle mass, gains in fat mass, declines in bone mineral density, and reduced physical function. A substantial body of randomized trial evidence, going back to Galvao and colleagues' 2010 trial reversing ADT-induced muscle loss, and reinforced by multiple more recent trials including a 2025 Scandinavian randomized trial and a 2025 Irish feasibility trial comparing aerobic- versus resistance-emphasized programs during combined ADT and radiation, demonstrates that supervised resistance training reliably:

Preserves or increases lean muscle mass and strength
Helps maintain bone mineral density, reducing fracture risk
Improves physical function and reduces self-reported disability
Improves emotional well-being and quality of life

A 2024 narrative review in the urology literature concluded that resistance training is both feasible and safe during ADT (with attention needed for men with bone metastases, where exercise programs should be modified to avoid high-impact loading on affected bones) and "should be incorporated in standard clinical care" for prostate cancer patients starting ADT. This is one of the more settled, high-confidence conclusions in the entire exercise oncology field for prostate cancer — considerably more settled than the mortality question.

Why Exercise Gets Progressively Harder as Treatment Advances

All of the evidence above describes exercise as if it were equally available to every patient at every stage. It isn't. As IPCSG readers know from experience, the treatments that extend life in prostate cancer — surgery, radiation, ADT, and increasingly systemic agents like chemotherapy and PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy — each impose their own physical toll, and that toll compounds as men move through multiple lines of therapy. This is arguably the single biggest practical obstacle standing between "exercise is beneficial" and "this patient can actually do it."

Surgery and radiation: short-term deconditioning

Radical prostatectomy involves a recovery period during which activity is intentionally restricted, and the fatigue and functional decline that follow major pelvic surgery can persist for weeks. Radiation therapy, delivered daily over 5–9 weeks, produces its own cumulative fatigue, and when combined with concurrent ADT (as it commonly is for intermediate- and high-risk disease) the two effects compound. A 2025 Irish randomized feasibility trial testing aerobic- versus resistance-emphasized exercise specifically during combined ADT and radiation found recruitment itself was difficult (a 19% recruitment rate), underscoring how much treatment burden interferes with exercise participation even when a supervised program is offered free of charge.

ADT: sarcopenia, fatigue, and anemia together

Androgen deprivation therapy is the treatment most directly implicated in progressive exercise difficulty. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis pooling 24 studies and 3,616 men with prostate cancer found a pooled sarcopenia prevalence of 43.8%, rising with time on ADT and independently associated with higher non-cancer mortality. Separately, an Institute of Cancer Research analysis of 284 men on ADT found the odds of low muscle mass/sarcopenia were 2.5 times higher in men on ADT for six months or longer compared with those newly started — a clear dose-response relationship between treatment duration and physical decline. Testosterone suppression itself drives this: it directly reduces the anabolic signal muscle needs to maintain mass, independent of activity level, which is precisely why the resistance-training evidence described earlier is protective rather than merely optional.

ADT is not typically a direct cause of anemia in the way chemotherapy or radioligand therapy is, but testosterone itself has a mild erythropoietic (red-cell-stimulating) effect, so ADT-induced testosterone suppression commonly produces a modest drop in hemoglobin on its own, compounding fatigue from muscle loss with fatigue from reduced oxygen-carrying capacity.

Androgen receptor signaling inhibitors: fatigue layered on fatigue

Most men with advanced or high-risk prostate cancer today are treated with an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) — enzalutamide, abiraterone, apalutamide, or darolutamide — added on top of standard ADT agents such as leuprolide (Lupron). These combinations improve survival substantially over ADT alone, but they add their own fatigue burden rather than simply riding on top of ADT's existing effects, and the drugs are not interchangeable in this respect.

A meta-analysis of randomized trials in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer found enzalutamide was associated with a significant 29% increase in relative risk of all-grade fatigue (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15–1.44) compared with control arms, consistent with its mechanism as a brain-penetrant AR antagonist with direct central nervous system effects. Abiraterone, by contrast, was not significantly associated with increased fatigue in the same analysis, but carries its own distinct burden — increased cardiovascular events, fluid retention, and hypertension driven by mineralocorticoid excess, which requires concurrent prednisone and its own monitoring. A separate observational comparison (the AQUARiUS study) found abiraterone consistently favored over enzalutamide on both fatigue and cognitive-function measures through 12 months. Apalutamide, in real-world cohorts, also shows fatigue as its most frequently reported adverse event. Newer data presented at the 2026 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (ASCO GU) found darolutamide combined with ADT produced substantially less fatigue than either enzalutamide+ADT (62% relative reduction) or apalutamide+ADT (52% relative reduction) in an indirect trial comparison — reflecting darolutamide's lower blood-brain-barrier penetration and more favorable central nervous system side-effect profile.

Fatigue signal by ARSI agent (combined with ADT), from trial and comparative data:

• Enzalutamide: significantly increased all-grade fatigue vs. comparator (RR 1.29)
• Apalutamide: fatigue commonly the leading reported adverse event in real-world cohorts
• Abiraterone: no significant fatigue signal in trial meta-analysis, but added cardiovascular/fluid-retention burden requiring prednisone co-administration
• Darolutamide: lowest relative fatigue burden of the four agents in 2026 comparative analysis, attributed to minimal CNS penetration

The practical point for exercise planning is that "on ADT" is not a single fixed state. A man on ADT alone, a man on ADT plus abiraterone, and a man on ADT plus enzalutamide may have meaningfully different baseline fatigue and exercise tolerance even at the same disease stage, and that tolerance can shift again with a change of agent. This is one more reason the guideline consensus favors reassessing and individualizing exercise capacity regularly rather than prescribing a static program at diagnosis and leaving it unchanged through years of evolving systemic therapy.

Systemic and radioligand therapy: anemia becomes a hard limiter

For men who progress to chemotherapy or PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy (Lutetium-177 or Actinium-225 agents), bone marrow suppression becomes a much larger factor. Published safety series report anemia in roughly 58–66% of patients receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA or ²²⁵Ac-PSMA therapy, most grade 1–2 but with grade 3–4 anemia occurring in a meaningful minority (around 7–22% depending on the series and prior treatment exposure), alongside overlapping leukopenia and thrombocytopenia. This is directly relevant to exercise capacity: hemoglobin is a primary determinant of oxygen delivery to working muscle, and clinically significant anemia produces exactly the symptoms — breathlessness, dizziness, profound fatigue — that make sustained aerobic exercise difficult or unsafe.

How oncology rehabilitation guidelines handle anemia and exercise:

• Mild-to-moderate anemia (roughly Hb 10–11 g/dL and above): low- to moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (e.g., walking) is generally considered safe, and some trial evidence suggests modest aerobic exercise may even support faster hemoglobin recovery after myelosuppressive treatment.
• Severe anemia (Hb ≤8 g/dL): caution is advised against moderate-to-high-intensity aerobic or resistance training; low-intensity activity may still be appropriate under supervision.
• Thrombocytopenia: exercise is generally considered feasible even at low platelet counts, with extra caution and bleeding-risk monitoring below roughly 20,000/μL.
• In all cases, guidelines emphasize an individualized, symptom-based approach over a single universal cutoff, since tolerance varies by baseline fitness and how gradually the anemia developed.

This is also why the INTERVAL‑GAP4 protocol, discussed further below, built in cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) as a screening step before assigning high-intensity exercise to men with metastatic prostate cancer — a recognition that "exercise is good for you" cannot be applied uniformly once men are carrying significant treatment-related physiologic burden. The same logic extends to peripheral neuropathy (a common side effect of taxane chemotherapy, which affects balance and safe use of resistance equipment), bone metastases (which require modified, lower-impact exercise selection to avoid fracture risk, as several of the trials cited above explicitly built into their protocols), and simple cumulative fatigue across multiple concurrent or sequential therapies.

The practical resolution: graded, supervised, symptom-based prescription

None of this argues against exercise; it argues for individualized dosing rather than a one-size-fits-all prescription. The exercise oncology literature increasingly favors submaximal, symptom-anchored intensity targets (perceived exertion or ventilatory/lactate threshold rather than a fixed percentage of peak capacity) precisely because they self-adjust as a patient's condition changes week to week. A 2022 meta-analysis of exercise adherence specifically in ADT populations found that despite all these barriers, supervised programs still achieved over 80% adherence on average, with the largest strength and fitness gains in programs longer than 12 weeks — evidence that well-designed, appropriately scaled programs remain feasible even in a population carrying real physiologic constraints. The common thread across every guideline reviewed for this article is the same: assess current status (including a recent CBC when relevant), individualize intensity and mode accordingly, and refer to a qualified oncology exercise professional or physical therapist rather than defaulting to generic public-health activity targets.

The Randomized-Trial Gap: Why INTERVAL‑GAP4 Still Hasn't Answered the Big Question

Observational studies, however large and well-conducted, cannot definitively separate cause from correlation. Healthier men — those with less advanced disease, fewer comorbidities, better cardiovascular fitness, and generally healthier lifestyles — are simply more likely to exercise in the first place. This is known as "healthy-user" or "reverse causation" bias, and it is the central reason exercise oncology researchers have pushed for large randomized controlled trials.

The prostate cancer field's flagship attempt at such a trial is INTERVAL‑GAP4, launched in 2015 by Robert Newton, Stacey Kenfield, and colleagues (funded by the Movember Foundation) to determine whether supervised high-intensity aerobic and resistance exercise increases overall survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The trial aimed to randomize 866 men across more than 20 sites internationally. It did not reach that target. According to a 2025–2026 feasibility report in European Urology, recruitment fell so far short that the trial closed to further enrollment in February 2023 with only 52 men randomized — roughly 6% of the planned sample. The feasibility paper reports strong adherence and safety among those enrolled, but efficacy and survival outcomes were explicitly deferred to a separate, future publication that, as of this writing, has not appeared. In plain terms: the definitive randomized answer for whether exercise extends survival in advanced prostate cancer is still pending, and the trial designed to give that answer struggled to enroll enough patients to be conclusive.

Borrowed Confidence: What the CHALLENGE Trial Proved in a Related Cancer

While the prostate-specific proof remains outstanding, the broader field of exercise oncology received its first unambiguous, definitive randomized evidence in June 2025, when the CHALLENGE trial (Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.21) was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. In 889 patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer who had completed adjuvant chemotherapy, a structured 3-year exercise program reduced the risk of cancer recurrence, new cancer, or death by 28% (disease-free survival hazard ratio 0.72) and was associated with a 37% lower risk of death from any cause over a median follow-up of 7.9 years, compared with health education alone.

This matters for prostate cancer patients for two reasons. First, it establishes as a matter of principle — for the first time in oncology, in any cancer type — that a structured exercise program can causally improve survival after cancer treatment, not merely correlate with it. Second, it validates the biological plausibility of everything exercise oncology researchers have argued for years about inflammation, myokines, and immune function. It does not, however, prove the same causal effect exists in prostate cancer; colon and prostate cancer have different biology, and the CHALLENGE cohort was younger on average (median age 61) and post-surgical, a population an exercise skeptic might note resembles exactly the subgroup (surgically treated patients) in which the 2025 An et al. prostate cohort found the strongest signal.

A Necessary Word of Caution

Reading the evidence responsibly

Not every voice in oncology is fully persuaded, even by CHALLENGE. A widely discussed critique published on the physician commentary site Sensible Medicine in June 2025 raised several internal-validity concerns about the colon cancer trial — including that it was not blinded, that "health education" is an unusually passive comparator, and that behavior-change trials of this kind are vulnerable to subtle biases that drug trials are not. These are legitimate methodological points, and they apply with even more force to the prostate cancer observational literature, which remains almost entirely uncontrolled for the healthy-user effect described above. Readers should treat the specific hazard ratios cited in this article as strongly suggestive of benefit, not as proof of a fixed percentage survival gain a given individual should expect.

Sedentary Behavior: The Other Half of the Equation

A study published July 2, 2026 in PLOS Medicine by Frederick Ho (University of Glasgow) and colleagues adds a complementary dimension, though it examined cancer broadly rather than prostate cancer specifically. Analyzing accelerometer data from 91,292 UK Biobank participants followed for a median of 12.4 years, the researchers found that every additional hour per day of prolonged, uninterrupted sitting (bouts of 30+ minutes) was associated with a 10% higher risk of cancer death, while interrupting sedentary time with movement was protective. Replacing an hour of prolonged sitting with 30 minutes of moderate activity was linked to an 8% lower cancer mortality risk, and replacing just 5 minutes with vigorous activity was linked to a 22% lower risk. Cochrane epidemiologist Rachel Richardson, commenting on the study, noted its strength in using objective accelerometer measurement rather than self-report, but cautioned that UK Biobank volunteers are healthier and more health-conscious than the general population, and that the study — like the prostate-specific cohorts above — is observational and cannot prove causation.

The practical implication for prostate cancer patients tracks the general oncology guidance below: total exercise volume matters, but so does not sitting in prolonged, unbroken stretches. Breaking up sedentary time with brief walks or standing breaks appears to carry benefit independent of a formal exercise program.

What the Guidelines Currently Recommend

Current physical activity guidance for cancer survivors, including prostate cancer
Organization	Core recommendation
American Cancer Society (2022, reaffirmed 2025)	150–300 min/week moderate-intensity activity, or 75–150 min/week vigorous activity (or an equivalent combination), plus muscle-strengthening activity at least 2 days/week. Start slowly and build up; more activity is better within tolerance.
ASCO (2022 Exercise, Diet, and Weight Management Guideline)	Strongly recommends aerobic and resistance exercise during active treatment to reduce side effects and improve tolerability; notes evidence did not yet support a single specific dosage recommendation applicable to all cancer types.
American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable	"Assess, Advise, and Refer" — oncology providers should assess activity level, advise on guideline-consistent exercise, and refer to qualified exercise programming; specific dosing of 3x/week aerobic (20–30 min, moderate intensity) plus resistance training 1–3x/week.

None of the major bodies currently issues a prostate-cancer-specific dosing guideline distinct from general cancer survivorship recommendations, reflecting the same evidentiary gap discussed above — the observational signal is strong enough to recommend exercise broadly, but not yet precise enough to prescribe an exact minimum threshold proven to extend prostate-cancer-specific survival.

Practical Takeaways

The evidence for benefit is real but not yet proof of causation. Treat published hazard ratios as strong association, not a guaranteed personal outcome.
Vigorous activity shows the largest observational signal (roughly 3+ hours/week in the HPFS cohort), but any increase from a sedentary baseline appears to help, and walking alone confers meaningful all-cause mortality benefit.
Resistance training is the best-proven intervention for men on ADT specifically, with strong randomized evidence for preserving muscle, bone density, and function — independent of any mortality question.
Breaking up sitting time matters, not just total exercise minutes; avoid unbroken sedentary bouts longer than 30 minutes where possible.
Expect exercise capacity to change as treatment changes. Fatigue and reduced exercise tolerance during and after surgery or radiation, progressive sarcopenia on ADT, and anemia from chemotherapy or radioligand therapy are all common and expected — not signs you are doing something wrong. Programs should be scaled down and rebuilt around your current blood counts and energy level, not treated as a fixed target to hit regardless of how you feel.
Talk with your oncology team before starting or changing an exercise program, particularly with bone metastases, where high-impact resistance or impact training needs modification, or with a recent low hemoglobin or platelet count, where intensity should be reduced and progression should be gradual.
Ask about supervised exercise oncology programs if available locally or through your treatment center; supervised programs show more consistent quality-of-life and functional benefit than unsupervised, self-directed activity in the trial literature.

This article is intended for general patient education and does not constitute individualized medical advice. Exercise recommendations should be discussed with your treating oncologist or urologist, particularly for men with bone metastases, cardiovascular disease, or those currently undergoing active treatment.

Verified Sources

Kenfield SA, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, Chan JM. Physical Activity and Survival After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(6):726–732. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21205749/
Physical activity and survival among men diagnosed with prostate cancer (Swedish cohort, 4,623 men, 1997–2012 follow-up). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25527697/
An K-Y, Jeon JY, Arthuso FZ, Wang Q, Friedenreich CM, Courneya KS. Postdiagnosis physical activity is associated with improved survival in prostate cancer patients treated with surgery but not with radiation therapy. Br J Cancer. 2025 Jul 23. doi:10.1038/s41416-025-03123-0. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-025-03123-0
May M, Gilfrich C, Enzinger B, Brookman-May S. Exercise oncology in prostate cancer: from observational insight to prescriptive precision (correspondence). Br J Cancer. 2025;133:1074–1075. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-025-03205-z
Newton RU, Kenfield SA, Hart NH, Chan JM, Courneya KS, Catto J, et al. Intense Exercise for Survival among Men with Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer (INTERVAL-GAP4): a multicentre, randomised, controlled phase III study protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e022899. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5961562/
Feasibility and Implementation of INTERVAL-GAP4: A Global Randomised Controlled Trial of Intense Hybrid-supervised/Self-managed Versus Self-directed Exercise for Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12814685/
Courneya KS, Vardy JL, O'Callaghan CJ, Gill S, Friedenreich CM, Wong RKS, et al.; CHALLENGE Investigators. Structured Exercise after Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2025;393:13–25. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2502760. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2502760
Movement Is Medicine: Structured Exercise Program May Lower Risk of Cancer Recurrence and Death for Some Colon Cancer Survivors. American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) press release, June 1, 2025. https://www.asco.org/about-asco/press-center/news-releases/movement-medicine-structured-exercise-program-challenge
Exercise Is Great but It's Not a Cancer Drug (critique of CHALLENGE trial methodology). Sensible Medicine. June 2, 2025. https://www.sensible-med.com/p/exercise-is-great-but-its-not-a-cancer
Ligibel JA, Bohlke K, May AM, et al. Exercise, Diet, and Weight Management During Cancer Treatment: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(22):2491–2507. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.22.00687
American Cancer Society Guideline for Diet and Physical Activity for Cancer Survivors. Cancer.org. Updated 2025. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/survivorship/be-healthy-after-treatment/acs-nutrition-and-physical-activity-guideline-for-survivors.html
Physical Activity When You Have Cancer. American Cancer Society. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/survivorship/be-healthy-after-treatment/physical-activity-and-the-cancer-patient.html
Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable. Med Sci Sports Exerc. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8576825/
Resistance Exercise Training, a Simple Intervention to Preserve Muscle Mass and Strength in Prostate Cancer Patients on Androgen Deprivation Therapy (narrative review). PubMed. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38048764/
Rantaniemi et al. Is Exercise During Androgen Deprivation Therapy Effective and Safe? A Randomized Controlled Trial. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2025. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.70084
Murphy K, Kehoe B, Denieffe S, Hacking D, Fairman CM, Harrison M, et al. Comparing aerobic and resistance exercise emphasis during androgen deprivation and radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a randomised feasibility trial. Support Care Cancer. 2025;33:601. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12181210/
Courneya KS. Exercise as a cancer treatment: new evidence from preclinical and early phase clinical studies. J Sport Health Sci. 2025;14:101066.
Zhou Z, Trost SG, Ryde GC, Parra-Soto S, Fang Z, Xu C, Ho FK, et al. Accelerometry-measured prolonged and interrupted sedentary behavior and cancer incidence and mortality: A cohort study of 91,292 UK Biobank participants. PLOS Medicine. 2026;23(7):e1004767. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1004767
Bankhead C. Study Warns on Sedentary Behavior and Cancer Mortality. MedPage Today. July 2026 (summarizing Zhou et al., PLOS Medicine, above).
Exercise After Prostate Cancer Surgery: What a New Study Reveals About Your Survival Odds (patient-facing summary of An et al. 2025, with reference to Courneya & McNeely EPiCC framework). https://memios.substack.com/p/exercise-after-prostate-cancer-surgery
Murphy K, et al. Comparing aerobic and resistance exercise emphasis during androgen deprivation and radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a randomised feasibility trial (recruitment feasibility data). Support Care Cancer. 2025;33:601. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12181210/
The trajectory of sarcopenia following diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. ScienceDirect. 2023. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879406823001911
335MO Prevalence of low muscle mass/sarcopenia in prostate cancer patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy and association with muscle strength and physical function. Annals of Oncology. 2024. https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534(24)04410-7/fulltext
Hematologic safety of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8254689/
Actinium-225-PSMA versus Lutetium-177-PSMA radioligand therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results of an observational study (hematologic toxicity rates). Frontiers in Oncology. 2026. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2026.1744007/abstract
Exercise Adherence in Men with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Androgen Deprivation Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PMC. 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9139246/
Exercise intensity prescription in cancer survivors: ventilatory and lactate thresholds are useful submaximal alternatives to VO2peak. PMC. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546976/
A Focused Review of Safety Considerations in Cancer Rehabilitation (anemia and exercise intensity thresholds). PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5627359/
Implementing the Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors (NCCN anemia definitions and symptom-based exercise approach). PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3543866/
What are safe hemoglobin, neutrophil and platelet counts for people with hematological malignancies to participate in exercise and activities of daily living: a scoping review. Support Care Cancer. 2025. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00520-025-09612-5
Bennett CL, et al. Management of Cancer-Associated Anemia With Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents: ASCO/ASH Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.18.02142
Iacovelli R, et al. Differential side effects profile in patients with mCRPC treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oncotarget. 2018;9:22319–22329. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5663621/
Impact of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or enzalutamide on fatigue and cognition in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: initial results from the observational AQUARiUS study. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2059702920322870
ASCO GU 2026: Safety Profile of Darolutamide + ADT Compared to Enzalutamide, Apalutamide, and Abiraterone in mCSPC Prostate Cancer: Results from the First Safety Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison. UroToday. February 2026. urotoday.com — ASCO GU 2026 darolutamide safety MAIC
Real-world clinical outcomes of apalutamide versus abiraterone with androgen deprivation therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Int J Clin Pharm. 2025. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12630208/

Search This Blog

Informed Prostate Cancer Patient Support