Exercise as important as drugs in keeping cancer at bay, suggests major new study

A new international study has found that a three-year exercise programme improved survival rates in colon cancer patients, as well as keeping the disease at bay.
Experts have said that the benefits of the programme rival some drugs, and that cancer centres and insurance plans should consider making exercise coaching a new standard of care for colon cancer survivors.
In the meantime, patients can increase their physical activity after treatment, knowing that they are helping to prevent the cancer from returning.
'It's an extremely exciting study,' said Dr. Jeffrey Meyerhardt of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, who wasn't involved in the research. It's the first randomized controlled trial to show how exercise can help cancer survivors, Meyerhardt said.
Prior evidence was based on comparing active people with sedentary people, a type of study that can't prove cause and effect. The new study — conducted in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel and the United States — compared people who were randomly selected for an exercise program with those who instead received an educational booklet.
'This is about as high a quality of evidence as you can get,' said Dr. Julie Gralow, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 'I love this study because it's something I've been promoting but with less strong evidence for a long time.'
The findings were featured Sunday at ASCO's annual meeting in Chicago and published by the New England Journal of Medicine. Academic research groups in Canada, Australia and the U.K. funded the work.
Researchers followed 889 patients with treatable colon cancer who had completed chemotherapy. Half were given information promoting fitness and nutrition. The others worked with a coach, meeting every two weeks for a year, then monthly for the next two years.
Coaches helped participants find ways to increase their physical activity. Many people, including Terri Swain-Collins, chose to walk for about 45 minutes several times a week.
'This is something I could do for myself to make me feel better,' said Swain-Collins, 62, of Kingston, Ontario. Regular contact with a friendly coach kept her motivated and accountable, she said. 'I wouldn't want to go there and say, 'I didn't do anything,' so I was always doing stuff and making sure I got it done.'
After eight years, the people in the structured exercise program not only became more active than those in the control group but also had 28% fewer cancers and 37% fewer deaths from any cause. There were more muscle strains and other similar problems in the exercise group.
'When we saw the results, we were just astounded,' said study co-author Dr. Christopher Booth, a cancer doctor at Kingston Health Sciences Centre in Kingston, Ontario.
Exercise programs can be offered for several thousand dollars per patient, Booth said, 'a remarkably affordable intervention that will make people feel better, have fewer cancer recurrences and help them live longer.'
Researchers collected blood from participants and will look for clues tying exercise to cancer prevention, whether through insulin processing or building up the immune system or something else.
Swain-Collins' coaching program ended, but she is still exercising. She listens to music while she walks in the countryside near her home.
That kind of behavior change can be achieved when people believe in the benefits, when they find ways to make it fun and when there's a social component, said paper co-author Kerry Courneya, who studies exercise and cancer at the University of Alberta. The new evidence will give cancer patients a reason to stay motivated.
'Now we can say definitively exercise causes improvements in survival,' Courneya said.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

22 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Sad update one year after Aussie dad was injured in a freak accident while riding his daughter's e-scooter

A much-loved father and family member has died in hospital one year after he was hit by a car while riding his daughter's e-scooter. Isaac Craig was hit by a driver who ran a stop sign while testing out a new tyre on his daughter's e-scooter near his home in Townsville, Queensland, in March 2024. His injuries meant the Aussie dad was bedridden for most of the time and struggled to perform everyday tasks due to the lingering pain. Mr Craig suffered a heart attack last month with his wife Lisa forced to make the heartbreaking decision to turn off his life support one week later. Callum Albert, Mr Craig's stepson, wrote on a GoFundMe that it had been heartbreaking to watch him slowly deteriorate both mentally and physically. 'The last year of his life, he was almost completely bed-bound, he did have a wheelchair but it wasn't used often as he was in such pain and discomfort,' he said. 'He couldn't leave the house as it being an old Queenslander style home with stairs, made it almost impossible to comfortably get him up and down.' Mr Albert said on his stepfather's worst days, he would lock himself inside his bedroom to hide his worsening mental state from his family. He said the heart attack, while not directly linked to the e-scooter accident, came moments after he told his wife he was experiencing a mild anxiety attack. Mr Craig was without a flow of oxygen to his brain for 24 minutes before he was revived and rushed to Townsville Hospital. He was placed in ICU where doctors found he had little to no brain activity. His life support was turned off a week later. In yet another blow to his grieving family, Mr Albert said his mother is now facing the possibility of losing their family home. Mortgage payments have been paused while the family comes up with a solution. The GoFundMe raising funds for house expenses, cremation expenses, daily expenses of Mr Craig's wife and daughter and future bills has raised over $3,000. 'If donations do come, all of it will be given to his widowed wife and she will use it to best herself and their daughter Rebecca's current financial situation,' Mr Albert said. 'She has no idea about any of this (now she does) but I do know this will make her happy cry and to be relieved that even though it's not all the pressure, at least some is taken off her shoulders.' In an update, Mr Albert said his mother had been aware of the campaign and that she had received his stepfather's ashes. 'The support has been overwhelmingly substantial! Thank you to everyone who has helped so far,' he wrote.

Times

an hour ago

• Times

My famous father — the fraudulent, fantasist scientist

'When I was small,' Joanne Briggs writes touchingly. 'I believed my dad to be the only man who knew all science.' Michael Briggs had all but disappeared from her life in the early 1970s when she was seven after walking out on her mother, but she would correct anyone who showed pity for her as a fatherless child. Dad hadn't gone, she would tell them, he was just in another country being a very famous scientist in the fields of space, and poisons, and having babies. 'Anything you can think of, really, he's an expert in it.' She wasn't the only one to have this inflated view of her father's expertise. Indeed, the scientific establishment shared it, at least for a while. Michael was a Nasa space scientist turned pharmacologist, a renowned specialist in biochemistry, an adviser to the World Health Organisation and a university dean of sciences. He had written papers on topics ranging from human hormones to meteorites and intergalactic travel. The son of a typewriter mechanic from Manchester, he was a self-made man, bouncing round the world from Australia to Pasadena, taking on ever more prestigious positions, pushing at the boundaries of the scientific imagination and 'grabbing hold of everything the Jet Age had to offer'.

Daily Mail​

2 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG

The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.