logo
Exercise proves powerful in preventing colon cancer recurrence

Exercise proves powerful in preventing colon cancer recurrence

Yahoo3 days ago

New evidence has linked physical activity with improved colon health, underscoring the vital role of exercise in cancer prevention and care.
The landmark international trial – the Challenge study – showed that structured exercise programmes can dramatically improve survival rates for colon cancer survivors.
The study was unveiled at the meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Each June, cancer specialists from around the world convene in Chicago for the conference where new research is announced that pushes the boundaries of cancer treatment and this year's conference featured a wealth of exciting discoveries.
Conducted across six countries and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Challenge study tracked 889 patients for several years following chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one received standard post-treatment care, while the other took part in a three-year coaching programme that included personalised exercise plans and regular check-ins with fitness professionals.
The results were striking. Those in the exercise group experienced 28% fewer cancer recurrences and 37% fewer deaths.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
In the programme, people slowly built up how much they exercised, with most choosing to go on brisk 45-minute walks four times a week. Ninety per cent of the people who exercised stayed cancer free for five years, compared with just 74% of those who didn't.
This study provides the first strong evidence that exercise not only correlates with better outcomes but directly improves survival rates in cancer patients. While earlier observational studies found a link between being active and better cancer outcomes, this first randomised controlled trial helps show causation, meaning that exercise can directly benefit the survival of cancer patients.
We don't know yet if the same goes for other cancers like breast, prostate or lung, but it's a big step forward.
The programme's success hinged on consistent support. Participants met with fitness coaches every two weeks at first, then monthly, which helped them stick to their routines even after treatment ended.
While minor injuries such as muscle strains were slightly more common among those who exercised (19% compared to 12% in the control group), researchers emphasised that these issues were manageable and far outweighed by the significant survival benefits.
In contrast to the encouraging findings on structured exercise, a separate study presented in Chicago has raised questions about the potential downsides of extreme endurance training.
Researchers tracking marathon runners found a higher rate of polyps (small growths in the colon that can sometimes develop into cancer) compared with the general population. This unexpected finding has sparked a fresh debate about the effect of high-intensity exercise on long-term colon health.
However, context is needed. The study did not find higher cancer rates among runners, and most of the detected polyps were low risk.
Several possible explanations have been offered: endurance athletes may simply undergo more frequent screenings, leading to increased detection, or intense exercise might temporarily raise inflammation markers. Crucially, the overall risk of cancer remains lower in active people than in those who are more sedentary, reinforcing the well-established protective benefits of regular exercise.
This apparent contradiction highlights the medical community's evolving understanding of the 'dose' of physical activity. While moderate exercise is consistently linked to significant health benefits, emerging data from endurance athletes suggests that extreme, high-intensity training may place different kinds of stress on the body's systems.
Researchers also suggest that factors such as dehydration during long-distance runs, changes in gut function, or the use of certain nutritional supplements common among endurance athletes could play a role in polyp development. These findings don't diminish the well-documented benefits of physical activity, but instead point to the importance of personalised, balanced health strategies.
For cancer survivors, the structured exercise study provides a message of practical hope. Participants aimed for the equivalent of about three hours of brisk walking per week, gradually increasing their activity levels over time.
The programme's social support was key, with fitness coaches helping participants tailor their routines to match their abilities and recovery needs.
Exercise is believed to affect key biological processes – including insulin sensitivity, inflammation and immune function – that play important roles in cancer development and progression. Ongoing research is analysing participants' blood samples to better understand these mechanisms and eventually create personalised exercise 'prescriptions' based on an individual's genetic profile.
While the findings from marathon runners are less conclusive, they still offer practical takeaways. The research suggests that although vigorous exercise is generally beneficial, high-intensity athletes may face a higher risk of developing polyps and should therefore consider regular colonoscopies as a precaution.
For the general public, these findings reinforce that combining moderate exercise with timely screenings offers the best protection against colon cancer, a disease that remains the fourth most common worldwide and is alarmingly increasing among young people.
For both patients and athletes, these findings highlight a central truth: movement matters, but the right approach is crucial. Colon cancer survivors now have proven tools to reduce recurrence through structured exercise, while endurance enthusiasts gain motivation to pair their training with preventative care.
As science continues unravelling the intricate dance between activity and biology, one message remains clear: whether recovering from illness or chasing personal bests, informed exercise combined with medical guidance is the most reliable path to long-term health.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Justin Stebbing does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US state passes law allowing experimental drugs to be prescribed – a model for the future?
US state passes law allowing experimental drugs to be prescribed – a model for the future?

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

US state passes law allowing experimental drugs to be prescribed – a model for the future?

The US state of Montana has become the first in the country to let patients try experimental drugs – even if they are not terminally ill. The new law allows doctors to refer patients to licensed 'experimental treatment centres', where they can access drugs that have only passed phase 1 clinical trials – the earliest stage of testing in humans. This goes far beyond existing federal law, which only allows terminally ill patients to access such drugs under the Right to Try Act, passed in 2017. Montana already had a fairly permissive right to try law, which was originally designed to let terminally ill patients access treatments that hadn't yet received full approval by the drug regulator. In 2023, that law was expanded to include patients with any medical condition. The latest law goes even further, creating a formal system for clinics to offer these experimental treatments. According to an article in MIT Technology Review, the new law was shaped and promoted by a group of longevity advocates – a mix of scientists and influencers who are focused on extending human life. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Before new medicines reach the market, they usually go through several stages of testing. A phase 1 trial is the first step in human studies and is designed to find a safe dose and spot early side-effects. It typically involves a small group – between 20 and 100 people – and does not prove the drug works. Only around 12% of drugs that enter phase 1 trials go on to gain full approval. Many fail due to safety issues or lack of effectiveness. Montana's new law allows access to these early-stage treatments with a doctor's recommendation – even for patients who are not terminally ill. Clinics must be licensed as experimental treatment centres, and 2% of their profits must be used to help low-income patients access these therapies. Supporters say it gives people more control over their own health and could help boost innovation in areas like cancer, neurodegenerative disease and age-related decline. There is also hope it could turn Montana into a destination for medical tourism, attracting biotech investment. But critics warn that the move could put vulnerable patients at risk. Drugs in phase 1 trials may be safe enough to test – but their long-term effects are still unknown, and they may not work. There are also concerns over whether insurers will cover complications, since the drugs are not approved. Legal protections for both patients and doctors remain unclear. Elsewhere in the world, access to experimental drugs is more tightly controlled. In the UK, experimental drugs are usually only available through formal clinical trials or special 'compassionate use' requests – all subject to strict oversight by regulators like the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority. The same applies across the EU, where compassionate use is typically limited to drugs in later stages of testing. Japan has a similar system, called 'expanded access clinical trials', which also limits use to drugs already in phase 2 or beyond. And in South America, some countries allow patients to keep receiving experimental drugs after trials end – but not to start them outside of a trial. Montana's decision marks a bold new approach in the continuing debate over patient rights. It raises big questions about safety, ethics, regulation and the role of government in balancing innovation with public health. It could end up being a model for other states – or a cautionary tale. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Arvinas Announces Submission of New Drug Application to U.S. FDA for Vepdegestrant for Patients with ESR1-Mutated ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer
Arvinas Announces Submission of New Drug Application to U.S. FDA for Vepdegestrant for Patients with ESR1-Mutated ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer

Associated Press

time4 hours ago

  • Associated Press

Arvinas Announces Submission of New Drug Application to U.S. FDA for Vepdegestrant for Patients with ESR1-Mutated ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer

– This submission is supported by the pivotal Phase 3 VERITAC-2 clinical trial, results of which were recently presented at the 2025 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting and published in The New England Journal of Medicine – – VERITAC-2 data support vepdegestrant as a potential treatment option in patients with ESR1m ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer – NEW HAVEN, Conn., June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Arvinas, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARVN), today announced the submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with its partner Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), for vepdegestrant for the treatment of patients with ER-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+/HER2-) ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine-based therapy. This submission is based on results from VERITAC-2 (NCT05654623), a global, randomized Phase 3 trial evaluating vepdegestrant versus fulvestrant. 'This milestone comes after an exciting presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting,' said John Houston, Ph.D., Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer and President at Arvinas. 'We look forward to the NDA review and to the first ever FDA-approved PROTAC ER degrader potentially being available to patients who could benefit from a much needed, new treatment option.' Vepdegestrant is being jointly developed by Arvinas and Pfizer for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer and was granted fast track designation as a monotherapy by the FDA. Results from the VERITAC-2 study were recently presented in a late-breaking oral presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 Annual Meeting and were selected for the ASCO press briefing and for Best of ASCO. Detailed results were also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. About the VERITAC-2 Clinical Trial The Phase 3 VERITAC-2 clinical trial ( NCT05654623 ) is a global, randomized trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of vepdegestrant (ARV-471) as a monotherapy compared to fulvestrant in patients with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The trial enrolled 624 patients at sites in 25 countries who had previously received treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either vepdegestrant once daily, orally on a 28-day continuous dosing schedule, or fulvestrant, administered intramuscularly on Days 1 and 15 of Cycle 1 and then on Day 1 of each 28-day cycle starting from Day 1 of Cycle 2. In the trial, 43% of patients (n=270) had ESR1 mutations detected. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the ESR1-mutation and intent-to-treat populations as determined by blinded independent central review. Overall survival is the key secondary endpoint. About Vepdegestrant Vepdegestrant is an investigational, orally bioavailable PROTAC (PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera) protein degrader designed to specifically target and degrade the estrogen receptor (ER). Vepdegestrant is being developed as a potential monotherapy for ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer with estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations in the second line-plus setting. In July 2021, Arvinas announced a global collaboration with Pfizer for the co-development and co-commercialization of vepdegestrant; Arvinas and Pfizer will share worldwide development costs, commercialization expenses, and profits. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted vepdegestrant Fast Track designation as a monotherapy in the treatment of adults with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine-based therapy. About Arvinas Arvinas (Nasdaq: ARVN) is a clinical-stage biotechnology company dedicated to improving the lives of patients suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases. Through its PROTAC (PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera) protein degrader platform, the Company is pioneering the development of protein degradation therapies designed to harness the body's natural protein disposal system to selectively and efficiently degrade and remove disease-causing proteins. Arvinas is currently progressing multiple investigational drugs through clinical development programs, including vepdegestrant, targeting the estrogen receptor for patients with locally advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer; ARV-393, targeting BCL6 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin Lymphoma; and ARV-102, targeting LRRK2 for neurodegenerative disorders. Arvinas is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut. For more information about Arvinas, visit and connect on LinkedIn and X. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including statements regarding: the NDA review and to the first ever FDA-approved PROTAC ER degrader potentially being available to patients who could benefit from a much needed, new treatment option; and vepdegestrant's development as a potential monotherapy for ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer with ESR1 mutations in the second line-plus setting. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, contained in this press release, including statements regarding Arvinas' strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' 'intend,' 'may,' 'plan,' 'target,' 'goal,' 'potential,' 'will,' 'would,' 'could,' 'should,' 'look forward,' 'continue,' and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Arvinas may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in these forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements Arvinas makes as a result of various risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: whether Arvinas and Pfizer will successfully perform their respective obligations under the collaboration between Arvinas and Pfizer; whether Arvinas and Pfizer will be able to successfully conduct and complete clinical development for vepdegestrant as a monotherapy; whether the VERITAC-2 clinical trial will meet the secondary endpoint for overall survival; risks related to our expectations regarding the potential clinical benefit of vepdegestrant to patients; uncertainties relating to regulatory applications and related filing and approval timelines, including the New Drug Application seeking FDA approval of vepdegestrant and the risk that any regulatory approvals, if granted, may be subject to significant limitations on use or subject to withdrawal or other adverse actions by the applicable regulatory authority; whether FDA or other regulatory authorities will require additional information or further studies, or may fail or refuse to approve or may delay approval of vepdegestrant; whether Arvinas and Pfizer, as appropriate, will be able to obtain marketing approval for and commercialize vepdegestrant and other product candidates on current timelines or at all; Arvinas' ability to protect its intellectual property portfolio; Arvinas' reliance on third parties; whether Arvinas will be able to raise capital when needed; whether Arvinas' cash and cash equivalent resources will be sufficient to fund its foreseeable and unforeseeable operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements; and other important factors discussed in the 'Risk Factors' section of Arvinas' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and subsequent other reports on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release reflect Arvinas' current views with respect to future events, and Arvinas assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable law. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing Arvinas' views as of any date subsequent to the date of this release. Contacts Investors: Jeff Boyle +1 (347) 247-5089 [email protected] Media: Kirsten Owens +1 (203) 584-0307 [email protected]

Surgery Before or After Chemo for Advanced Ovarian Cancer?
Surgery Before or After Chemo for Advanced Ovarian Cancer?

Medscape

time5 hours ago

  • Medscape

Surgery Before or After Chemo for Advanced Ovarian Cancer?

The optimal timing of surgery in patients with resectable advanced ovarian cancer remains controversial. Should these patients receive the standard radical surgery followed by chemotherapy, or could patients do better with chemotherapy before surgery? The long-awaited TRUST trial aimed to settle this question, but the results paint a somewhat mixed picture. Among patients with resectable stage IIIB-IVB ovarian cancer, primary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy led to a statistically significant 2.4-month median progression-free survival (PFS) benefit over neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. While the median overall survival was 6 months longer in the upfront surgery group, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients in both groups reported similar quality of life over a 3-year period on a global health survey. 'TRUST is the first randomized controlled trial to show a significant benefit in median PFS without compromising short- or long-term quality of life,' said lead investigator Sven Mahner, MD, with Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, Munich, Germany, who presented the results at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. Mahner called the PFS and overall survival findings in the upfront surgery group 'excellent' but acknowledged that the primary endpoint of significant overall survival was not met. ASCO discussant Emma Barber, MD, gynecologic oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, was less enthusiastic about the benefits of upfront surgery, given the lack of significant overall survival benefit. Additionally, the upfront surgery group had a higher rate of any complication and more than a twofold higher rate of stoma formation. 'There is upfront toxicity with primary debulking surgery compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy — even in the highest quality surgical centers,' she said. TRUST Rationale The aim of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer is to prolong patients' remission and improve overall survival while sustaining quality of life, said Mahner. Primary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy has been considered standard for decades in this patient population. However, there's an alternative strategy — neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. Several trials have compared upfront surgery with upfront chemotherapy, but limitations in these studies have not helped answer which approach is better. TRUST was designed to evaluate the optimal timing of cytoreductive surgery in patients with resectable advanced ovarian cancer who are fit enough to tolerate radical surgery. Patients received care in cancer centers that used defined surgical quality assurance metrics. Quality criteria were based on the European Training Centre in Gynaecological Oncology certification and included evaluations of cytoreductive surgery in the operating room as well as assessments of surgical proficiency and infrastructure. In addition, participating centers had to have high complete resection rates (at least 50% in upfront surgery for patients with FIGO IIIB-IVB) and high surgical volumes (at least 36 cytoreductive surgeries per year). Patients were randomly assigned and stratified by center and age-Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) combination (ECOG 0 and age ≤ 65 years vs ECOG > 0 and age older than 65 years) to either primary cytoreductive surgery followed by six cycles of intravenous chemotherapy (n = 345) or three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery plus three more cycles of chemotherapy (n = 343). Most patients had FIGO stage IIIc disease, and over 90% had high-grade serous histology. Surgical effort was very high in both treatment groups; the median duration of surgery was 5.5 hours in the primary cytoreductive surgery group and 4.5 hours in the interval cytoreductive surgery group, Mahner noted. High surgical effort led to high complete resection rates — 70% in the primary group and 85% in the interval group — which meant the recommended systemic treatment of carboplatin and paclitaxel could be given in more than 90% of the patients, with a considerable number of patients also receiving bevacizumab or a PARP inhibitor during the course of their disease, Mahner said. Survival Outcomes Overall, 219 (64%) PFS events occurred in the primary cytoreductive surgery group and 253 (74%) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. Median PFS after primary surgery was 22.1 months compared to 19.7 months after interval surgery — a 2.4-month benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P = .018). The researchers also conducted a restricted mean survival analysis and found PFS was 31.7 months with primary surgery compared to 26.6 months with neoadjuvant chemotherapy — a 5.1-month benefit ( P = .07). On the overall survival front, the primary surgery group had a 6-month benefit, but the difference was not significant — median overall survival was 54.3 months with primary surgery compared to 48.3 months with interval surgery (HR, 0.89; P = .24). Careful Patient Selection Necessary In subgroup analyses, patients with complete cytoreduction after primary surgery had the best outcomes, with a median PFS of 27.9 months vs 21.8 months with interval surgery (HR, 0.69; P = .0009) and median overall survival of 67.0 months vs 55.0 months (HR, 0.80; P = .0521). In addition, the benefit of primary cytoreductive surgery was most prominent in stage III patients with a median PFS of 26.3 months vs 21.4 months (HR, 0.73; P = .005) and a median overall survival of 63.7 months vs 53.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.84; P = .14). However, patients with stage IV disease did not benefit more from upfront surgery in PFS (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.38) or overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.71-1.33). Mahner also noted that 5 years after randomization, 23% of the patients who had primary surgery had no disease progression compared to 11% of the patients who had interval surgery. The complication rate was higher in the primary surgery group at 18% vs 12% after interval surgery. The 30-day post-operative mortality rate was less than 1% in both treatment groups. Patients in both groups reported similar quality of life outcomes. Barber noted that the data suggest that some populations may benefit more from upfront surgery and others may not. 'For example, patients with stage IV disease clearly do not seem to benefit, whereas those with stage III disease seem to show a trend towards improved survival,' she explained. Given the higher upfront toxicity associated with primary debulking surgery, 'selection for primary debulking surgery instead of neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered carefully and performed for selected populations,' Barber said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store