1. Introduction
Evidence of the benefits of physical exercise in cancer patients has grown exponentially over the past two decades. Physical exercise benefits cancer patients by preserving and increasing physical function and the health-related quality of life, and via systemic anti-inflammatory and immune system-modulating effects [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. In some cancer entities, physical exercise has even become the treatment for a specific treatment-related side-effect. In prostate cancer patients under androgen deprivation therapy, for example, muscle loss can be successfully treated with resistance exercise [ 3 , 4 ]. In breast cancer patients suffering from breast cancer-related lymphedema, resistance exercise can be performed safely and is beneficial for arm function and even lymphedema levels [ 5 , 6 ]; in cancer generally, cancer-related fatigue can be successfully treated with physical exercise [ 7 ].
These advances in cancer rehabilitation research would have been impossible if early research had not challenged some of the then long-established paradigms and demonstrated, in early frontier research, that exercise not only is not harmful but can even be beneficial in cancer patients. Some of the first publications worldwide in this regard were published at Department of Physical Medicine, Rehabilitation and Occupational Medicine of Medical University of Vienna, Austria, showing then groundbreaking and mind-opening results in a breast cancer patient suffering from inflammatory recurrence [ 8 ], a patient suffering from advanced hepatocellular cancer with brain metastases [ 9 ], and a patient suffering from advanced breast cancer with metastatic bone disease [ 10 ] during a time when cancer patients were still advised to be inactive and rest. These very early publications laid the foundation for the establishment of exercise oncology as an important field of research even against what was then common knowledge.
Meanwhile, physical exercise also plays a pivotal role in the relatively young field of “prehabilitation” for cancer patients. Several benefits of exercise in cancer prehabilitation have been described, such as the reduction in post-treatment (for example, postoperative) complications, the shortening in inpatient stay, the improvement in survival, the reduction in relapse rate, and the improvement in mental health [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ].
The unanimous tenor in sports oncology research has led to clear statements and recommendations in favor of increasing exercise levels in cancer patients from the world’s most renowned sports research societies, such as the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) [ 17 , 18 ], the Australian Association for Exercise and Sport Science [ 19 ], and the International Society of Exercise and Immunology [ 20 ]. Even the non-exercise-specific American Cancer Society has emphasized the importance of physical activity in cancer patients and has published guidelines for their clinicians on how to best approach physical activity in cancer patients [ 21 ]. In clinical practice, these recommendations—to assess, to advice, and to refer—are more difficult to follow in some cancer entities than in others. Particularly, in cancer types that affect bone health, fracture risk might be increased at the affected skeletal site. This can be due to either being directly affected by the cancer itself, such as in multiple myeloma [ 22 ] or in cancer entities that are more likely to develop metastatic bone disease (e.g., prostate, breast, lung, and renal cancer) [ 23 ], or generally by treatment side-effects, such as chemotherapy or radiation damage [ 24 ].
Bone lesions can notably increase morbidity and mortality in cancer patients [ 25 ]; therefore, physical exercise, which naturally includes the mechanical loading of the musculoskeletal system, needs to be treated as a potential risk factor. The practical problem we are now facing is that while oncological and hemato-oncological therapies improve survival rates in patients with metastatic bone disease or multiple myeloma [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ], the cancer- and/or treatment-related side-effects, which in other cancers are successfully treated with supportive exercise therapy, cannot be similarly treated without assessing fracture risk first. However, like patients suffering from other cancer entities, patients suffering from metastatic bone disease or multiple myeloma should also be provided with exercise recommendations, as they have, in several cases, a good prognosis. Moreover, considering the significance of preserving physical function and increasing the quality of life, as well as the benefits of systemic myokine activity, cancer patients with locally increased fracture risk should also exercise. Bone regions with increased fracture risk need special assessment and exercise handling. A challenge in this context is the assessment of each patient’s individual fracture risk.
In this regard, there are currently several different approaches in use. On the one hand, there are radiologic scores, such as Mirel’s score [ 30 ], Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) [ 31 ], or Myeloma Spine and Bone Damage Score (MSBDS) [ 32 ], which make the radiologic assessment of bone stability possible. On the other hand, there is the practical method of excluding skeletal sites affected by bone lesions by employing any exercise-induced mechanical stress [ 33 ].
Since, to date, there is currently no single method for assessing bone fracture risk as a basis for exercise recommendations, a multi-professional, interdisciplinary team decision seems to be the optimum choice in clinical practice. This has been supported by recent recommendations by “Campbell et al., 2022” [ 34 ] and “Hart et al., 2022” [ 35 ], who discussed the real impact of an issue for which there is not yet a standard procedure. The aim of this article is depicting the current inter- and multidisciplinary exercise prescription procedure for these patients in Austria.
2. Best-Practice Model for Exercise Prescription in Austria
In Austria, exercise prescription for cancer patients at increased fracture risk is treated as an inter- and multidisciplinary approach. History taking and clinical examination (radiographic findings and bone scans), certain laboratory parameters, resting electrocardiogram (ECG), echocardiography findings, muscular strength testing, and (spiro)ergometry are required for planning individual programs. Experts in different disciplines (physiatrist, oncologist, radiologist, radiation therapist, laboratory physician, sports scientist, nutritionist, physiotherapist, etc.) are involved in this process.
The key point is to perform sufficient fracture risk assessment, as well as assessment of other cancer complications and of co-morbidities (such as cardiovascular diseases). Besides the skeletal considerations, in multiple myeloma, there are special clinical features and contraindications, such as hypercalcemia and monoclonal gammopathy [ 36 ], which have to be taken into account before as well as during the process of exercise prescription and conduction.
The initiative to pursue exercise prescription needs to come from the specialist who is responsible for the primary cancer treatment (oncologist, surgeon, etc.), who—after careful consideration of the risk–benefit ratio, including cardiovascular risk, as well as the patient’s prognosis—consults the physiatrist. The specialist in physical and rehabilitation medicine then takes on the role of case manager, as he or she is the one who will ultimately prescribe exercise therapy. Together, they contact the radiologist. The radiologist evaluates the fracture risk using imaging methods and first decides if the obtained imaging is sufficient or if further imaging needs to be undertaken. Depending on the location—spine, long bone, or other bone—the radiologist uses established scores, such as Mirel’s score [ 30 ] or SINS [ 31 ], for establishing the diagnosis. Since none of the established fracture risk scores have been developed for the evaluation of fracture risk during physical exercise nor do they include all necessary factors, such as bone architecture and geometry or osteosarcopenia, the assessment is strongly influenced by clinical expertise. During this process, orthopedic and oncologic counseling regarding location, size, and type of bone lesion is highly recommended. The final outcome of this multidisciplinary fracture risk assessment can be one of the following diagnoses: the affected bone region can be loaded like a healthy structure (no increased risk); exercise-related physical loading should match and not exceed activities of daily living (slightly increased fracture risk); the affected region should evade any additional physical stress (highly increased fracture risk).
However, in our opinion, pathological fractures and spinal cord compression are to be excluded from exercise ( Table 1 ).
Furthermore, there are several further contraindications that have to be considered during the whole procedure ( Table 1 ).
In the next step, the sport scientist plans the exercise program together with the specialist in physical and rehabilitation medicine considering the following: first, the individual patient’s situation in regard to (cancer-related) deconditioning; second, the patient’s needs and time resources; third, the fracture risk assessment. Based on “Gottlob’s flux of force principle, 2020” [ 37 ], the exercise therapist assesses each potential exercise in regard to muscle activation. They, therefore, know beforehand which muscles are active as agonists, and respectively, synergists; which joints and bones are loaded dynamically, and respectively, statically; and how the resulting force vectors affect the skeleton. If during the practical exercise process, it is seen that the patient is unable to perform specific exercises due, e.g., to musculoskeletal problems, in an additional step, physiotherapy can be prescribed with the aim of increasing exercisability. Moreover, providing nutrition counseling could ensure full efficacy of the exercise program. The only medical specialist who is involved in all steps and who keeps track of the whole process is the specialist in physical and rehabilitation medicine. He or she can additionally evaluate and prescribe physical medicine modalities to treat further side-effects of cancer treatment.
Depending on the circumstances, this multidisciplinary process can either be conducted consecutively or, in an optimized clinical environment, via a rehabilitation tumor board [ 38 , 39 ].
3. Discussion and Conclusions
The above-noted best-practice model for exercise prescription is based on the decade-long practical experience of the involved specialists [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. It shows the importance of inter- and multidisciplinary cooperation and proves that each specialty has its own specific expertise and relevance for optimized patient care. This clinical experience is of particularly high relevance, because in contrast to the fracture risk evaluation in osteoporotic bone, fracture risk assessment in metastatic bone is underexplored. In osteoporosis, measuring bone mineral density (BMD) via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) has been established as the diagnostic marker for decades [ 43 ]. A T-score with ≤ −2.5 standard deviation below the BMD of a younger, healthy population of the same sex has been defined as a clinically relevant indicator of osteoporosis [ 43 ]. However, as BMD alone does not adequately predict fracture risk [ 44 ], various approaches are used to specify fracture risk in osteoporosis. One approach is utilizing fracture risk assessment tools. The globally most widely used tool is the FRAX ® 10-year fracture probability model, which incorporates factors such as age, sex, bodyweight, history of fractures, smoking or alcohol consumption, and others [ 45 ]. It is, however, criticized, because it does not include fall history [ 46 ]. The second widely used score is the QFracture score, which incorporates more than 20 risk factors, including falls [ 47 ]. It is, however, criticized for being very time-consuming [ 46 ]. Besides theses scores, as another approach to specify fracture risk, Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) can be used as additional radiologic assessment for the evaluation of the bone microarchitecture [ 44 ]. In addition to the previously mentioned parameters, the history of falls, immigration status, and type 2 diabetes mellitus have been suggested [ 48 ]. A lot of literature studies about fracture risk assessment in osteoporotic bone tissue exist. However, this knowledge cannot be directly adopted in malignant bone disease, as these pathologic fractures do not follow the usual patterns seen in patients with osteoporosis [ 49 ]. To address this challenge in malignant bone disease, several scores are used in clinical practice. The first published and still widely used score is Mirel’s score [ 30 ]. It incorporates the localization, pain, type, and size of the metastasis and defines a cut-off for increased fracture risk. However, Mirel’s score has been developed for long bones only with the aim to predict the necessity for prophylactic fixation surgery. It does not provide specific information regarding the load ability of the affected bone, which would be the key information needed for exercise therapy. Another scoring system is Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), by “Fisher et al., 2010” [ 31 ]. SINS assists in assessing the fracture risk in spinal bone and incorporates location, pain, type of lesion, spinal alignment, and vertebral body collapse, as well as the posterolateral involvement of the spinal elements, in its model [ 31 ]. However, SINS has been developed for the identification of fracture risk in spinal bone for surgical referral. It heavily relies on radiographic diagnostics and does not account for previous medical treatment, such as radiation therapy,; the extent of diffuse bone involvement; or poor bone quality [ 50 ]. Another scoring tool is MSDBS, which has been recently specifically developed for bone lesions in multiple myeloma patients [ 32 ]. MSDBS focuses on the location and size of the bone lesion. Its advantages are that it can be used in CT images, which are more easily available than MR images, and that it is fast and easily reproducible [ 32 ]. However, similar to all other common tools, it has not been developed with the aim of assessing functional bone stability for exercise recommendation purposes.
In regard to increasing the precision of fracture risk assessment, besides these scoring tools, technical innovations such as patient-specific finite element models seem to have potential [ 51 , 52 ]. While “Benca et al., 2019” tested their fracture prediction model in vitro [ 51 ], “Eggermont et al., 2020” [ 52 ] tested their fracture prediction model in vivo. They compared their finite element model with established clinical assessment methods. Depending on the size of the axial cortical involvement of the metastasis in the femur, they followed established clinical recommendations and defined lesions over 30 mm as being at high risk and those below 30 mm as being at low risk of fracture [ 52 , 53 ]. This cut-off corresponded with their finite element model’s critical failure load of 7.5 times the bodyweight. Their finite element model achieved a negative predictive value of 100% and a positive predictive value of 39% in their patient population, with both values being superior to the clinical guidelines (95% and 19%) [ 52 ]. As promising as these results are, there are still some limitations to broad clinical implementation. First, the fracture risk models of Benca et al. [ 51 ] and “Eggermont et al., 2020” [ 52 ] are limited to metastases in the femur, and second, the effects of muscular traction were not evaluated [ 51 ]. Moreover, in clinical practice, the high radiation doses necessary during quantitative computed tomography are problematic, particularly in patients who undergo frequent quantitative computed tomography scanning due to rapid growth of bone metastases.
Nevertheless, despite these numerous different fracture risk assessment approaches and besides the lack of an assessment gold standard for exercise prescription purposes, there is one key diagnostic problem. We still do not know enough about real-life vs. exercise-related fracture risk in patients suffering from bone lesions. Although it is common in the development of specific assessment methods to compare predicted versus real fractures in a patient population at risk [ 30 , 52 ], to our knowledge, nobody has evaluated, to date, in which situations malignant bones fracture. Does exercising in a potentially “safe exercise environment” need to be considered a fracture risk increase? Or is this not the case, because metastatic bones predominantly fracture during ADLs or falls and not during exercise training? Do we implement objective fall risk assessment sufficiently or is this generally overestimated in clinical practice [ 54 ]?
These are the question that have yet to be resolved. As this might be impossible and especially overly time-consuming for a single center, a centralized database is needed where metastatic, especially myeloma-related, bone fractures are collected regarding their etiology. Only then, it will be possible to assess patients’ “true” fracture risk with regard to exercise. In the meantime, considering the strengths and limitations of the available tools, exercise-related fracture risk assessment, along with practical implementation in patients, remains a process that should currently still rely to a large extent on the clinical expertise of a multi- and interdisciplinary team.
Considering this research gap, we would still like to hypothesize from our clinical experience that bone fractures rarely occur during medical exercise but rather during activities of daily living, when there is no specific focus on careful spine handling or fall risk. Considering the prescription process depicted above, we are convinced that medical exercise is a safe environment. However, there is a need for a multi-centric database for the etiology of metastatic bone lesion fractures.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.C., T.H. and M.K.; methodology, R.C. and T.H.; validation, R.C., T.H., C.W., F.K. and M.K.; resources, R.C.; writing—original draft preparation, T.H.; writing—review and editing, R.C., T.H., C.W., F.K. and M.K.; supervision, R.C., M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Correction Statement
Following concerns raised about the integrity of the peer-review, the Editorial Office has conducted a post-publication assessment of this article. This process was supervised by the original Academic Editor to ensure full compliance with MDPI’s Editorial Process ( https://www.mdpi.com/editorial_process ). As a result of this process, the substandard reviewer report, Report 1, was removed from the peer review record ( https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/15/4/1245/review_report ). With this update, the Academic Editor is satisfied that the editorial process for this article has been completed in accordance with MDPI’s Editorial Process policy.
References
1. Idorn M. Thor Straten P. Exercise and Cancer: From “Healthy” to “Therapeutic”? Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2017 66 667 671 10.1007/s00262-017-1985-z 28324125 PMC5406418
2. Nadler M.B. Desnoyers A. Langelier D.M. Amir E. The Effect of Exercise on Quality of Life, Fatigue, Physical Function, and Safety in Advanced Solid Tumor Cancers: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials J. Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 58 899 908.e7 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.005 31319105
3. Hasenoehrl T. Keilani M. Sedghi Komanadj T. Mickel M. Margreiter M. Marhold M. Crevenna R. The Effects of Resistance Exercise on Physical Performance and Health-Related Quality of Life in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review Support. Care Cancer 2015 23 2479 2497 10.1007/s00520-015-2782-x 26003426
4. Keilani M. Hasenoehrl T. Baumann L. Ristl R. Schwarz M. Marhold M. Sedghi Komandj T. Crevenna R. Effects of Resistance Exercise in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis Support. Care Cancer 2017 25 2953 2968 10.1007/s00520-017-3771-z 28600706 PMC5527087
5. Hasenoehrl T. Keilani M. Palma S. Crevenna R. Resistance Exercise and Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema–a Systematic Review Update Disabil. Rehabil. 2020 42 10.1080/09638288.2018.1514663 30638093
6. Hasenoehrl T. Palma S. Ramazanova D. Kölbl H. Dorner T.E. Keilani M. Crevenna R. Resistance Exercise and Breast Cancer–Related Lymphedema—a Systematic Review Update and Meta-Analysis Support. Care Cancer 2020 in press 10.1007/s00520-020-05521-x 32415386 PMC7316683
7. Hilfiker R. Meichtry A. Eicher M. Nilsson Balfe L. Knols R.H. Verra M.L. Taeymans J. Exercise and Other Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions for Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients during or after Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review Incorporating an Indirect-Comparisons Meta-Analysis Br. J. Sports Med. 2018 52 651 658 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096422 28501804 PMC5931245
8. Crevenna R. Fialka-Moser V. Keilani M.Y. Schmidinger M. Marosi C. Quittan M. Aerobic Physical Training in a Breast Cancer Patient with Inflammatory Recurrence Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 2002 152 581 584 10.1046/j.1563-258X.2002.01135.x 12506684
9. Crevenna R. Schmidinger M. Keilani M. Nuhr M. Nur H. Zöch C. Zielinski C. Fialka-Moser V. Quittan M. Aerobic Exercise as Additive Palliative Treatment for a Patient with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 2003 153 237 240 10.1046/j.1563-258X.2003.02116.x 12836463
10. Crevenna R. Schmidinger M. Keilani M. Nuhr M. Fialka-Moser V. Zettinig G. Quittan M. Aerobic Exercise for a Patient Suffering from Metastatic Bone Disease Support. Care Cancer 2003 11 120 122 10.1007/s00520-002-0400-1 12560941
11. Crevenna R. Prehabilitation in the Cancer Care Continuum Support. Care Cancer 2022 30 1019 1020 10.1007/s00520-021-06649-0 34718872
12. Crevenna R. Palma S. Licht T. Cancer Prehabilitation—a Short Review memo - Mag. Eur. Med. Oncol. 2021 14 39 43 10.1007/s12254-021-00686-5
13. Falz R. Bischoff C. Thieme R. Lässing J. Mehdorn M. Stelzner S. Busse M. Gockel I. Effects and Duration of Exercise-Based Prehabilitation in Surgical Therapy of Colon and Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2022 148 2187 2213 10.1007/s00432-022-04088-w 35695931 PMC9349170
14. Mawson S. Keen C. Skilbeck J. Ross H. Smith L. Dixey J. Walters S.J. Simpson R. Greenfield D.M. Snowden J.A. Feasibility and Benefits of a Structured Prehabilitation Programme Prior to Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) in Patients with Myeloma; a Prospective Feasibility Study Physiotherapy 2021 113 88 99 10.1016/j.physio.2021.08.001 34563917 PMC8612275
15. Toohey K. Hunter M. McKinnon K. Casey T. Turner M. Taylor S. Paterson C. A Systematic Review of Multimodal Prehabilitation in Breast Cancer Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2022 10.1007/s10549-022-06759-1 36269525 PMC9823038
16. Bojesen R.D. Grube C. Buzquurz F. Miedzianogora R.E.G. Eriksen J.R. Gögenur I. Effect of Modifying High-Risk Factors and Prehabilitation on the Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Controlled before and after Study BJS Open 2022 6 zrac029 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac029 35639564 PMC9154067
17. Campbell K.L. Winters-Stone K.M. Wiskemann J. May A.M. Schwartz A.L. Courneya K.S. Zucker D.S. Matthews C.E. Ligibel J.A. Gerber L.H. Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019 51 2375 2390 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002116 31626055 PMC8576825
18. Schmitz K.H. Courneya K.S. Matthews C. Demark-Wahnefried W. Galvão D.A. Pinto B.M. Irwin M.L. Wolin K.Y. Segal R.J. Lucia A. American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable on Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010 42 1409 1426 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181e0c112 20559064
19. Hayes S.C. Spence R.R. Galvão D.A. Newton R.U. Australian Association for Exercise and Sport Science Position Stand: Optimising Cancer Outcomes through Exercise J. Sci. Med. Sport 2009 12 428 434 10.1016/j.jsams.2009.03.002 19428291
20. Walsh N.P. Gleeson M. Shephard R.J. Gleeson M. Woods J.A. Bishop N.C. Fleshner M. Green C. Pedersen B.K. Hoffman-Goetz L. Position Statement. Part One: Immune Function and Exercise Exerc. Immunol. Rev. 2011 17 6 63 21446352
21. Schmitz K.H. Campbell A.M. Stuiver M.M. Pinto B.M. Schwartz A.L. Morris G.S. Ligibel J.A. Cheville A. Galvão D.A. Alfano C.M. Exercise Is Medicine in Oncology: Engaging Clinicians to Help Patients Move through Cancer CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2019 69 468 484 10.3322/caac.21579 31617590 PMC7896280
22. Pop V. Parvu A. Craciun A. Farcas A.D. Tomoaia G. Bojan A. Modern Markers for Evaluating Bone Disease in Multiple Myeloma (Review) Exp. Ther. Med. 2021 22 1329 10.3892/etm.2021.10764 34630683 PMC8495551
23. Huang J.-F. Shen J. Li X. Rengan R. Silvestris N. Wang M. Derosa L. Zheng X. Belli A. Zhang X.-L. Incidence of Patients with Bone Metastases at Diagnosis of Solid Tumors in Adults: A Large Population-Based Study Ann. Transl. Med. 2020 8 482 10.21037/atm.2020.03.55 32395526 PMC7210217
24. Rizzoli R. Body J.-J. Brandi M.-L. Cannata-Andia J. Chappard D. El Maghraoui A. Glüer C.C. Kendler D. Napoli N. Papaioannou A. Cancer-Associated Bone Disease Osteoporos. Int. 2013 24 2929 2953 10.1007/s00198-013-2530-3 24146095 PMC5104551
25. Thorsteinsdottir S. Gislason G. Aspelund T. Sverrisdottir I. Landgren O. Turesson I. Björkholm M. Kristinsson S.Y. Fractures and Survival in Multiple Myeloma: Results from a Population-Based Study Haematologica 2020 105 1067 1073 10.3324/haematol.2019.230011 31792034 PMC7109735
26. Bergen E.S. Berghoff A.S. Medjedovic M. Rudas M. Fitzal F. Bago-Horvath Z. Dieckmann K. Mader R.M. Exner R. Gnant M. Continued Endocrine Therapy Is Associated with Improved Survival in Patients with Breast Cancer Brain Metastases Clin. Cancer Res. 2019 25 2737 2744 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1968 30647078
27. Caswell-Jin J.L. Plevritis S.K. Tian L. Cadham C.J. Xu C. Stout N.K. Sledge G.W. Mandelblatt J.S. Kurian A.W. Change in Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer with Treatment Advances: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018 2 pky062 10.1093/jncics/pky062 30627694 PMC6305243
28. Litwin M.S. Tan H.-J. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Cancer: A Review JAMA 2017 317 2532 2542 10.1001/jama.2017.7248 28655021
29. Landgren O. Iskander K. Modern Multiple Myeloma Therapy: Deep, Sustained Treatment Response and Good Clinical Outcomes J. Intern. Med. 2017 281 365 382 10.1111/joim.12590 28205262
30. Mirels H. Metastatic Disease in Long Bones. A Proposed Scoring System for Diagnosing Impending Pathologic Fractures Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1989 256 264 10.1097/00003086-198912000-00027 2684463
31. Fisher C.G. DiPaola C.P. Ryken T.C. Bilsky M.H. Shaffrey C.I. Berven S.H. Harrop J.S. Fehlings M.G. Boriani S. Chou D. A Novel Classification System for Spinal Instability in Neoplastic Disease: An Evidence-Based Approach and Expert Consensus from the Spine Oncology Study Group Spine 2010 35 E1221 E1229 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e16ae2 20562730
32. Tagliafico A.S. Belgioia L. Bonsignore A. Signori A. Formica M. Rossi F. Piana M. Schenone D. Dominietto A. Development and Definition of a Simplified Scoring System in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Undergoing Stem Cells Transplantation on Standard Computed Tomography: Myeloma Spine and Bone Damage Score (MSBDS) Cancer Imaging 2020 20 31 10.1186/s40644-020-00306-1 32345379 PMC7189746
33. Galvão D.A. Taaffe D.R. Spry N. Cormie P. Joseph D. Chambers S.K. Chee R. Peddle-McIntyre C.J. Hart N.H. Baumann F.T. Exercise Preserves Physical Function in Prostate Cancer Patients with Bone Metastases Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2018 50 393 399 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001454 29036016 PMC5828380
34. Campbell K.L. Cormie P. Weller S. Alibhai S.M.H. Bolam K.A. Campbell A. Cheville A.L. Dalzell M.-A. Hart N.H. Higano C.S. Exercise Recommendation for People With Bone Metastases: Expert Consensus for Health Care Providers and Exercise Professionals JCO Oncol. Pract. 2022 18 e697 e709 10.1200/OP.21.00454 34990293 PMC9810134
35. Hart N.H. Poprawski D.M. Ashbury F. Fitch M.I. Chan R.J. Newton R.U. Campbell K.L. Exercise for People with Bone Metastases: MASCC Endorsed Clinical Recommendations Developed by the International Bone Metastases Exercise Working Group Support. Care Cancer 2022 30 7061 7065 10.1007/s00520-022-07212-1 35710641
36. Kumar S.K. Rajkumar V. Kyle R.A. van Duin M. Sonneveld P. Mateos M.-V. Gay F. Anderson K.C. Multiple Myeloma Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2017 3 17046 10.1038/nrdp.2017.46 28726797
37. Gottlob A. Differenziertes Krafttraining 5th ed. Elsevier München, Germany 2020 9783437470554
38. Yamanaka N. Tsukamoto S. Ishida Y. Shigematsu H. Hasegawa M. Sajiki M. Mano T. Tanaka Y. Kido A. Clinical Questions on Rehabilitation in Cancer Patients with Skeletal Metastasis: A Content Analysis of the Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Records Support. Care Cancer 2021 29 2015 2020 10.1007/s00520-020-05696-3 32844315
39. Crevenna R. Keilani M. Relevance of Tumor Boards for Cancer Rehabilitation Support. Care Cancer 2020 28 5609 5610 10.1007/s00520-020-05769-3 32929536
40. Keilani M. Kainberger F. Pataraia A. Hasenöhrl T. Wagner B. Palma S. Cenik F. Crevenna R. Typical Aspects in the Rehabilitation of Cancer Patients Suffering from Metastatic Bone Disease or Multiple Myeloma Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2019 131 10.1007/s00508-019-1524-3 PMC6851044 31267163
41. Maehr B. Keilani M. Wiltschke C. Hassler M. Licht T. Marosi C. Huetterer E. Cenik F. Crevenna R. Cancer Rehabilitation in Austria--Aspects of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 2016 166 39 43 10.1007/s10354-015-0414-1 26758980
42. Keilani M. Haig A.J. Crevenna R. Practical Assessment in Patients Suffering from Musculoskeletal Disorders Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 2016 166 5 8 10.1007/s10354-015-0411-4 26650058
43. WHO Assessment of Fracture Risk and Its Application to Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group World Health Organ. Tech. Rep. Ser. 1994 843 1 129 7941614
44. Warzecha M. Czerwiński E. Amarowicz J. Berwecka M. Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) in Clinical Practice - Rewiev Ortop. Traumatol. Rehabil. 2018 20 347 359 10.5604/01.3001.0012.7281 30648658
45. Kanis J.A. Assessment of Osteoporosis at the Primary Healthcare Level Technical Report on behalf of the World Health Organization Scientific Group University of Sheffield Sheffield, UK 2007
46. Coughlan T. Dockery F. Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Older People Clin. Med. 2014 14 187 191 10.7861/clinmedicine.14-2-187 PMC4953292 24715132
47. Hippisley-Cox J. Coupland C. Predicting Risk of Osteoporotic Fracture in Men and Women in England and Wales: Prospective Derivation and Validation of QFractureScores BMJ 2009 339 b4229 10.1136/bmj.b4229 19926696 PMC2779855
48. Kanis J.A. Cooper C. Rizzoli R. Reginster J.-Y. Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis (ESCEO) and the Committees of Scientific Advisors and National Societies of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) European Guidance for the Diagnosis and Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women Osteoporos. Int. 2019 30 3 44 10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5 30324412 PMC7026233
49. Filis A.K. Aghayev K.V. Doulgeris J.J. Gonzalez-Blohm S.A. Vrionis F.D. Spinal Neoplastic Instability: Biomechanics and Current Management Options Cancer Control 2014 21 144 150 10.1177/107327481402100207 24667401
50. Murtaza H. Sullivan C.W. Classifications in Brief: The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2019 477 2798 2803 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000923 31764353 PMC6907315
51. Benca E. Synek A. Amini M. Kainberger F. Hirtler L. Windhager R. Mayr W. Pahr D.H. QCT-Based Finite Element Prediction of Pathologic Fractures in Proximal Femora with Metastatic Lesions Sci. Rep. 2019 9 10305 10.1038/s41598-019-46739-y 31311994 PMC6635505
52. Eggermont F. van der Wal G. Westhoff P. Laar A. de Jong M. Rozema T. Kroon H.M. Ayu O. Derikx L. Dijkstra S. Patient-Specific Finite Element Computer Models Improve Fracture Risk Assessments in Cancer Patients with Femoral Bone Metastases Compared to Clinical Guidelines Bone 2020 130 115101 10.1016/j.bone.2019.115101 31655223
53. van der Linden Y.M. Kroon H.M. Dijkstra S.P.D.S. Lok J.J. Noordijk E.M. Leer J.W.H. Marijnen C.A.M. Dutch Bone Metastasis Study Group Simple Radiographic Parameter Predicts Fracturing in Metastatic Femoral Bone Lesions: Results from a Randomised Trial Radiother. Oncol. 2003 69 21 31 10.1016/S0167-8140(03)00232-9 14597353
54. Cenik F. Keilani M. Hasenöhrl T. Huber D. Stuhlpfarrer B. Pataraia A. Crevenna R. Relevant Parameters for Recommendations of Physical Activity in Patients Suffering from Multiple Myeloma: A Pilot Study Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2020 132 124 131 10.1007/s00508-019-01582-z 31784826 PMC7080662