Poster Presentation 2025 Joint Meeting of the COSA ASM and IPOS Congress

Concurrent cognitive and physical training for cognition and aerobic fitness in men with prostate cancer on Androgen Deprivation Therapy: a pilot investigation (126503)

Alanah Pike 1 2 , Joseph Northey 1 2 , Catherine Paterson 3 , Nicolas Cherbuin 4 5 , Ganes Pranavan 6 7 , Kristy Martin 1 2 , Amit Lampit 8 , Greg McRoberts 9 , Ben Rattray 1 2 , Hollie Speer 1
  1. UC Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia
  2. Discipline of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia
  3. Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  4. Australian National University , Canberra, ACT, Australia
  5. National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University , Canberra, ACT, Australia
  6. Canberra Health Services , Canberra, ACT, Australia
  7. Australian National University Medical School, Canberra, ACT, Australia
  8. Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne , VIC, Australia
  9. ACT Prostate Cancer Support Group, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Objective: Determine the effects of a novel concurrent cognitive and physical training intervention for cognitive performance and aerobic fitness in men undergoing Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer.

Sample/setting: Men who received at least one dose of ADT in the last 6 months and not currently undergoing any another treatment (ACTRN12623000767606).

Procedures: 19 participants (mean = 71 years; 25% of a priori recruitment target) were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of either: twice weekly moderate intensity cycling on a recumbent bike (physical; n=7); twice weekly physical training while performing simultaneous computerised adaptive cognitive training (BrainHQ) targeting memory, executive function, spatial awareness and reaction time (concurrent; n=6); or wait-list control (n=6). Cognitive performance and aerobic fitness were assessed pre- and post-intervention via a computerised cognitive battery and a submaximal exercise assessment. Consistent with the nature of this pilot investigation, Cohen’s d effect sizes for changes in the concurrent and physical interventions relative to the wait-list control, are reported.

Results: Compared to control, concurrent and physical interventions displayed medium to large effect sizes for speed and accuracy in the executive function (d = 0.56 -1.07), spatial awareness (d = 0.71 – 4.00), reaction time (d = 1.60 – 2.00), and memory tasks (d =0.60 – 2.21). For aerobic fitness, the concurrent and physical interventions demonstrated large changes compared to control (d = 1.33, 1.00 respectively).

Conclusion: This pilot investigation suggests that concurrent or physical only training may be effective over a wait-list control for cognitive performance. Further, adding a cognitive component to physical training does not appear to reduce the aerobic fitness benefits gained from physical training.

Clinical Implications: These findings, if confirmed in a larger clinical trial addressing participation barriers, may be translated into standard clinical practice to improve the cognitive outcomes for men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT.