Galvao 2010.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 57; 29 to the exercise group and 28 to the control group Study start and stop dates: July 2007 to September 2008 Length of intervention: 12 weeks Length of follow‐up: to end of the intervention
Participants	Type cancer: prostate cancer Stage, n (%) exercise group: localized, 27 (93.1%); nodal metastases, 2 (6.9%); bone metastases, 0 (0%) control group: localized, 25 (89.3%); nodal metastases, 3 (10.7%); bone metastases, 0 (0%) Time since cancer diagnosis: not reported Time in active treatment: 6 months after enrolling Inclusion criteria: minimum prior exposure to androgen suppression therapy > 2 months anticipated to remain hypogonadal for the subsequent 6 months Eligibility criteria related to interest or ability, or both, to exercise: musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or neurologic disorders that could inhibit them from exercising inability to walk 400 m or undertake upper and lower limb exercise, and resistance training in the previous 3 months Exclusion criteria: prostate specific antigen evidence of disease activity bone metastatic disease Gender: male Current age, mean (SD) years exercise group: 69.5 (7.3) years control group: 70.1 (7.3) years Age at cancer diagnosis: not reported Ethnicity/race: not reported Education level, postsecondary education, n (%): exercise group: 15 (51.7%) control group: 20 (71.4%) SES: not reported Employment status, full‐time, n (%): exercise group: 4 (13.8%) control group: 2 (7.1%) Comorbidities, number of comorbidities (cardiovascular, hypertension, diabetes, osteoporosis, dyslipidemia), mean (SD): exercise group: 1.0 (1.3) control group: 1.0 (1.1) Past exercise history: not reported On hormone therapy, LHRHa antiandrogen, n (%): exercise group: 6 (20.7) control group: 11 (39.3) Previous androgen suppression therapy, n (%): exercise group: 5 (17.2) control group: 4 (14.3) Time on androgen suppression therapy, mean (SD) months: exercise group: 18.2 (38.5) months control group: 10.1 (26.8) months
Interventions	29 participants assigned to the exercise intervention, including: combined progressive resistance and aerobic training. The resistance exercises included chest press, seated row, shoulder press, triceps extension, leg press, leg extension and leg curl, with abdominal crunches also performed. Aerobic component included cycling or walking/jogging. Sessions commenced and concluded with general flexibility exercises. Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic and anaerobic Intensity of the experimental exercise intervention: moderate, at 65% to 80% maximum HR and perceived exertion at 11 to 13 (6 to 20 point, Borg scale) Frequency: twice per week Duration of individual sessions: aerobic session was 15 to 20 minutes Duration of exercise program: 12 weeks Total number of exercise sessions: 24 sessions Format: group Facility: facility Professionally led by an exercise physiologist Adherence: not reported 28 participants assigned to control group, including: encouragement to maintain customary activity and dietary patterns Contamination of control group: not reported
Outcomes	Primary outcome: whole body and regional lean mass, fat mass, and percent fat, assessed using DXA Other outcomes included: dynamic muscle strength and function, assessed by using the maximal number of repetitions performed at 70% of 1‐RM for the chest press and leg press exercises functional performance, assessed by repeated chair rise to standing (5 times) and the 6‐musual and fast walk using electronic timing gates cardiorespiratory capacity, assessed by the 400‐m walk. Tests were performed in triplicate blood biomarkers, including testosterone, PSA, insulin, glucose, CRP, and lipid profile levels HRQoL, assessed using the MOS SF‐36 and subscales balance, assessed using the sensory organization test using the Neurocom Smart Balance Master and dynamic balance by the 6‐m backward walk. Falls self‐efficacy was determined using the Activities‐Specific Balance Confidence scale Outcomes were measured at baseline and end of intervention (12 weeks): exercise group: n = 29 at baseline, n = 29 at 12 weeks control group: n = 28 at baseline, n = 28 at 12 weeks Subgroup analysis: none reported Adverse events: not reported
Notes	Country: Australia Funding: Cancer Council of Western Australia
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer random assignment program
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Concealed from project coordinator and exercise physiologist
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to conceal allocation to the intervention from the participants
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Allocation to the intervention was not concealed from the study personnel
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	ITT analyses was completed with missing values imputed as change across time to be zero
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	There appears to be no selective reporting of outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appears to be free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias