The impact of prehabilitation interventions on affective and functional outcomes for young to midlife adult cancer patients: A systematic review

Patients' and carers' views on research priorities in prehabilitation for cancer surgery

INTRODUCTION

The views of patients and carers are important for the development of research priorities. This study aimed to determine and compare the top research priorities of cancer patients and carers with those of multidisciplinary clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study surveyed patients recovering from cancer surgery at a major tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia, and/or their carers between March and July 2023. Consenting patients and carers were provided a list of research priorities according to clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation, as determined in a recent International Delphi study. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each research priority using a 5-item Likert scale (ranging from 1 = very high research priority to 5 = very low research priority).

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients and 50 carers participated in this study. Four areas were identified as research priorities, achieving consensus of highest importance (> 70% rated as "high" or "very high" priority) by patients, carers, and clinical experts. These were "optimal composition of prehabilitation programs" (77% vs. 82% vs. 88%), "effect of prehabilitation on surgical outcomes" (85% vs. 90% vs. 95%), "effect of prehabilitation on functional outcomes" (83% vs. 86% vs. 79%), and "effect of prehabilitation on patient reported outcomes" (78% vs. 84% vs. 79%). Priorities that did not reach consensus of high importance by patients despite reaching consensus of highest importance by experts included "identifying populations most likely to benefit from prehabilitation" (70% vs. 76% vs. 90%) and "defining prehabilitation core outcome measures" (66% vs. 74% vs. 87%). "Prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapies" reached consensus of high importance by patients but not by experts or carers (81% vs. 68% vs. 69%).

CONCLUSION

This study delineated the primary prehabilitation research priorities as determined by patients and carers, against those previously identified by clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. It is recommended that subsequent high-quality research and resource allocation be directed towards these highlighted areas of importance.

Access, acceptance and adherence to cancer prehabilitation: a mixed-methods systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to better understand access to, acceptance of and adherence to cancer prehabilitation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, ProQuest Medical Library, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and grey literature were systematically searched for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies published in English between January 2017 and June 2023. Screening, data extraction and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using Covidence™ systematic review software. Data were analysed and synthesised thematically to address the question 'What do we know about access, acceptance and adherence to cancer prehabilitation, particularly among socially deprived and minority ethnic groups?' The protocol is published on PROSPERO CRD42023403776 RESULTS: Searches identified 11,715 records, and 56 studies of variable methodological quality were included: 32 quantitative, 15 qualitative and nine mixed-methods. Analysis identified facilitators and barriers at individual and structural levels, and with interpersonal connections important for prehabilitation access, acceptance and adherence. No study reported analysis of facilitators and barriers to prehabilitation specific to people from ethnic minority communities. One study described health literacy as a barrier to access for people from socioeconomically deprived communities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited empirical research of barriers and facilitators to inform improvement in equity of access to cancer prehabilitation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

To enhance the inclusivity of cancer prehabilitation, adjustments may be needed to accommodate individual characteristics and attention given to structural factors, such as staff training. Interpersonal connections are proposed as a fundamental ingredient for successful prehabilitation.

[Pre-rehabilitation of oncological patients before extensive abdominal and thoracic surgery: a literature review]

Surgery is one of the leading treatment methods of patients with primary or recurrent malignant neoplasms in the thoracic or abdominal cavity. Extensive abdominal interventions are accompanied by such adverse outcomes as blood loss, hypoxia, inflammation, blood clotting abnormality, emotional and cognitive disorders, that increases the incidence of serious complications and worsens the treatment outcome and life quality in weakened oncological patients. Multimodal pre-rehabilitation before surgery can significantly decrease the incidence and severity of postoperative complications. The rehabilitation complex includes exercise therapy, nutritional and psychological support, smoking cessation and pharmacotherapy. Currently, there are a number of questions facing rehabilitation specialists and oncologists, that are related to the determination of pre-rehabilitation optimal timing and process duration, the choice of specific physical exercises, determining the load intensity. This review presents a current view on understanding of surgical stress in extensive abdominal interventions, its effect on the oncological process course, summarizes the experience of last years in choosing pre-rehabilitation program taking into account pathogenetic mechanisms of surgical stress and individual patient's characteristics. Special attention is paid to the comparison of physical exercises' various types, their action mechanisms at different stages of pathological process, the issues of load dosing during pre-rehabilitation activities.

Effect of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes in the frail older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The study investigates the impact of preoperative rehabilitation on the surgical prognosis of frail older patients.

METHOD

The effect sizes of all studies retrieved and included by the nine databases were analyzed and expressed as RR and WMD.

RESULTS

8 studies with 902 participants met the criteria for inclusion. A significant reduction in total complications (RR = 0.84, 95 % CI = 0.73 to 0.97, P = 0.021) and the 6MWT after surgery (WMD = 74.76, 95 % CI = 44.75 to 104.77, P = 0.000) was observed in the prehabilitation group. But it had no differences in mortality(RR = 1.89, 95 % CI = 0.75 to 4.72, P = 0.176), readmission rates(RR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.56 to 1.91, P = 0.906) and LOS(WMD = -0.24, 95 % CI = -1.00 to 0.52, P = 0.540).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation had positive effect on postoperative complications and functional recovery in frail older patients.

Integrating Prehabilitation into the Cancer Survivorship Framework

The aim of prehabilitation is to improve the physical and emotional health of patients before upcoming surgery or therapies. This mini-review focuses on current advances in urological prehabilitation and how it can be used together with enhanced recovery after surgery and conventional rehabilitation protocols. Urological prehabilitation has primarily focused on improving urinary continence, erectile function, bone density, and lean body mass, with some promising results for all of these outcomes. Although all cancer patients should be considered for prehabilitation, older or medically frail individuals may derive the greatest benefit. PATIENT SUMMARY: This mini-review discusses prehabilitation as part of the care for cancer patients. Although the research on prehabilitation is evolving, current studies generally demonstrate that it may help to enhance a patient's strength and endurance before upcoming surgery or other treatments.

Prehabilitation before general surgery: Worth the effort?

Prehabilitation, or interventions before surgery aimed at improving preoperative health and postoperative outcomes, has various forms. Although it may confer benefit to patients undergoing general surgery, this is not certain. Furthermore, although it may yield a net monetary gain, it is also likely to require substantial monetary and non-monetary investment. The impact of prehabilitation is highly variable and dependent on multiple factors. Physical function and pulmonary outcomes are likely to be improved by most forms of prehabilitation involving physical and multimodal exercise programmes. However, other surgical outcomes have demonstrated mixed results from prehabilitation. Within this issue, the measures used for evaluating baseline patient biopsychosocial health are important, and collecting sufficient data to accurately inform patient-centred prehabilitation programmes is only possible through thorough clinical and laboratory investigation and synthesised metrics such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Although a multimodal approach to prehabilitation is the current gold standard, societal factors may affect engagement with programmes that require a significant in-person activity. However, this is weighed against the substantial financial and non-financial investment that accompanies many programmes. The overall effectiveness and optimal mode of intervention across the discipline of general surgery remains unclear, and further research is needed to prove prehabilitation's full worth.

Research Priorities in Prehabilitation for Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery: An International Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Recently, the number of prehabilitation trials has increased significantly. The identification of key research priorities is vital in guiding future research directions. Thus, the aim of this collaborative study was to define key research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery.

METHODS

The Delphi methodology was implemented over three rounds of surveys distributed to prehabilitation experts from across multiple specialties, tumour streams and countries via a secure online platform. In the first round, participants were asked to provide baseline demographics and to identify five top prehabilitation research priorities. In successive rounds, participants were asked to rank research priorities on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was considered if > 70% of participants indicated agreement on each research priority.

RESULTS

A total of 165 prehabilitation experts participated, including medical doctors, physiotherapists, dieticians, nurses, and academics across four continents. The first round identified 446 research priorities, collated within 75 unique research questions. Over two successive rounds, a list of 10 research priorities reached international consensus of importance. These included the efficacy of prehabilitation on varied postoperative outcomes, benefit to specific patient groups, ideal programme composition, cost efficacy, enhancing compliance and adherence, effect during neoadjuvant therapies, and modes of delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

This collaborative international study identified the top 10 research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. The identified priorities inform research strategies, provide future directions for prehabilitation research, support resource allocation and enhance the prehabilitation evidence base in cancer patients undergoing surgery.