Cancer prehabilitation—a short review

THE VALUE OF PREOPERATIVE PROGNOSTIC NUTRITIONAL INDEX IN GASTRIC CANCER AFTER CURATIVE RESECTION

BACKGROUND

Predicting short- and long-term outcomes of oncological therapies is crucial for developing effective treatment strategies. Malnutrition and the host immune status significantly affect outcomes in major surgeries.

AIMS

To assess the value of preoperative prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in predicting outcomes in gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on patients undergoing curative-intent surgery for gastric adenocarcinoma between 2009 and 2020. PNI was calculated as follows: PNI=(10 x albumin [g/dL])+(0.005 x lymphocytes [nº/mm3]). The optimal cutoff value was determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve (PNI cutoff=52), and patients were grouped into low and high PNI.

RESULTS

Of the 529 patients included, 315 (59.5%) were classified as a low-PNI group (PNI<52) and 214 (40.5%) as a high-PNI group (PNI≥52). Older age (p=0.050), male sex (p=0.003), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) III/IV (p=0.001), lower hemoglobin level (p<0.001), lower body mass index (p=0.001), higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (p<0.001), D1 lymphadenectomy, advanced pT stage, pN+ and more advanced pTNM stage were related to low-PNI patient. Furthermore, 30-day (1.4 vs. 4.8%; p=0.036) and 90-day (3.3 vs. 10.5%; p=0.002) mortality rates were higher in low-PNI compared to high-PNI group. Disease-free and overall survival were worse in low-PNI patients compared to high-PNI (p<0.001 for both). ASA III/IV score, low-PNI, pT3/T4, and pN+ were independent risk factors for worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative PNI can predict short- and long-term outcomes of patients with gastric cancer after curative gastrectomy. Low PNI is an independent factor related to worse disease-free and overall survival.

Current landscape and support for practical initiation of oncological prehabilitation translatable to thyroid cancer: A position paper

Despite a growing body of evidence for the effectiveness of prehabilitation, the uptake of prehabilitation in Europe remains low. Contributing factors range from limited awareness and understanding of prehabilitation to a lack of supporting infrastructure and reimbursement challenges. In this position paper, the authors propose a new comprehensive definition of prehabilitation and identify differentiated thyroid cancer as a type of cancer particularly well-suited for prehabilitation. To support clinicians with the implementation of prehabilitation programs in their clinics, the authors discuss the following practical solutions: a) find the most appropriate prehabilitation program for each patient; b) raise awareness among peers; c) develop evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of prehabilitation; d) expand the interdisciplinary team; e) expand your network and make use of existing assets; f) utilize learnings from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prehabilitation for Patients with Cancer Undergoing Radiation Therapy: a Scoping Review

AIMS

Prehabilitation is a process of identifying and assessing factors that could compromise the physical and psychological health of patients undergoing cancer treatment and implementing an intervention to combat such concerns. The use of prehabilitation in cancer surgery has yielded positive outcomes in rectal, lung and abdominal cancers. Prehabilitation strategies have potential to improve the management of patients receiving radiation therapy or chemoradiation. The aim of the present study was to map the evidence of the assessment and evaluation of prehabilitation for radiation therapy patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A database search using EMBASE and PubMed was conducted. The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. Keywords included prehabilitation, radiation therapy/radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy/chemoradiation, intervention and exercise. Types of prehabilitation strategy, their purposes and impact, according to cancer site, were analysed.

RESULTS

Prehabilitation is most commonly evaluated in head and neck cancer, whereby unimodal, physical interventions manage dysphagia. Prehabilitation for lung cancer demonstrated its ability to widen treatment options for patients. Physical prehabilitation is administered to combat adverse effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation is adaptive and tailored to specific patient and site needs; thus it is applied across a wide range of cancer sites. More interventions by which radiation therapy is the definitive treatment modality and larger sample sizes within these studies are warranted to increase prehabilitation utilisation for patients undergoing radiation therapy.

Evaluation of nutrition components within prehabilitation programs in gastrointestinal cancers: Is prehab worth the hype?

Nutrition impact symptoms and unintended weight loss are prevalent in patients with gastrointestinal cancers, especially during the perioperative period or while prescribed anticancer treatments. Because patients may experience loss of lean body mass and malnutrition, aggressive nutrition intervention prior to surgery should be considered. Cancer prehabilitation is a process spanning the care continuum from diagnosis to the time of surgery encompassing nutrition support, psychological and physical assessment, and targeted interventions. Thirteen studies published between 2013 and 2023 were included in this review and evaluated prehabilitation programs' impact on postoperative outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Literature continues to emerge supporting the integration of nutrition into a prehabilitation program because of its potential to contribute to improved clinical outcomes, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness, but considerable variation exists with respect to the specific recommendations provided by current prehabilitation programs.

Prehabilitation in radiation therapy: a scoping review

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

Radiation therapy (RT) is a central component of cancer treatment with survival and long-term quality-of-life benefits across a spectrum of oncologic diagnoses. However, RT has been associated with varying levels of fatigue, pain, weight loss, and changes in mental health both during and post-treatment. Prehabilitation aims to optimize health prior to anti-neoplastic therapy in order to reduce side effects, increase adherence to treatment, expedite post-treatment recovery, and improve long-term outcomes. Though prehabilitation has been studied in those undergoing cancer-related surgery, literature on prehabilitation in individuals undergoing RT has not been comprehensively explored. Thus, this scoping review aims to summarize the existing literature focused on prehabilitation interventions for patients receiving RT.

MATERIALS/METHODS

The PRISMA-ScR checklist for conducting scoping reviews was adopted to identify and evaluate studies investigating the efficacy of prehabilitation before and during RT for cancer over the past 21 years (10/2002-10/2022). A search of prehabilitation and RT was performed to identify studies investigating prehabilitation interventions in adult cancer patients undergoing RT.

RESULTS

A total of 30 articles met inclusion criteria, yielding 3657 total participants. Eighteen (60%) studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with sample sizes ranging from 21 to 221. The most commonly studied populations were patients with head and neck cancer, followed by rectal, breast, and lung cancer. A majority (80%) of studies evaluated one prehabilitation intervention (i.e., unimodal). Targeted physical exercises were the most common intervention, followed by general physical exercises and technology/apps. Adherence/feasibility was the most common primary outcome, representing 30% of studies. All studies reported data on sex, and 5 (17%) reported data on race and/or ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation interventions have been successfully implemented in patients with cancer undergoing surgical treatment. Based on limited current literature, prehabilitation appears to have a promising effect in reducing morbidity in adult cancer patients requiring RT. Though our review identified many RCTs, they were frequently small sample trials with primary outcomes focused on feasibility, rather than functional status or quality of life. Thus, there is a need for adequately powered, randomized controlled intervention trials to investigate the efficacy of prehabilitation and maximize the treatment outcomes for patients undergoing RT.

Assessing real-world implementability of a multimodal group-based tele-prehabilitation program in cancer care: a pragmatic feasibility study

Introduction

Multimodal prehabilitation is intended to optimize a patient's mental and physical health prior to surgery. Most multimodal prehabilitation interventions are delivered on a one-on-one format, which may limit benefits associated with social interactions that can be achieved in a group context, and are delivered in-person, which may limit the accessibility. The purpose of this study was to develop a group-based, multimodal, tele-prehabilitation intervention for individuals diagnosed with cancer (iACTIF) and assess its implementability in a "real-world" clinical setting by measuring feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, and preliminary effects.

Methods

A prospective, single-group, pragmatic feasibility study was conducted with assessments at baseline, pre-surgery, and 12-weeks post-surgery. iACTIF consisted of three 90-min live videoconference sessions per week, including exercise and educational components. Descriptive statistics were used to document feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity indicators. Paired t-test, Wilcoxon test, and Cohen's D-test were conducted to assess changes in health-related outcomes.

Results

A total of 25 participants (mean age ± SD= 60.2 ± 14.0) were recruited. The feasibility assessment revealed a low referral rate (31.4%) and a high study retention (98%) and program attendance [session attended/possible session] (70.2%), with a prehabilitation window of 32.7 days (SD= 20.9, median= 28). Acceptability was high (84%-100%) according to satisfaction, utility and safety, delivery modality, and intention to continue physical activity and to recommend iACTIF to a relative. Pre-post-intervention assessments suggest positive changes on physical functional capacity based on the 2-min step test (mean difference= +18.9 steps, p=0.005), the 30-s sit-to-stand (mean difference= +1.1 repetition, p=0.011), and volume of moderate intensity physical activity per week (mean difference= +104.8 min, p<0.001). Fidelity was supported by conformity and coherence, with only minimal adjustments required to meet participants' needs.

Discussion

iACTIF implementability in a "real-world" clinical setting is promising, and preliminary outcomes suggest moderate benefits on physical health and small increase in mental health indicators.

[Prehabilitation prior to radical prostatectomy : A useful concept?]

Against the background of a continuous improvement of established treatment outcomes and the compatibility of health economic considerations, pre- and perioperative processes are constantly being developed and further optimized. In recent years, the concept of prehabilitation has gained increasing importance as a proactive approach to preparing patients for mostly surgical cancer treatment and improving their physical and mental health. Prehabilitation in oncology is a systematic process aimed at improving the physical, psychosocial, and nutritional condition of patients before and during cancer treatment. The goal of prehabilitation is to enhance patients' ability to cope with the physiological stress of cancer treatment and improve their overall health and well-being. In addition, prehabilitation has the potential to reduce costs for the healthcare system.

Prehabilitation and Rehabilitation for Patients with Lung Cancer: A Review of Where we are Today

Lung cancer is the third most common type of cancer in the UK, with nearly 50 000 new cases diagnosed a year. Treatments for lung cancer have improved in recent years with the advent of new surgical and radiotherapy techniques and the increased use of immunotherapies. These advances have resulted in increasing numbers of patients surviving beyond the completion of their treatment. Lung cancer patients are now not dying from their cancer diagnosis, but from other co-existing pathologies. Lung cancer patients commonly present with multiple comorbidities. Mitigating the effects of poor lifestyles and changing behaviours may improve the efficacy of treatments, reduce side-effects and improve the quality of life for lung cancer patients. Published evidence supports the use of interventions to manage behavioural habits, to optimise the health of patients. There is no consensus as to what, when or how to embed these into the patient pathway. Supporting patients before, during and after their cancer treatments to increase activity, eat well and stop smoking have been seen to decrease side-effects and improve patient outcomes and wellbeing. The challenge is to provide a package of interventions that is acceptable to patients and fits within the patient pathway so as not to conflict with diagnostic and therapeutic activities. This article reviews where we are today with providing behavioural support to optimise the health of lung cancer patients undergoing treatment.

Biopsychosocial Markers of Body Image Concerns in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: A Prospective Longitudinal Study

(1) Background: Patients and survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) are at a high risk of developing body image concerns. Despite the prevalence of body image concerns in patients with HNC, there is a lack of longitudinal research exploring the wide array of its associated determinants. The current longitudinal study examined the determinants and longitudinal course of body image dissatisfaction in patients with HNC. (2) Methods: Patients participated in Structured Clinical Interviews and self-administered questionnaires at four time-points: (T1) upon cancer diagnosis, (T2) at 3 months post-diagnosis, (T3) at 6 months post-diagnosis, and (T4) at 12 months post-diagnosis. They also underwent a disfigurement rating on an objective scale. (3) Results: Two hundred and twenty-four patients participated in our study. Fourteen percent to twenty-eight percent of patients reported at least moderate body image concerns across time points, with the lowest rates at baseline and the highest at 3 months (T1). It was found that patients more predisposed to developing higher levels of body image concerns presented physical markers (i.e., advanced cancer stage, lower physical functioning, higher disfigurement), psychosocial markers (i.e., higher depression, higher anxiety, and higher levels of coping with denial), and health disparities (i.e., younger age, female sex, French language, and marital status, with divorced and widowers most affected). (4) Conclusions: The findings of this study highlight the multifaceted nature of body image concerns in patients with HNC and its biopsychosocial determinants. Clinicians should pay specific attention to these biopsychosocial markers in their clinics to predict high levels of body image concerns and tailor communication/refer for support accordingly.

Exercise oncology: an emerging discipline in the cancer care continuum

Exercise is an essential component of healthy living and well-being. While there is a global acceptance of the benefits of exercise for the general population, there exists hesitancy and confusion among health-care professionals, particularly oncologists, as to whether these benefits translate to cancer patients. Patient referrals to accessible, structured exercise programs in this setting are often overlooked by physicians when formulating a cancer management plan. There is however increasing awareness and acceptance of cancer survivorship as a part of the cancer care continuum, identifying multiple factors that contribute to well-being beyond just cancer outcomes. Efforts to optimize cancer survivorship have stimulated further academic interest in the benefits of healthy living and particularly exercise oncology. There is now compelling evidence that exercise, which includes daily activities such as walking, as well as structured programs, improves multiple-cancer outcomes such as fatigue, quality of life and likely survival, and warrants consideration in the multidisciplinary care of cancer patients. International guidelines have been established that recommend counseling cancer patients with regard to healthy lifestyle changes including exercise. However, there still remains a reluctance from oncology physicians to prescribe exercise for these patients, largely due to uncertainty with regard to their patients' ability to tolerate such an intervention, coupled with insufficient understanding of the potential benefits of these programs. There also exist patient barriers and attitudes that must be overcome. Exercise strategies and bespoke programs that are tailored to the unique abilities and goals of the patients will enhance participation. To move the field forward and integrate exercise oncology into standard practice, it is imperative to raise awareness of the benefits of exercise to cancer patients and their health-care providers. This will facilitate the prescription of exercise as part of the multimodal treatment plan with the ultimate aim of promoting an active lifestyle to optimize patient care and well-being.