Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs for Cancer Survivors: A Scoping Review

Cardio-Oncology Rehabilitation for Cancer Survivors With High Cardiovascular Risk: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity in cancer survivors, which makes strategies aimed at mitigating cardiovascular risk a subject of major contemporary importance.

Objective

To assess whether a center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) framework compared with usual care encompassing community-based exercise training (CBET) is superior for cardiorespiratory fitness improvement and cardiovascular risk factor control among cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial (CORE trial) included adult cancer survivors who had exposure to cardiotoxic cancer treatment and/or previous cardiovascular disease. Enrollment took place from March 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. End points were assessed at baseline and after the 8-week intervention.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 8 weeks of CBCR or CBET. The combined aerobic and resistance exercise sessions were performed twice a week.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The powered primary efficacy measure was change in peak oxygen consumption (V̇o2) at 2 months. Secondary outcomes included handgrip maximal strength, functional performance, blood pressure (BP), body composition, body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), lipid profile, plasma biomarker levels, physical activity (PA) levels, psychological distress, quality of life (QOL), and health literacy.

Results

A total of 75 participants completed the study (mean [SD] age, 53.6 [12.3] years; 58 [77.3%] female), with 38 in the CBCR group and 37 in the CBET group. Participants in CBCR achieved a greater mean (SD) increase in peak V̇o2 than those in CBET (2.1 [2.8] mL/kg/min vs 0.8 [2.5] mL/kg/min), with a between-group mean difference of 1.3 mL/kg/min (95% CI, 0.1-2.6 mL/kg/min; P = .03). Compared with the CBET group, the CBCR group also attained a greater mean (SD) reduction in systolic BP (-12.3 [11.8] mm Hg vs -1.9 [12.9] mm Hg; P < .001), diastolic BP (-5.0 [5.7] mm Hg vs -0.5 [7.0] mm Hg; P = .003), and BMI (-1.2 [0.9] vs 0.2 [0.7]; P < .001) and greater mean (SD) improvements in PA levels (1035.2 [735.7] metabolic equivalents [METs]/min/wk vs 34.1 [424.4] METs/min/wk; P < .001), QOL (14.0 [10.0] points vs 0.4 [12.9] points; P < .001), and health literacy scores (2.7 [1.6] points vs 0.1 [1.4] points; P < .001). Exercise adherence was significantly higher in the CBCR group than in the CBET group (mean [SD] sessions completed, 90.3% [11.8%] vs 68.4% [22.1%]; P < .001).

Conclusion and Relevance

The CORE trial showed that a cardio-oncology rehabilitation model among cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk was associated with greater improvements in peak V̇o2 compared with usual care encompassing an exercise intervention in a community setting. The CBCR also showed superior results in exercise adherence, cardiovascular risk factor control, QOL, and health literacy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05132998.

Adherence, safety, and satisfaction of a cardio-oncology rehabilitation program framework versus community exercise training for cancer survivors: findings from the CORE trial

PURPOSE

To assess safety, satisfaction, and overall adherence of a center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) program for cancer survivors at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, compared to community-based exercise training (CBET).

METHODS

The CORE study was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolling cancer survivors exposed to cardiotoxic cancer treatment and/or with previous CV disease. Participants were randomized to an 8-week CBCR program or CBET, twice a week. Overall feasibility (consent, retention, and completion rates), intervention adherence (percentage of exercise sessions attended), and safety were assessed. Adverse events (AEs) were registered, and participants' satisfaction was measured at the end of the study.

RESULTS

Eighty out of 116 potentially eligible individuals were included; consent rate was 72.4%, and 77 (96.2%) started the study (retention rate 100% in CBCR vs 92.5% in CBET); completion rate was 92.5%. Intervention adherence was higher in CBCR (90.3 ± 11.8% vs 68.4 ± 22.1%, p < 0.001). Exercise-related AEs were mainly related to musculoskeletal conditions in both groups (7 in CBCR vs 20 in CBET, p < 0.001), accounting for exercise prescription modification in 47 sessions (18 (3.3%) in CBCR vs 29 (7.2%) in CBET, p = 0.006), none motivating exercise discontinuation. No participants reported major CV events. Overall, the satisfaction with the different aspects of the programs (e.g., expectations, monitoring) was higher in the CBCR.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory analysis of the CORE trial suggests that both exercise-based interventions are feasible and safe in this setting. The higher intervention adherence and patient satisfaction in CBCR suggest that this comprehensive approach could be of interest in this population.

Impact of a COmprehensive cardiac REhabilitation framework among high cardiovascular risk cancer survivors: Protocol for the CORE trial

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors are challenging patients, as they often present increased cardiovascular risk. In this background, cardio-oncology rehabilitation frameworks for specific cancer patients have been proposed. However, optimal program designs, as well as their overall safety and efficacy in different subsets of patients, are not fully ascertained.

DESIGN

Single-center, pragmatic, prospective, randomized controlled trial performed in Portugal aiming to evaluate the impact of a center-based cardiac rehabilitation program, consisting of exercise training, nutritional counselling, psychosocial management and lifestyle behavior change, compared to community-based exercise training, in cancer survivors.

METHODS

Adult cancer survivors (N = 80) exposed to cardiotoxic cancer treatment and/or with previous cardiovascular disease will be randomized (1:1) to receive either an eight-week cardiac rehabilitation program or community-based exercise training. Primary endpoint is cardiorespiratory fitness; secondary endpoints are physical activity, psychosocial parameters, blood pressure, body composition, lipids and inflammatory parameters. Physical function, quality of life, fatigue, health literacy, and feasibility will be assessed; a cost-effectiveness evaluation will also be performed. Between-group differences at baseline and in the change from baseline to the end of the study will be tested with unpaired t-tests or Mann-Whitney U test. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be performed for within-group comparisons.

CONCLUSION

This trial will address the overall impact of a contemporary cardiac rehabilitation program framework in cancer survivors, as compared to a community-based exercise training. Given the higher cardiovascular risk in several groups of cancer patients, our results could provide novel insights into optimized preventive strategies in this complex patient population.

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.

Research Quality and Impact of Cardiac Rehabilitation in Cancer Survivors

Background

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is endorsed to improve cardiovascular outcomes in cancer survivors. The quality of CR-based research in oncology has not been assessed.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting and evidence from CR-based intervention studies in oncology and to explore associations between intervention participation and outcomes.

Methods

Systematic searches of 5 databases were conducted (January 2020) and updated (September 2021). Randomized and nonrandomized studies evaluating CR-based interventions in adult cancer survivors during and after treatment were eligible. Independent reviewers extracted data using 2 reporting guidelines (Template for Intervention Description and Replication and Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials Harms extension), risk of bias (ROB) assessment tools (Cochrane ROB 2.0 and Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions), and a combined inventory (Tool for the Assessment of Study Quality and reporting in Exercise). A meta-analysis was used to explore pre-intervention/post-intervention differences for commonly assessed outcomes.

Results

Ten studies involving data from 685 survivors were included. The mean quality scores for intervention reporting (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and harms (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials Harms extension) were 62% and 17%, respectively. There was moderate-to-high ROB across nonrandomized (Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions score: 25%) and randomized (ROB 2.0 score: 50%) studies. The mean standardized cardiorespiratory fitness was higher (0.42; 95% CI: 0.27-0.57), fatigue was lower (−0.45; 95% CI: −0.55 to −0.34), and percent body fat (0.07; 95% CI: −0.23 to 0.38) was not different in survivors completing CR compared with those not completing CR.

Conclusions

CR-based studies in oncology have low-to-moderate reporting quality and moderate-to-high ROB limiting interpretation, reproducibility, and translation of this evidence into practice.

Wearable Monitors Facilitate Exercise in Adult and Pediatric Stem Cell Transplant

Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is a potentially curative treatment for hematopoietic malignancies, complicated by decreased performance status and quality of life. Exercise therapy improves outcomes in HSCT, but several barriers have prevented exercise from becoming routine clinical practice. Based on existing data that wearable technologies facilitate exercise participation in other sedentary and chronic illness populations, we propose the novel hypothesis that wearable technologies are a valuable tool in transcending barriers and developing exercise therapy programs for HSCT patients.

A Cardiac Rehabilitation Program for Breast Cancer Survivors: A Feasibility Study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) intervention in the breast cancer population.

Methods

This single-arm feasibility study evaluated a 14-week CR intervention program in breast cancer survivors. Feasibility was defined as completion of at least 30/36 sessions of the program without serious adverse events (SAE) in 80% of patients. Secondary endpoints included the change in VO2 max, cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, Duke Activity Secondary Index (DASI), Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), and QLQ-C30. All outcomes were reported as mean change and compared using paired t-tests.

Results

A total of 25 patients were enrolled in the study. 18 patients of the 25 enrolled (72%) completed the 14 weeks program without SAE. The overall adherence to the study protocol was 60%. Of the 18 participants who did not withdraw from the program, 15 (83%) adhered to the study protocol and completed 30 or more sessions. There was a nonsignificant improvement in VO2 max (mean Δ0.5, p=0.6). The scores for DASI, BFI, and QLQ-C30 improved from baseline to posttreatment.

Conclusion

A CR intervention in breast cancer survivors had high adherence in those who were able to complete the 14-week program. The program significantly improved patient reported physical activity, fatigue, and quality of life (QoL), without significant improvement in CVD risk factors. Implications for cancer patients are that early implementation of a CR program should be considered by practitioners as it improves QoL and exercise tolerance in breast cancer survivors.