Prehabilitation for radical prostatectomy: A multicentre randomized controlled trial

An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Unimodal Prehabilitation with Exercise Intervention to Enhance Postoperative Outcomes in Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to update the body of evidence on the efficacy of prehabilitation with exercise interventions, in reducing postoperative complications and length of hospital stay after cancer surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO to identify randomized controlled trials investigating the impact of prehabilitation with exercise interventions for patients undergoing cancer surgery. Primary and secondary outcomes assessed were postoperative complications and length of hospital stay, respectively. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology was used to determine the strength of evidence. Relative risk and mean difference were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In this updated review, 32 trials (n = 2304 participants) were identified, with 5 trials focused on patients undergoing surgery for genitourinary cancer (n = 422 participants), 9 for lower gastrointestinal cancer (n = 639 participants), 6 for upper gastrointestinal cancer (n = 526), and 11 for lung cancer (n = 717 participants). The majority of included trials exhibited some risk of bias. Evidence of low-to-moderate quality indicated that prehabilitation with preoperative exercise significantly reduced postoperative complication rates by approximately 50% and decreased the length of hospital stay by 2.5 days in patients undergoing lung resection. Preoperative exercise did not demonstrate effectiveness in reducing postoperative complications or length of hospital stay for other cancer populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supports the efficacy of prehabilitation with exercise in reducing postoperative complications and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing lung cancer surgery. Further research is warranted to establish the efficacy of unimodal prehabilitation with exercise in genitourinary, lower gastrointestinal, and upper gastrointestinal cancer populations having cancer surgery.

Effect of prehabilitation programmes on functional capacity in patients awaiting oncological resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of prehabilitation on the perioperative functional capacity of patients awaiting oncological resections.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist and within the databases Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, MEDLINE PubMed, and Web of Science. The eligibility criteria were set to include peer-reviewed randomised control trials including only adult (≥ 18 years old) patients undergoing any type of prehabilitation (PREHAB) prior to any type of oncological resection. The studies had to feature at least one control group undergoing standard care (SC) and had to assess functional capacity by means of a 6-min walk distance (6MWD) or peak oxygen uptake (VO2Peak) at different stages pre- and post- operatively.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven randomised controlled trials involving 1994 patients were included. After processing the data, the number of patients was 1889. Studies featured different cancer specialties: lung (11), colorectal (5), urological (4), abdominal (3), esophagogastric (2), liver (1), and gastrointestinal (1). Overall, PREHAB enhanced both 6MWD (g = 0.273, 95% CI 0.174 to 0.371, Z = 5.406, p < 0.001) and VO2Peak (g = 0.615, 95% CI 0.243 to 0.987, Z = 3.240, p = 0.001) compared with SC. The 6MWD subgroup analysis revealed a small mean effect size favouring both unimodal and multimodal PREHAB interventions.

CONCLUSION

These findings support that prehabilitation, whether implemented as unimodal or multimodal format, elicits small preoperative improvements in functional capacity in patients awaiting oncological resections. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023428676.

Inclusivity in prostate cancer and exercise research: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent type of cancer in men in the UK. Exercise has been shown to improve the health and quality of life of PCa patients. Exercise should be easily accessible to men with PCa regardless of socioeconomic group or ethnicity. There is a need to better understand whether the current evidence base for exercise interventions is representative and inclusive of racial and ethnic minority men with PCa.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and prospectively registered via Prospero (ID: CRD42022384373). The MEDLINE Ovid, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases were searched from inception to December 2022. The search strategy keywords and MeSH terms used included the following: (1) exercise, (2) training, (3) prostate cancer, (4) ethnic and (5) diversity.

RESULTS

A total of 778 records were retrieved from database searches, of which 15 records were duplicates. A further 649 were eliminated following the screening of titles and abstracts. After full-text screening of 186 articles, 28 manuscripts were included for review.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review highlights that there is high heterogeneity in the reporting of participants' ethnicity and there are low numbers of ethnic minority men included in PCa and exercise studies in the UK. Further work is required to understand why representation is lacking within PCa exercise trials in the UK and strategies are needed to achieve representation from all ethnic groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Improved representation and reporting of ethnicity in exercise trials is vital to ensure the results are applicable to all patients.

Towards a common definition of surgical prehabilitation: a scoping review of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

There is no universally accepted definition for surgical prehabilitation. The objectives of this scoping review were to (1) identify how surgical prehabilitation is defined across randomised controlled trials and (2) propose a common definition.

METHODS

The final search was conducted in February 2023 using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, exercise, and psychological support) lasting at least 7 days in adults undergoing elective surgery. Qualitative data were analysed using summative content analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 76 prehabilitation trials of patients undergoing abdominal (n=26, 34%), orthopaedic (n=20, 26%), thoracic (n=14, 18%), cardiac (n=7, 9%), spinal (n=4, 5%), and other (n=5, 7%) surgeries. Surgical prehabilitation was explicitly defined in more than half of these RCTs (n=42, 55%). Our findings consolidated the following definition: 'Prehabilitation is a process from diagnosis to surgery, consisting of one or more preoperative interventions of exercise, nutrition, psychological strategies and respiratory training, that aims to enhance functional capacity and physiological reserve to allow patients to withstand surgical stressors, improve postoperative outcomes, and facilitate recovery.'

CONCLUSIONS

A common definition is the first step towards standardisation, which is needed to guide future high-quality research and advance the field of prehabilitation. The proposed definition should be further evaluated by international stakeholders to ensure that it is comprehensive and globally accepted.

Loss of Independence in Older Adults With Operable Oral Cavity Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the effect of curative-intent surgery on loss of independence (LOI) in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational study of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2021.

SETTING

Single tertiary care academic center. Patients having undergone curative-intent surgical treatment for OCSCC from 2014 to 2021 in the cancer registry.

METHODS

LOI as the primary outcome was measured based on a combination of decrease in activities of daily living (ADLs) and/or decline in mobility during treatment. Descriptive statistics were used to compare baseline demographics and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between LOI and perioperative variables of interest.

RESULTS

Of the 180 patients included in this study, 139 (79%) were fully independent in ADLs/instrumental ADLs prior to surgery. The average age of the cohort was 74 with 49% males. Thirty-seven (21%) experienced a decline in mobility or increased care needs following surgery, and 18 (10%) experienced an independent decline in functional status. Increasing age, osseous flap reconstruction, high Charlson Comorbidity Index, and major postoperative adverse events were associated with LOI. Fifty-five percent of patients with LOI had recovered to baseline within 7 months from surgery. LOI was associated with poor treatment tolerance (odds ratio: 4.77, 95% confidence interval: 1.87-12.2) while adjusting for multiple confounders.

CONCLUSION

LOI is common in older adults undergoing curative-intent surgery for OCSCC and associated with poor treatment tolerance.

Detailed description of multidisciplinary prehabilitation in patients admitted to nerve sparring radical prostatectomy - A randomized feasibility study protocol

Background

Localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy is highly effective, though severe side-effects are common after the surgery. Prehabilitation is an approach to optimize patient's physical and mental resources before surgery, to improve postoperative outcomes. The feasibility of a multi-modal home-based prehabilitation program, delivered using telehealth in patients awaiting radical prostatectomy is unknown. This paper describes the development of a prehabilitation program for patients awaiting radical prostatectomy.

Method

A model by The Medical Research Council for developing and evaluating complex interventions (MRC Framework) was used in the development process. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was applied for ensuring sufficient description of the interventions. A total of 40 patients will be randomized to either intervention or control group. Patients in the control group will follow standard care. The 4-week prehabilitation programme consists of exercise, pelvic floor exercise, sexual counseling, stress management and nutritional support. The interventions are home-based and delivered using telehealth. Feasibility outcomes will include recruitment, attrition rates, adherence, safety and suitability.

Conclusion

We have developed a multimodal prehabilitation programme, which has the potential to bring tangible health benefits to men with prostate cancer awaiting radical prostatectomy. The results of the feasibility study will inform the design of a fully powered randomized controlled trial.

Outcomes reported in randomised trials of surgical prehabilitation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity of reported outcomes can impact the certainty of evidence for prehabilitation. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically map outcomes and assessment tools used in trials of surgical prehabilitation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched in February 2023. Randomised controlled trials of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, exercise, psychological support) lasting at least 7 days in adults undergoing elective surgery were included. Reported outcomes were classified according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research framework.

RESULTS

We included 76 trials, mostly focused on abdominal or orthopaedic surgeries. A total of 50 different outcomes were identified, measured using 184 outcome assessment tools. Observer-reported outcomes were collected in 86% of trials (n=65), with hospital length of stay being most common. Performance outcomes were reported in 80% of trials (n=61), most commonly as exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Clinician-reported outcomes were included in 78% (n=59) of trials and most frequently included postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo classification. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 76% (n=58) of trials, with health-related quality of life using the 36- or 12-Item Short Form Survey being most prevalent. Biomarker outcomes were reported in 16% of trials (n=12) most commonly using inflammatory markers assessed with C-reactive protein.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial heterogeneity in the reporting of outcomes and assessment tools across surgical prehabilitation trials. Identification of meaningful outcomes, and agreement on appropriate assessment tools, could inform the development of a prehabilitation core outcomes set to harmonise outcome reporting and facilitate meta-analyses.

What is the role of physical exercise in the era of cancer prehabilitation? A systematic review

PURPOSE

Exercise before surgery, as part of prehabilitation, aiming to enhance patients' functional and physiological capacity, has become widespread, necessitating an in-depth understanding.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane, and Scopus to examine the effect of exercise as prehabilitation, alone or in combination with other interventions, in patients with cancer. Interventional studies applying a single-arm, randomized controlled, or nonrandomized design were included.

RESULTS

A total of 96 studies were included, and categorized according to cancer types, i.e., gynecological, breast, urological, gastrointestinal and lung cancer. For each cancer site, the effect of exercise, on physical fitness parameters and postoperative outcomes, including length of hospital stay and postoperative complications, was reported.

CONCLUSION

Exercise as prehabilitation may have an important role in improving physical fitness, postoperative outcomes, and accelerating recovery, especially in certain types of malignancies.

A review of patient recruitment in randomised controlled trials of preoperative exercise

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard design to determine the effectiveness of an intervention, as the only method of decreasing section bias and minimising random error. However, participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials is a major challenge, with many trials failing to recruit the targeted sample size accordingly to the planned protocol. Thus, the aim of this review is to detail the recruitment challenges of preoperative exercise clinical trials.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO from inception to July 2021. Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of preoperative exercise on postoperative complication and/or length of hospital stay in adult cancer patients were included. Main outcomes included recruitment rate, retention rate, number of days needed to screen and recruit one patient and trial recruitment duration. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 27 trials were identified, including 3656 patients screened (N = 21) and 1414 randomised (median recruitment rate (interquartile range) = 53.6% (25.2%-67.6%), N = 21). The sample size of the included trials ranged from 19 to 270 (median = 48.0; interquartile range = 40.0-85.0) and the duration of trial recruitment ranged from 3 to 50 months (median = 19.0 months; interquartile range = 10.5-34.0). Overall, a median of 3.6 days was needed to screen one patient, whereas 13.7 days were needed to randomise one participant. Over the trials duration, the median dropout rate was 7.9%. Variations in recruitment outcomes were observed across trials of different cancer types but were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The recruitment of participants to preoperative exercise randomised controlled trials is challenging, but patient retention appears to be less of a problem. Future trials investigating the effectiveness of a preoperative exercise programme following cancer surgery should consider the time taken to recruit patients. Strategies associated with improved recruitment should be investigated in future studies.

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.

Outcome Heterogeneity in Prehabilitation Trials-Are We Comparing Apples and Oranges?

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade, the number of prehabilitation randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has increased significantly. Therefore, this review aimed to describe the outcomes reported in prehabilitation RCTs in patients undergoing cancer surgery.

METHODS

A search was conducted in Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to July 2021. We included RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of preoperative exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions on postoperative complications and length of hospital stay in adult oncology patients who underwent thoracic and gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The verbatim outcomes reported in each article were extracted, and each outcome was assessed to determine whether it was defined and measured using a validated tool. Verbatim outcomes were grouped into standardized outcomes and categorized into domains. The quality of outcome reporting in each identified article was assessed using the Harman tool (score range 0-6, where 0 indicated the poorest quality).

RESULTS

A total of 74 RCTs were included, from which 601 verbatim outcomes were extracted. Only 110 (18.3%) of the verbatim outcomes were defined and 270 (44.9%) were labeled as either "primary" or "secondary" outcomes. Verbatim outcomes were categorized into 119 standardized outcomes and assigned into one of five domains (patient-reported outcomes, surgical outcomes, physical/functional outcomes, disease activity, and intervention delivery). Surgical outcomes were the most common outcomes reported (n = 71 trials, 95.9%). The overall quality of the reported outcomes was poor across trials (median score: 2.0 [IQR = 0.00-3.75]).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation RCTs display considerable heterogeneity in outcome reporting, and low outcome reporting quality. The development of standardized core outcome sets may help improve article quality and enhance the clinical utility of prehabilitation following cancer surgery.

Physical activity for cancer prehabilitation: A scoping review

This scoping review aims to synthesize the current landscape of physical activity in cancer prehabilitation and identify knowledge gaps. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and WEB OF SCIENCE for exercise interventions and observational studies that measured exercise or physical activity before cancer treatment from inception to January 20, 2023. Fifty-one articles from 44 unique studies were reviewed, including 32 intervention and 12 observational studies. Surgery is the only treatment modality that has been investigated. Included studies used heterogeneous exercise interventions and measures for physical activity. Colorectal and other gastrointestinal, lung, and urologic cancers are the most studied cancer types. Exercise intervention in cancer prehabilitation is highly feasible. The evidence for improved fitness, functional, psychosocial, and clinical outcomes is promising yet limited. Although research has increased recently, prehabilitation exercise remains a relatively under-investigated area in oncology. We have provided research directions towards an ideal cancer prehabilitation design in the real-world setting.

Cancer symptom burden negatively affects health-related quality of life in patients undergoing prehabilitation prior to liver resection: results from a 12-week randomized controlled trial

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Cancer symptoms negatively affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with cancer awaiting liver resection. Prehabilitation maintained HRQoL after surgery. Future studies should test whether relieving cancer symptoms can improve HRQoL.

Clinical Consultation Guide: Pelvic Floor Prehabilitation

Training of the pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) as part of a multimodal prehabilitation program that includes cardiovascular and hip strengthening and patient education can yield patient benefits after urologic surgery. A personalized, multifaceted, holistic care plan that includes PFM training should be developed by an interdisciplinary team. Further research is needed to identify the impact of PFM prehabilitation on various urologic and surgical outcomes.

Prehabilitative versus rehabilitative exercise in prostate cancer patients undergoing prostatectomy

PURPOSE

The study compared the efficacy of commencing supervised exercise in men with prostate cancer before and after prostatectomy on objective and patient-reported outcomes, hospital length of stay, and urinary incontinence.

METHODS

Forty-one men were randomised to a 6-week prehabilitation or rehabilitation exercise programme. Prehabilitation involved resistance and aerobic exercise thrice weekly pre-surgery, while rehabilitation comprised the same commencing 6-weeks post-surgery. Assessments included strength, function (chair rise, stair climb, 400-m, 6-m usual, fast, and backwards walk), body composition, fatigue and quality of life, undertaken at pre-surgery, early post-surgery and late post-surgery phase, with urinary incontinence (24-h pad test) assessed at 2, 6, and 12-weeks post-surgery. Intention-to-treat and sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

Of thirty-eight men (48-73 years), 29 completed all assessments with most undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (92.1%). In the pre-surgery phase, prehabilitation improved muscle strength (leg press: 17.2 kg; chest press: 2.9 kg; p ≤ 0.001), 400-m, chair rise, 6-m fast and backward walk tests (p ≤ 0.001-0.028). Strength and function declines in the early post-surgery phase were maintained late post-surgery. Rehabilitation showed declines of these outcomes after surgery with improvement late post-surgery (leg press: 14.6 kg, p < 0.001; chest press: 6.8 kg, p < 0.001; 400-m walk: -12.0 s, p = 0.005), resulting in no difference between groups at 12 weeks. There were no significant differences between groups for patient-reported outcomes, hospital length of stay or urinary incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Pre-surgical exercise enhanced strength and function, protecting against post-surgery declines. Although exercise post-surgery is beneficial for recouping strength and function, where possible men undergoing prostatectomy are encouraged to exercise pre-surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12617001115325 registered 31 July 2017.

Impact of Preoperative Mental Health on Surgical Outcomes Following Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES

To explore the association between preoperative mental health status and surgical outcomes following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

This cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing RARP surgery for prostate cancer between October 2016 and May 2022 at a major public hospital in Sydney, Australia. The primary outcome was preoperative self-reported mental health status measured using the mental component score from the Short Form 36 survey. Other variables included patients' characteristics, surgical outcomes, postoperative quality of life, pain and decision regret. Data were analysed using linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 266 men underwent RARP during the studied period. Of these, 242 patients (91%) completed the preoperative survey and were analyzed. Poorer preoperative mental health had significant univariate associations with younger age (P = .025), reduced access to economic resources (P = .043), diagnosis of a mental illness (P = .033), poorer mental health at 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively (both P <.001), greater pain (P = .001), and higher decision regret (P = .001) 6 weeks following surgery. In the multivariate analysis, poorer preoperative mental health status was associated with younger age (P = .028) and poorer mental health at 6 weeks (P <.001) and 6 months (P = .025) postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

For patients undergoing RARP, poor preoperative mental health status was associated with younger age and poorer postoperative mental health. Future studies should investigate if targeted preoperative psychological interventions would improve postoperative mental health outcomes, specifically in younger men undergoing RARP.

Prehabilitation programs for individuals with cancer: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation programs focusing on exercise training as the main component are known as a promising alternative for improving patients' outcomes before cancer surgery. This systematic review determined the benefits and harms of prehabilitation programs compared with usual care for individuals with cancer.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to June 2022, and hand searched clinical trial registries. We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) in adults, survivors of any type of cancer, that compared prehabilitation programs that had exercise training as the major component with usual care or other active interventions. Outcome measures were health-related quality of life (HRQL), muscular strength, postoperative complications, average length of stay (ALOS), handgrip strength, and physical activity levels. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs (2682 participants) published between 2010 and 2022 met our inclusion criteria. Colorectal and lung cancers were the most common diagnoses. The studies had methodological concerns regarding outcome measurement, selective reporting, and attrition. Five prehabilitation programs were compared to usual care (rehabilitation): combined training, aerobic training, respiratory muscle training plus aerobic training, respiratory muscle training plus resistance training, and pelvic floor training. The studies provided no clear evidence of an effect between groups. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence as very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations and imprecision.

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation programs focusing on exercise training may have an effect on adults with cancer, but the evidence is very uncertain. We have very little confidence in the results and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from these. Further research is needed before we can draw a more certain conclusion.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

CRD42019125658.

Impact of preoperative uni- or multimodal prehabilitation on postoperative morbidity: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative complications occur in up to 43% of patients after surgery, resulting in increased morbidity and economic burden. Prehabilitation has the potential to increase patients' preoperative health status and thereby improve postoperative outcomes. However, reported results of prehabilitation are contradictory. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the effects of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes (postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, pain at postoperative day 1) in patients undergoing elective surgery.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs published between January 2006 and June 2023 comparing prehabilitation programmes lasting ≥14 days to 'standard of care' (SOC) and reporting postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Database searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO. The primary outcome examined was the effect of uni- or multimodal prehabilitation on 30-day complications. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay (LOS) and reported pain scores.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (including 2090 patients randomized in a 1:1 ratio) met the inclusion criteria. Average methodological study quality was moderate. There was no difference between prehabilitation and SOC groups in regard to occurrence of postoperative complications (OR = 1.02, 95% c.i. 0.93 to 1.13; P = 0.10; I2 = 34%), total hospital LOS (-0.13 days; 95% c.i. -0.56 to 0.28; P = 0.53; I2 = 21%) or reported postoperative pain. The ICU LOS was significantly shorter in the prehabilitation group (-0.57 days; 95% c.i. -1.10 to -0.04; P = 0.03; I2 = 46%). Separate comparison of uni- and multimodal prehabilitation showed no difference for either intervention.

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation reduces ICU LOS compared with SOC in elective surgery patients but has no effect on overall complication rates or total LOS, regardless of modality. Prehabilitation programs need standardization and specific targeting of those patients most likely to benefit.

[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.

Barriers and facilitators of the implementation of the application of pelvic floor muscle training in patients with prostate cancer: a scoping review

Background

Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) benefit significantly from pelvic floor exercises, but recent results indicate that these exercises have not been fully promoted in clinical settings. This scoping review aimed to identify the facilitators of and barriers to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in PCa survivors.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted in November 2022. Relevant studies were identified from CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases from their inception to 20 November 2022. Data were analyzed and extracted by two formally trained researchers.

Results

A total of 53 studies were included, most of which were randomized controlled trials. The Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) model framework was used to identify the contents of seven barriers and promotion areas, as well as a series of sub-domains. The most common barriers to implementing pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) included the following: the lack of a common scheme in guidelines and the measurement of common standardized outcomes, inadequate self-monitoring or feedback from healthcare professionals to improve PFMT compliance, poor patient compliance, and a lack of implementation equipment and financial support. Good treatment effects and easy operation were the facilitators of PFMT.

Conclusion

The implementation of PFMT faces several challenges and opportunities that should be understood thoroughly before implementation. In terms of guidelines and clinical practice, more work is needed, and the possibility of PFMT implementation in various hospitals and community health centers or clinics should be considered.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in prehabilitation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Inadequate study reporting precludes interpretation of findings, pooling of results in meta-analyses, and delays knowledge translation. While prehabilitation interventions aim to enhance candidacy for surgery, to our knowledge, a review of the quality of reporting in prehabilitation has yet to be conducted. Our objective was to determine the extent to which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prehabilitation are reported according to methodological and intervention reporting checklists.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria: RCTs of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

search was conducted in March 2022 using MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane.

CHARTING METHODS

identified studies were compared to CONSORT, CERT & Modified CERT, TIDieR, PRESENT, and CONSORT-SPI. An agreement ratio (AR) was defined to evaluate if applicable guideline items were correctly reported. Data were analyzed as frequency (n, %) and mean with standard deviation (SD).

RESULTS

We identified 935 unique articles and included 70 trials published from 1994 to 2022. Most prehabilitation programs comprised exercise-only interventions (n = 40, 57%) and were applied before oncologic surgery (n = 32, 46%). The overall mean AR was 57% (SD: 20.9%). The specific mean ARs were as follows: CONSORT: 71% (SD: 16.3%); TIDieR: 62% (SD:17.7%); CERT: 54% (SD: 16.6%); Modified-CERT: 40% (SD:17.8%); PRESENT: 78% (SD: 8.9); and CONSORT-SPI: 47% (SD: 22.1).

CONCLUSION

Altogether, existing prehabilitation trials report approximately half of the checklist items recommended by methodological and intervention reporting guidelines. Reporting practices may improve with the development of a reporting checklist specific to prehabilitation interventions.

Frailty: the perioperative and anesthesia challenges of an emerging pandemic

Frailty is a complex and multisystem biological process characterized by reductions in physiological reserve. It is an increasingly common phenomena in the surgical population, and significantly impacts postoperative recovery. In this review, we will discuss the pathophysiology of frailty, as well as preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative considerations for frailty care. We will also discuss the different models of postoperative care, including enhanced recovery pathways, as well as elective critical care admission. With discoveries of new effective interventions, and advances in healthcare information technology, optimized pathways could be developed to provide the best care possible that meets the challenges of perioperative frailty.

The effect of preoperative behaviour change interventions on pre- and post-surgery health behaviours, health outcomes, and health inequalities in adults: A systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation interventions are being delivered across surgical specialities to improve health risk behaviours leading to better surgical outcomes and potentially reduce length of hospital stay. Most previous research has focused on specific surgery specialities and has not considered the impact of interventions on health inequalities, nor whether prehabilitation improves health behaviour risk profiles beyond surgery. The aim of this review was to examine behavioural Prehabilitation interventions across surgeries to inform policy makers and commissioners of the best available evidence.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to determine the effect of behavioural prehabilitation interventions targeting at least one of: smoking behaviour, alcohol use, physical activity, dietary intake (including weight loss interventions) on pre- and post-surgery health behaviours, health outcomes, and health inequalities. The comparator was usual care or no treatment. MEDLINE, PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Clinical trials and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2021, and the MEDLINE search was updated twice, most recently in March 2023. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Outcomes were length of stay, six-minute walk test, behaviours (smoking, diet, physical activity, weight change, and alcohol), and quality of life. Sixty-seven trials were included; 49 interventions targeted a single behaviour and 18 targeted multiple behaviours. No trials examined effects by equality measures. Length of stay in the intervention group was 1.5 days shorter than the comparator (n = 9 trials, 95% CI -2.6 to -0.4, p = 0.01, I2 83%), although in sensitivity analysis prehabilitation had the most impact in lung cancer patients (-3.5 days). Pre-surgery, there was a mean difference of 31.8 m in the six-minute walk test favouring the prehabilitation group (n = 19 trials, 95% CI 21.2 to 42.4m, I2 55%, P <0.001) and this was sustained to 4-weeks post-surgery (n = 9 trials, mean difference = 34.4m (95%CI 12.8 to 56.0, I2 72%, P = 0.002)). Smoking cessation was greater in the prehabilitation group before surgery (RR 2.9, 95% CI 1.7 to 4.8, I2 84%), and this was sustained at 12 months post-surgery (RR 1.74 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.55, I2 43%, Tau2 0.09, p = 0.004)There was no difference in pre-surgery quality of life (n = 12 trials) or BMI (n = 4 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural prehabilitation interventions reduced length of stay by 1.5 days, although in sensitivity analysis the difference was only found for Prehabilitation interventions for lung cancer. Prehabilitation can improve functional capacity and smoking outcomes just before surgery. That improvements in smoking outcomes were sustained at 12-months post-surgery suggests that the surgical encounter holds promise as a teachable moment for longer-term behavioural change. Given the paucity of data on the effects on other behavioural risk factors, more research grounded in behavioural science and with longer-term follow-up is needed to further investigate this potential.

Prehabilitation versus no prehabilitation to improve functional capacity, reduce postoperative complications and improve quality of life in colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the cornerstone in curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, surgery itself can adversely affect patient health. 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' programmes, which include multimodal interventions, have improved patient outcomes substantially. However, these are mainly applied peri- and postoperatively. Multimodal prehabilitation includes multiple preoperative interventions to prepare patients for surgery with the aim of increasing resilience, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of multimodal prehabilitation programmes on functional capacity, postoperative complications, and quality of life in adult patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in January 2021. We also searched trial registries up to March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for surgery, comparing multimodal prehabilitation programmes (defined as comprising at least two preoperative interventions) with no prehabilitation. We focused on the following outcomes: functional capacity (i.e. 6-minute walk test, VO2peak, handgrip strength), postoperative outcomes (i.e. complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, re-admissions), health-related quality of life, compliance, safety of prehabilitation, and return to normal activities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Any disagreements were solved with discussion and consensus. We pooled data to perform meta-analyses, where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs that enrolled 250 participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for elective (mainly laparoscopic) surgery. Included trials were conducted in tertiary care centres and recruited patients during periods ranging from 17 months to 45 months. A total of 130 participants enrolled in a preoperative four-week trimodal prehabilitation programme consisting of exercise, nutritional intervention, and anxiety reduction techniques. Outcomes of these participants were compared to those of 120 participants who started an identical but postoperative programme. Postoperatively, prehabilitation may improve functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test at four and eight weeks (mean difference (MD) 26.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.81 to 65.85; 2 studies; n = 131; and MD 26.58, 95% CI -8.88 to 62.04; 2 studies; n = 140); however, the certainty of evidence is low and very low, respectively, due to serious risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. After prehabilitation, the functional capacity before surgery improved, with a clinically relevant mean difference of 24.91 metres (95% CI 11.24 to 38.57; 3 studies; n = 225). The certainty of evidence was moderate due to downgrading for serious risk of bias. The effects of prehabilitation on the number of complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; 3 studies; n = 250), emergency department visits (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.32; 3 studies; n = 250) and re-admissions (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.65; 3 studies; n = 250) were small or even trivial. The certainty of evidence was low due to downgrading for serious risk of bias and imprecision. The effects on VO2peak, handgrip strength, length of hospital stay, mortality rate, health-related quality of life, return to normal activities, safety of the programme, and compliance rate could not be analysed quantitatively due to missing or insufficient data. The included studies did not report a difference between groups for health-related quality of life and length of hospital stay. Data on remaining outcomes were not reported or were reported inadequately in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation may result in an improved functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test both preoperatively and postoperatively. A solid effect on the number of omplications, postoperative emergency department visits and re-admissions could not be established. The certainty of evidence ranges from moderate to very low, due to downgrading for serious risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. In addition, only three heterogeneous studies were included in this review. Therefore, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Numerous relevant RCTs are ongoing and will be included in a future update of this review.

Prehabilitation in an ERAS program for endometrial cancer patients: impact on post-operative recovery

OBJECTIVES

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and prehabilitation programs are multidisciplinary care pathways that aim to reduce stress response and improve perioperative outcomes. However, literature is limited regarding the impact of ERAS and prehabilitation in gynecologic oncology surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of implementing an ERAS and prehabilitation program on post-operative outcomes of endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

We evaluated consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopy for endometrial cancer that followed ERAS and the prehabilitation program at a single center. A pre-intervention cohort that followed the ERAS program alone was identified. The primary outcome was length of stay, and secondary outcomes were normal oral diet restart, post-operative complications and readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients were included: 60 patients in the ERAS group and 68 patients in the prehabilitation group. The prehabilitation group had a shorter length of hospital stay of 1 day (p<0.001) and earlier normal oral diet restart of 3.6 hours (p=0.005) in comparison with the ERAS group. The rate of post-operative complications (5% in the ERAS group and 7.4% in the prehabilitation group, p=0.58) and readmissions (1.7% in the ERAS group and 2.9% in the prehabilitation group, p=0.63) were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of ERAS and a prehabilitation program in endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopy significantly reduced hospital stay and time to first oral diet as compared with ERAS alone, without increasing overall complications or the readmissions rate.

Effectiveness of the perioperative encounter in promoting regular exercise and physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Low levels of physical activity (PA) are associated with poorer health outcomes. The perioperative encounter (extending from initial contact in primary care to beyond discharge from hospital) is potentially a good time to intervene, but data regarding the effectiveness of interventions are scarce. To address this, we systematically reviewed existing literature to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions applied perioperatively to facilitate PA in the medium to long-term (at least six months after the intervention).

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, and SPORTDiscus from database inception to October 22nd 2020, with an updated search done on August 4th 2022. We searched clinical trials registers, and conducted forward- and backward-citation searches. We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing PA interventions with usual care, or another PA intervention, in adults who were scheduled for, or had recently undergone, surgery. We included trials which reported our primary outcomes: amount of PA or whether participants were engaged in PA at least six months after the intervention. A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool data across studies as risk ratios (RR), or standardised mean differences (SMDs), which we interpreted using Cohen. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019139008.

Findings

We found 57 trials including 8548 adults and compared 71 interventions facilitating PA. Most interventions were started postoperatively and included multiple components. Compared with usual care, interventions may slightly increase the number of minutes of PA per day or week (SMD 0.17, 95% CI 0.09-0.26; 14 studies, 2172 participants; I2 = 0%), and people's engagement in PA at the study's end (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.96-1.47; 9 studies, 882 participants; I2 = 25%); this was moderate-certainty evidence. Some studies compared two different types of interventions but it was often not feasible to combine data in analysis. The effect estimates generally indicated little difference between intervention designs and we judged all the evidence for these comparisons to be very low certainty. Thirty-six studies (63%) had low risk of selection bias for sequence generation, 27 studies (47%) had low risk of bias for allocation concealment, and 56 studies (98%) had a high risk of performance bias. For detection bias for PA outcomes, we judged 30 studies (53%) that used subjective measurement tools to have a high risk of detection bias.

Interpretation

Interventions delivered in the perioperative setting, aimed at enhancing PA in the medium to long-term, may have overall benefit. However, because of imprecision in some of the findings, we could not rule out the possibility of no change in PA.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR127879).

Outcomes of a Multi-Modal Hospital-Associated Home-Based Cancer Prehabilitation Program

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of a "one-stop", multi-modal, hospital-associated-home-based prehabilitation model, helmed by a small core team, on newly diagnosed gastrointestinal and urological cancer patients planned for surgery.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study in a tertiary public hospital, involving all newly diagnosed gastrointestinal and urological cancer patients planned for surgery. The primary outcome measure was the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Other outcomes included physical, psychological and quality-of-life measures, and patient satisfaction surveys, taken at baseline, pre-operatively (post-prehabilitation), and at 3 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

When comparing the baseline to pre-operatively (post-prehabilitation), there was a statistically significant improvement in the 6MWT (21.52 m, p<0.001), 30-Second Sit to Stand test (STS) (1.08 repetitions, p<0.001), Timed Up and Go test (TUG) (0.83 seconds, p=0.014) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (total score 1.77, p<0.001). These were sustained (6MWT: 0.22, p=0.964; STS: 0.08 repetitions, p=0.863; TUG: 0.04 seconds, p=0.939) or further improved (HADS total score 2.06, p=0.003) at 3 months post-operatively. There was also a statistically significant improvement in the EuroQol-5 dimension health score (health-related quality-of-life measure) from baseline to 3 months post-operatively (7.04 points, p=0.001), with more than 90% overall patient satisfaction reported.

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation applied via our model resulted in significant improvements in functional capacity, psychological and quality-of-life outcomes, sustained at 3 months post-operatively, and is a feasible and effective approach that is well-received by our patients.

Socioeconomic status influences participation in cancer prehabilitation and preparation for surgical recovery: A pooled retrospective analysis using a validated area-level socioeconomic status metric

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation employs exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions to optimize physiological status in preparation for surgery. First, we described the extent to which material deprivation index score (MDIS) influenced prehabilitation participation. Second, we evaluated the extent to which prehabilitation influenced recovery as compared to control.

METHODS

Pooled patient records from prospective multimodal prehabilitation studies in oncologic surgery were retrospectively examined. Patient postal codes were linked to their MDIS, a validated area-level socioeconomic status (SES) metric, as quintiles 1-5 (1 = highest SES). Functional capacity was evaluated with the 6-min walking test (6MWT) at baseline, before, and 8 weeks post-surgery. Influence of prehabilitation on length of hospital stay (LOS) was explored using generalized linear models with a negative binomial distribution adjusted for age, sex, surgical population, and MDIS.

RESULTS

Recruitment records were available from 2014 onwards, yielding 1013 eligible patients for prehabilitation participation with MDIS data. Fewer patients with a low SES enrolled (Q1:62% vs. Q5:47%; P = 0.01) and remained in prehabilitation studies (Q1: 59% vs. Q5: 45%; P = 0.07). Prehabilitation study records were available from 2008 onward, yielding 886 enrolled patients with MDIS data (n = 510 prehabilitation, n = 376 control). Preoperative 6MWT similarly improved by > 20 m in response to prehabilitation across SES strata (P < 0.05). Postoperative 6MWT could not be evaluated due to substantial missing data. Prehabilitation had a significant protective influence on LOS, as compared to control, in unadjusted and adjusted models [adjusted IRR:0.77 (95% CI:0.68 to 0.87; P < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that prehabilitation is effective across all SES; however, participation across SES quintiles was not equal. Barriers to participation must be identified and addressed. Once these barriers are addressed, prehabilitation may reduce surgical disparities among SES.

Very low energy diets before nonbariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Very low energy diets serve as an intensive approach to weight loss in a short period of time. Although the preoperative use of very low energy diets to optimize patients with obesity before bariatric surgery is well established, the evidence for very low energy diets before other types of surgery remains unclear. The aim of this review was to determine the impact of preoperative very low energy diets on perioperative outcomes in nonbariatric surgery.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed were systematically searched from inception through to July 2021. Articles were included if they evaluated very low energy diets use before any type of nonbariatric surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included compliance, safety, and preoperative weight loss. A pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed.

RESULTS

From 792 citations, 13 studies with 395 patients (mean age: 56.5 years, 55.8% female) receiving very low energy diets preoperatively in preparation for nonbariatric surgery were included. Mean duration of preoperative very low energy diets was 6.6 weeks (range, 0.42-17 weeks). Target daily caloric intake ranged from 450 kcal to 1,400 kcal. Compliance with very low energy diets ranged from 94% to 100%. The mean preoperative weight loss ranged from 3.2 kg to 19.2 kg. There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidity (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.91; P = .72), operative time (standard mean difference -0.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-0.43, P = .38), or postoperative length of stay (standard mean difference 0.40, 95% confidence interval -0.11-0.91, P = .12) with very low energy diets.

CONCLUSION

Although the currently available evidence is heterogenous, preoperative very low energy diets are safe, well tolerated, and effectively induce preoperative weight loss in patients undergoing nonbariatric surgery for both benign and malignant disease. Further prospective studies are warranted.

Perspectives on the Direction of Cancer Prehabilitation in the Pandemic and Beyond

Growing attention has been placed on cancer prehabilitation in the recent years as the number of publications increase. The real-world application of prehabilitation remains heterogeneous and its implementation has been challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the pandemic has also provided impetus for change-leveraging technology and digitalization. This paper will discuss the pre-existing models of care, adaptations that had taken place in the pandemic, the model of care in the author's institution, and the future direction of cancer prehabilitation.

Exploring factors influencing uptake and adherence to a home-based prehabilitation physical activity and exercise intervention for patients undergoing chemotherapy before major surgery (ChemoFit): a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative exercise training can improve cardiorespiratory fitness before major surgery. However, little is known about what influences participation and adherence in high-risk patient groups. We identified barriers and facilitators to uptake, engagement and adherence to a presurgical, home-based physical activity and exercise intervention called ChemoFit delivered during chemotherapy and before major oesophagogastric surgery.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using focus group discussions and individual semi-structured interviews was conducted. All were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and data thematically analysed.

SETTING

Northern Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Hospitals Foundation Trust.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with oesophagogastric cancer who participated in the ChemoFit intervention recruited between March 2020 and January 2021.

INTERVENTION

A home-based physical activity and exercise intervention involving cardiovasular and strength exercise using resistance bands and pedometers to monitor step count. Weekly telephone calls provided feedback, support and positive reinforcement.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants (18 men, 4 women; aged 67±8 years old) took part in a focus group discussion (n=17) or a semi-structured interview (n=5). Fifteen themes were identified from the data generated. Participants reported that the intervention was physically and mentally beneficial, and data highlighted features of the intervention that influenced uptake and adherence. An opportunity to increase the likelihood of surviving the pending operation was reported by participants as the most salient factor to engagement, and using the intervention as a distraction from illness and taking steps to positively influence the situation were the most salient factors to adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake to the ChemoFit intervention was encouraged by provision of information that participation could reduce surgical risk and that participants could play an active role in risk reduction. Adherence was facilitated by the intervention being considered a positive distraction and participants being able to do something that could ultimately provide benefit. While participants reported difficulties and avoidance with some of the exercises recommended, understanding the importance of physical activity and exercise as part of their treatment regimen led to individual adaptations to intervention components to reach individual goals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04194463.

Systematic Review of Functional Outcomes in Cancer Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence regarding rehabilitation interventions targeting optimal physical or cognitive function in adults with a history of cancer and describe the breadth of evidence as well as strengths and limitations across a range of functional domains.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. The time scope was January 2008 to April 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Prospective, controlled trials including single- and multiarm cohorts investigating rehabilitative interventions for cancer survivors at any point in the continuum of care were included, if studies included a primary functional outcome measure. Secondary data analyses and pilot/feasibility studies were excluded. Full-text review identified 362 studies for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION

Extraction was performed by coauthor teams and quality and bias assessed using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Classification of Evidence Scheme (class I-IV).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Studies for which the functional primary endpoint achieved significance were categorized into 9 functional areas foundational to cancer rehabilitation: (1) quality of life (109 studies), (2) activities of daily living (61 studies), (3) fatigue (59 studies), (4) functional mobility (55 studies), (5) exercise behavior (37 studies), (6) cognition (20 studies), (7) communication (10 studies), (8) sexual function (6 studies), and (9) return to work (5 studies). Most studies were categorized as class III in quality/bias. Averaging results found within each of the functional domains, 71% of studies reported statistically significant results after cancer rehabilitation intervention(s) for at least 1 functional outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide evidence supporting the efficacy of rehabilitative interventions for individuals with a cancer history. The findings should be balanced with the understanding that many studies had moderate risk of bias and/or limitations in study quality by AAN criteria. These results may provide a foundation for future work to establish clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitative interventions across cancer disease types.

Role of prehabilitation following major uro-oncologic surgery: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Functional status and physical independence play a key role in terms of quality of life, access to treatment, and continuity of care. Surgery, a central component of cancer treatments, leads to detrimental effects on functional capacity, which can be peculiarly relevant in vulnerable patients undergoing major procedures. Prehabilitation is a multidisciplinary intervention that uses the preoperative period to prevent or attenuate treatment-related functional decline and its subsequent consequences. This paper narratively reviews the rationale and the evidence of prehabilitation for uro-oncologic surgery.

METHODS

A narrative review was conducted in August 2020, aiming to: (1) identify and discuss the impact of modifiable determinants of postoperative outcomes in urology and (2) review randomized controlled trials (RCT) exploring the role of preoperative exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions in uro-oncologic surgery.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs on preoperative conditioning interventions met the inclusion criteria, focusing on radical cystectomy for bladder cancer (RC) and radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (RP). There is strong evidence that poor physical, nutritional and psychosocial status negatively impacts on surgical outcomes. Single modality interventions, such as preoperative exercise or nutrition alone, had no effect on 'traditional' surgical outcomes as length of stay or complication. However, multimodal approaches targeting postoperative functional status have shown to be effective and safe.

CONCLUSION

There is initial evidence on the effectiveness and safety of multimodal prehabilitation in preserving functional capacity following RC and RP. However, to date, outcomes such as complications and length of stay seem to be not affected by prehabilitation.

Prehabilitation versus no prehabilitation to improve functional capacity, reduce postoperative complications and improve quality of life in colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the cornerstone in curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, surgery itself can adversely affect patient health. 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' programmes, which include multimodal interventions, have improved patient outcomes substantially. However, these are mainly applied peri- and postoperatively. Multimodal prehabilitation includes multiple preoperative interventions to prepare patients for surgery with the aim of increasing resilience, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of multimodal prehabilitation programmes on functional capacity, postoperative complications, and quality of life in adult patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in January 2021. We also searched trial registries up to March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for surgery, comparing multimodal prehabilitation programmes (defined as comprising at least two preoperative interventions) with no prehabilitation. We focused on the following outcomes: functional capacity (i.e. 6-minute walk test, VO2peak, handgrip strength), postoperative outcomes (i.e. complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, re-admissions), health-related quality of life, compliance, safety of prehabilitation, and return to normal activities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Any disagreements were solved with discussion and consensus. We pooled data to perform meta-analyses, where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs that enrolled 250 participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for elective (mainly laparoscopic) surgery. Included trials were conducted in tertiary care centres and recruited patients during periods ranging from 17 months to 45 months. A total of 130 participants enrolled in a preoperative four-week trimodal prehabilitation programme consisting of exercise, nutritional intervention, and anxiety reduction techniques. Outcomes of these participants were compared to those of 120 participants who started an identical but postoperative programme. Postoperatively, prehabilitation may improve functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test at four and eight weeks (mean difference (MD) 26.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.81 to 65.85; 2 studies; n = 131; and MD 26.58, 95% CI -8.88 to 62.04; 2 studies; n = 140); however, the certainty of evidence is low and very low, respectively, due to serious risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. After prehabilitation, the functional capacity before surgery improved, with a clinically relevant mean difference of 24.91 metres (95% CI 11.24 to 38.57; 3 studies; n = 225). The certainty of evidence was moderate due to downgrading for serious risk of bias. Prehabilitation may also result in fewer complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; 3 studies; n = 250) and fewer emergency department visits (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.32; 3 studies; n = 250). The certainty of evidence was low due to downgrading for serious risk of bias and imprecision. On the other hand, prehabilitation may also result in a higher re-admission rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.65; 3 studies; n = 250). The certainty of evidence was again low due to downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision. The effect on VO2peak, handgrip strength, length of hospital stay, mortality rate, health-related quality of life, return to normal activities, safety of the programme, and compliance rate could not be analysed quantitatively due to missing or insufficient data. The included studies did not report a difference between groups for health-related quality of life and length of hospital stay. Data on remaining outcomes were not reported or were reported inadequately in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation may result in an improved functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test both preoperatively and postoperatively. Complication rates and the number of emergency department visits postoperatively may also diminish due to a prehabilitation programme, while the number of re-admissions may be higher in the prehabilitation group. The certainty of evidence ranges from moderate to very low, due to downgrading for serious risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. In addition, only three heterogeneous studies were included in this review. Therefore, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Numerous relevant RCTs are ongoing and will be included in a future update of this review.

Interventions for Improving Body Composition in Men with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the most effective intervention for improving body composition outcomes in prostate cancer patients during or after treatment.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken in multiple databases from inception to December 2020. Randomized clinical trials examining the effects of exercise/physical activity and/or nutrition interventions on body composition and body weight measures in prostate cancer patients were included. The primary endpoints were both whole-body and regional fat mass and lean mass measures, with body weight and BMI as secondary outcomes. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was undertaken to examine the clustering effect of intervention modalities or control groups on the outcomes of interest. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020202339).

RESULTS

Fifty articles describing 47 trials (n = 3207) were included. Resistance training and combined resistance and aerobic exercise were the most effective interventions to reduce body fat percentage (-0.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4% to -0.3%) and fat mass (-0.5 kg; 95% CI, -0.9 to -0.1 kg), respectively. For whole-body and regional lean mass, combined resistance and aerobic exercise + healthy diet (0.6 kg; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.0 kg) and resistance training alone (0.7 kg, 95% CI: 0.4 to 1.0 kg) were the best intervention, respectively. A low-fat diet was the most effective for reducing body weight immediately after or at follow-up, while no intervention promoted significant reductions in BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that a resistance-based exercise program alone or combined with a general healthy diet are the most effective interventions for improving overall body composition in men with prostate cancer.

Digital technologies in cancer care: a review from the clinician's perspective

Physicians are increasingly utilizing digital health technologies (DHT) such as smartphone applications, network-enabled wearable devices, web-based communication platforms, videoconferencing, chatbots, artificial intelligence and virtual reality to improve access to, and quality of, care. DHT aid in cancer screening, patient education, shared decision-making, promotion of positive health habits, symptom monitoring and intervention, patient-provider communication, provision of psychological support and delivery of effective survivorship care. This narrative review outlines how physicians may utilize digital health to improve or augment their delivery of cancer care. For the full potential of DHT to be realized, experts must develop appropriate solutions to issues surrounding the regulation, liability, quality, security, equity and reimbursement of DHT.

Feasibility of a Home-Based Exercise Program for Managing Posttransplant Metabolic Syndrome in Lung and Liver Transplant Recipients: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Posttransplant metabolic syndrome (PTMS) is a common contributor to morbidity and mortality among solid organ transplant recipients in the late posttransplant period (≥1 year). Patients diagnosed with PTMS are at a higher risk of cardiovascular disease and frequently experience decreased physical function and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Studies in the early posttransplant period (<1 year) have shown the benefits of facility-based exercise training on physical function and HRQL, but have not evaluated the effects on metabolic risk factors. It remains unclear whether home-based exercise programs are feasible and can be delivered at a sufficient exercise dose to have effects on PTMS. This protocol outlines the methodology of a randomized controlled trial of a partly supervised home-based exercise program in lung transplant (LTx) and orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) recipients.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the feasibility (ie, recruitment rate, program adherence, attrition, safety, and participant satisfaction) of a 12-week individualized, home-based aerobic and resistance training program in LTx and OLT recipients initiated 12 to 18 months after transplantation, and to assess estimates of intervention efficacy on metabolic risk factors, exercise self-efficacy, and HRQL.

Methods

In total, 20 LTx and 20 OLT recipients with ≥2 cardiometabolic risk factors at 12 to 18 months after transplantation will be randomized to an intervention (home-based exercise training) or control group. The intervention group will receive an individualized exercise prescription comprising aerobic and resistance training, 3 to 5 times a week for 12 weeks. Participants will meet on a weekly basis (via videoconference) with a qualified exercise professional who will supervise exercise progression, provide support, and support exercise self-efficacy. Participants in both study groups will receive a counseling session on healthy eating with a dietitian at the beginning of the intervention. For the primary aim, feasibility will be assessed through recruitment rate, program adherence, satisfaction, attrition, and safety parameters. Secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline and 12 weeks, including assessments of metabolic risk factors (ie, insulin resistance, abdominal obesity, blood pressure, and cholesterol), HRQL, and exercise self-efficacy. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize program feasibility and effect estimates (means and 95% CIs) for sample size calculations in future trials.

Results

Enrollment started in July 2021. It is estimated that the study period will be 18 months, with data collection to be completed by December 2022.

Conclusions

A partly supervised home-based, individually tailored exercise program that promotes aerobic and resistance training and exercise self-efficacy may be an important intervention for improving the metabolic profile of LTx and OLT recipients with cardiometabolic risk factors. Thus, characterizing the feasibility and effect estimates of home-based exercise constitutes the first step in developing future clinical trials designed to reduce the high morbidity associated with PTMS.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04965142; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04965142

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/35700

A prehabilitation programme implemented before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves peri-operative outcomes and continence recovery

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of a routine, on-site, 1-day prehabilitation (PreHab) programme on peri-operative and continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 303 consecutive RARPs performed between March 2018 and February 2020 since the routine implementation of PreHab were included in our study. PreHab was carried out according to the availability of the 1-day programme before the planned date of surgery (two sessions per month including four patients per session). The PreHab programme was implemented in 165 patients (54.5%). The primary endpoint was continence recovery, strictly defined as no safety pad use at 1 and 6 months. Secondary endpoints were peri-operative variables (blood loss, operating time, length of stay, transfusion, complications, and readmission rates). Comparisons were made according to whether the PreHab pathway was applied or not (PreHab+ vs PreHab-) in univariable and multivariable models.

RESULTS

The PreHab pathway was implemented for a stable proportion of patients over time (54.5%). The two cohorts were comparable in terms of preoperative and pathological features (P > 0.05). Length of stay was significantly shorter in the PreHab+ group (1.3 vs 1.9 days; P = 0.001). There was a trend towards fewer complications in the PreHab+ group (P = 0.061). Use of the PreHab pathway was independently correlated with higher continence rates at 1 month (37% vs 60%; P < 0.001) and 6 months (67.4% vs 87.3%; P < 0.001), even after controlling for age, body mass index, prostate volume, type of apical reconstruction, nerve-sparing surgery and lymph node dissection. The main limitation of the study was the absence of randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that the PreHab programme is the major predictor of improved peri-operative outcomes and continence recovery after RARP, with sustainable benefits 6 months after surgery.

The Relationship Between Preoperative Physical Activity With American Society of Anesthesiologists Score and Postoperative Length of Stay in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

The relationship between preoperative physical activity (PA) and hospital length of stay (LOS) following radical prostatectomy (RP) is poorly understood. In addition, the relationship between PA and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score (ASA PS), an established prognosticator of surgical risk, has not been studied. The authors assessed the relationship between leisure-time PA (LTPA), ASA PS, and LOS in individuals undergoing RP.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from an institutional database. Ordinal logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between preoperative LTPA and physical status as indicated by the ASA PS. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between preoperative LTPA and LOS.

RESULTS

A sample of 1064 participants were included in the analyses. The participants in the highest preoperative LTPA quartile had 45% reduced odds (P = .015) of a worse ASA PS classification compared with participants in the lowest quartile. The participants engaging in vigorous LTPA preoperatively had 35% lower odds (P = .014) of a >2-day LOS following RP compared with participants who were not engaging in preoperative vigorous LTPA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that total and vigorous preoperative LTPA is associated with improved preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists scores and LOS following RP, respectively.

Pre-admission interventions (prehabilitation) to improve outcome after major elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the benefits and harms of pre-admission interventions (prehabilitation) on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing major elective surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (published or unpublished). We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA and NHS EED, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsychINFO and ISI Web of Science (June 2020).

SETTING

Secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (≥18 years) undergoing major elective surgery (curative or palliative).

INTERVENTIONS

Any intervention administered in the preoperative period with the aim of improving postoperative outcomes.

OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay (LoS) and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included LoS in intensive care unit or high dependency unit, perioperative morbidity, hospital readmission, postoperative pain, heath-related quality of life, outcomes specific to the intervention, intervention-specific adverse events and resource use.

REVIEW METHODS

Two authors independently extracted data from eligible RCTs and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool data across trials.

RESULTS

178 RCTs including eight types of intervention were included. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT), immunonutrition and multimodal interventions reduced hospital LoS (mean difference vs usual care: -1.81 days, 95% CI -2.31 to -1.31; -2.11 days, 95% CI -3.07 to -1.15; -1.67 days, 95% CI -2.31 to -1.03, respectively). Immunonutrition reduced infective complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.64 95% CI 0.40 to 1.01) and IMT, and exercise reduced postoperative pulmonary complications (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80, and RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, respectively). Smoking cessation interventions reduced wound infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Some prehabilitation interventions may reduce postoperative LoS and complications but the quality of the evidence was low.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015019191.

Prehabilitation exercise therapy for cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of prehabilitation exercise intervention with respect to (1) acceptability, feasibility, and safety; and (2) physical function, measured by 6-minute-walk test (6MWT).

DATA SOURCES

PRISMA guidelines were used to systematically search PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases evaluating prehabilitation exercise interventions.

STUDY SELECTION

The inclusion criteria were studies investigating patients who underwent surgery for their cancer and underwent prehabilitation exercise.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Guidelines were applied by independent extraction by multiple observers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S)

Acceptability, feasibility, and safety rates were calculated. 6MWT (maximum distance a person can walk at their own pace on a hard, flat surface, measured in meters, with longer distance indicative of better performance status) was compared using two arms using the DerSimonian and Laird method.

RESULTS

Objective 1. Across 21 studies included in this review, 1564 patients were enrolled, 1371 (87.7%) accepted the trial; of 1371, 1230 (89.7% feasibility) completed the intervention. There was no grade 3+ toxicities. Objective 2. Meta-analysis of five studies demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in 6MWT distance postoperatively in the control group (mean difference = +27.9 m; 95% confidence interval (CI): 9.3; 46.6) and a significant improvement postoperatively in the prehabilitation group (mean difference = -24.1 m; 95% CI: -45.7; -2.6). Meta-analysis demonstrated improvements in 6MWT distance 4-8 weeks postoperatively in the prehabilitation group compared to the control group (mean difference = -58.0 m, 95% CI: -92.8; -23.3).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Prehabilitation exercise for cancer patients undergoing surgery was found to be safe, acceptable, and feasible with a statistically significant improvement in the 6MWT, indicating that prehabilitation can improve postoperative functional capacity.

Prehabilitation Exercise Before Urologic Cancer Surgery: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review

CONTEXT

The Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training (CONTENT) scale assesses the therapeutic validity of exercise programs. To date, prehabilitation exercise programs for heath optimization before urologic cancer surgeries have not been assessed for therapeutic validity or efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess prehabilitation exercise programs before urologic cancer surgery for therapeutic validity and efficacy, informing discussion of best practices for future intervention.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed using Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases through June 2020. The review included prospective (randomized controlled and uncontrolled) trials where patients were enrolled in prehabilitation exercise programs before urologic cancer surgery. The primary outcomes of interest included therapeutic validity and efficacy (measures of cardiorespiratory fitness and postsurgical outcomes). Studies were evaluated for the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was carried out given heterogeneity in populations, interventions, and outcomes across studies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ten unique studies and two associated post hoc analyses met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies demonstrated therapeutic validity. Eight demonstrated a high risk of bias. All demonstrated significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness. Four of five studies evaluating quality of life observed significant improvements. To date, zero trials have demonstrated reduction in postsurgical complications, mortality, length of stay, or readmission rates following prehabilitation exercise interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

While prehabilitation exercise may result in improved cardiorespiratory fitness and quality of life, current studies have yet to demonstrate impact on surgical outcomes. When designing prehabilitation exercise programs for use before urologic cancer surgery, the therapeutic validity of the intervention should be considered. Future prehabilitation studies should employ standardized content rubrics to ensure therapeutic validity. Consensus is needed regarding the appropriate outcomes to adjudicate prehabilitation efficacy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, we looked at the effectiveness and quality of prehabilitation exercise programs before urologic cancer surgery. We found that these programs effectively improve presurgical fitness, but may benefit from the use of structured methodology and outcome assessment to understand their potential to improve surgical outcomes.

Preoperative exercise interventions to optimize continence outcomes following radical prostatectomy

Urinary incontinence is a common and predictable consequence among men with localized prostate cancer who have undergone radical prostatectomy. Despite advances in the surgical technique, urinary continence recovery time remains variable. A range of surgical and patient-related risk factors contributing to urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy have been described, including age, BMI, membranous urethral length and urethral sphincter insufficiency. Physical activity interventions incorporating aerobic exercise, resistance training and pelvic floor muscle training programmes can positively influence the return to continence in men after radical prostatectomy. Traditional approaches to improving urinary continence after radical prostatectomy have typically focused on interventions delivered during the postoperative period (rehabilitation). However, the limited efficacy of these postoperative approaches has led to a shift from the traditional reactive model of care to more comprehensive interventions incorporating exercise-based programmes that begin in the preoperative period (prehabilitation) and continue after surgery. Comprehensive prehabilitation interventions include appropriately prescribed aerobic exercise, resistance training and specific pelvic floor muscle instruction and exercise training programmes. Transperineal ultrasonography is a non-invasive and validated method for the visualization of the action of the pelvic floor musculature, providing real-time visual biofeedback to the patient during specific pelvic floor muscle instruction and training. Importantly, the waiting time before surgery can be used for the delivery of comprehensive prehabilitation exercise-based interventions to increase patient preparedness in the lead-up to surgery and optimize continence and health-related quality-of-life outcomes following radical prostatectomy.

Is it Worth Starting Sexual Rehabilitation Before Radical Prostatectomy? Results From a Systematic Review of the Literature

Background and Purpose: Sexual dysfunction (SD) is a frequent side effect associated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Some studies have showed the benefit associated with preoperative sexual rehabilitation (prehabilitation) and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for RP, but no clear clinical recommendations are available yet. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review on sexual prehabilitation prior to RP for patients with a localized PCa and analyze the impact on postoperative sexual health compared with the standard post-operative care. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations. Results: Four randomized control trials and one retrospective comparative study were included in the analyses. Three of the five studies showed an improved EF recovery post-RP in the prehabilitation group compared to the standard of care represented by: higher International Index of Erectile Function 5 score (IIEF5) or IIEF score (p < 0.0001) and a higher percentage of patients reporting return of EF based on the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) (56 vs. 24%, p = 0.007). Self-confidence, therapeutic alliance, and adherence to treatment were stronger for patients with preoperative consultations (p < 0.05) and EF recovery was better in cases of a higher number of follow-up visits (OR 4-5 visits vs. 1:12.19, p = 0.002). Discussion: Despite heterogenous methods and high risks of bias in this systematic review, starting sexual rehabilitation prior to surgery seems to ensure better EF recovery. This prehabilitation should include information of both the patient and his or her partner, with a closer follow up and the use of a multimodal treatment approach that still remains to be defined and validated (oral medication, vacuum devices, pelvic floor muscle training, etc.).

Prehabilitation is the Gateway to Better Functional Outcomes for Individuals with Cancer

Prehabilitation is a clinical model that introduces components of rehabilitation to patients prior to undergoing intensive medical interventions, such as surgery, in order to optimize function and improve tolerability to the intervention. Cancer care introduces a continuum of sequential or concurrent intensive anti-neoplastic medical interventions that are known to be detrimental to a patient's function. Prehabilitation evidence has grown across several areas of oncology care delivery demonstrating that a multi-modal rehabilitative intervention, delivered prior to oncology-direct therapies, leads to better functional outcomes and improves important endpoints associated with surgery and cancer treatment. This commentary article provides a brief history of the emergence of prehabilitation in cancer care delivery, reviews the current evidence base and guidelines for prehabilitation, and offers insights for future implementation of this model as a standard in oncology care. A prehabilitation program is an optimal starting point for most patients undergoing anti-neoplastic therapy as it serves as a gateway to improving functional outcomes throughout the cancer continuum. Future research in prehabilitation should aim to reach beyond measuring functional outcomes and to explore the impact of this model on important disease treatment endpoints such as tumor response to oncology-directed treatment, impact on treatment-related toxicities, and disease progression.

The Impact of Prehabilitation on Post-operative Outcomes in Oesophageal Cancer Surgery: a Propensity Score Matched Comparison

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing oesophageal cancer surgery are often frail with a high risk of post-operative complications. Prehabilitation has been shown to reduce post-operative complications in specific patient populations but evidence in oesophageal cancer patients is inconclusive.

METHODS

Between January 2016 and April 2019, all patients with resectable oesophageal cancer who underwent curative treatment at a specialist tertiary centre participated in a personalised, home-based, multimodal prehabilitation programme. Post-operative complications and hospital stay in this group were compared to a control sample. Propensity score matching was used to control for differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients who completed prehabilitation and 39 control patients were studied; following propensity score matching, there were 38 subjects in each group. In comparison to matched controls, patients in the prehabilitation group had a lower incidence of post-operative pneumonia (prehabilitation = 26%; control = 66%; p = 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (prehabilitation = median 10 days, IQR 8-17 days; control = median 13 days, IQR 11-20 days; p = 0.018). On multivariate regression analysis, participation in prehabilitation was associated with a 77% lower incidence of post-operative pneumonia (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55 p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of overall complications or severe complications.

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation was associated with a lower incidence of post-operative pneumonia and shorter hospital length of stay following oesophagectomy. This model of home based, personalised, and supervised prehabilitation is effective and relevant to centralised cancer services.