Preoperative high intensity interval training for oncological resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The acceptability of exercise prehabilitation before cancer surgery among patients, family members and health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation

PURPOSE

Exercise prehabilitation aims to increase preoperative fitness, reduce post-operative complications, and improve health-related quality of life. For prehabilitation to work, access to an effective programme which is acceptable to stakeholders is vital. The aim was to explore acceptability of exercise prehabilitation before cancer surgery among key stakeholders specifically patients, family members and healthcare providers.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach (questionnaire and semi-structured interview) underpinned by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was utilised. Composite acceptability score, (summation of acceptability constructs and a single-item overall acceptability construct), and median of each construct was calculated. Correlation analysis between the single-item overall acceptability and each construct was completed. Qualitative data was analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

244 participants completed the questionnaire and n=31 completed interviews. Composite acceptability was comparable between groups (p=0.466). Four constructs positively correlated with overall acceptability: affective attitude (r=0.453), self-efficacy (r=0.399), ethicality (r=0.298) and intervention coherence (r=0.281). Qualitative data confirmed positive feelings, citing psychological benefits including a sense of control. Participants felt flexible prehabilitation program would be suitable for everyone, identifying barriers and facilitators to reduce burden.

CONCLUSION

Exercise prehabilitation is highly acceptable to key stakeholders. Despite some burden, it is a worthwhile and effective intervention. Stakeholders understand its purpose, are confident in patients' ability to participate, and regard it is an important intervention contributing to patients' psychological and physical wellbeing.

IMPLICATIONS

•Introduction should be comprehensively designed and clearly presented, providing appropriate information and opportunity for questions. •Programmes should be patient-centred, designed to overcome barriers and address patients' specific needs and goals. •Service must be appropriately resourced with a clear referral-pathway.

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.

Measurement and optimization of perioperative risk among patients undergoing surgery for esophageal cancer

Esophagectomy is an exemplar of complex oncological surgery and is associated with a relatively high risk of major morbidity and mortality. In the modern era, where specific complications are targeted in prevention and treatment pathways, and where the principles of enhanced recovery after surgery are espoused, optimum outcomes are targeted via a number of approaches. These include comprehensive clinical and physiological risk assessment, specialist perioperative care by a high-volume team, and multimodal inputs throughout the patient journey that aim to preserve or restore nutritional deficits, muscle mass and function.

Cancer Prehabilitation in Practice: the Current Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article serves to describe recent controversies in cancer prehabilitation including efficacy, dose, cost effectiveness, stakeholder input, and international implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Appropriate frequency, type, and timing have yet to be determined, but high intensity exercise is recommended. Costs are favorable when modeled and information on costs of real-world application are forthcoming. Patients are interested in and willing to attend cancer prehabilitation. Cancer prehabilitation research is spreading throughout the world. Cancer prehabilitation includes assessment of a newly diagnosed cancer patient's baseline fitness and targeted interventions to improve their health before surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation. Cancer prehabilitation improves fitness as measured preoperatively and improves outcomes postoperatively.

Effectiveness of HIIT in patients with cancer or cancer survivors: An umbrella and mapping review with meta-meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the available evidence on the effectiveness of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in addition to first-choice cancer treatment on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), quality of life (QoL), adherence, and adverse effects of HIIT in patients with cancer or cancer survivors.

METHODS

An umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis (MMA) was performed. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, CINAHL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science until August 2021. Article selection, quality assessment, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The MMA were performed with a random-effects model and the summary statistics were presented in the form of forest plot with a weighted compilation of all standardized mean differences (SMD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Seven systematic reviews were included. Regarding CRF, the addition of HIIT to cancer treatment showed statistically significant differences with a small clinical effect, compared with adding other treatments (SMD = 0.45; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.65). There was no significant difference when compared with adding moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) (SMD = 0.23; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.50). QoL showed positive results although with some controversy. Adherence to HIIT intervention was high, ranging from 54% to 100%. Regarding adverse effects, most of the systematic reviews reported none, and in the cases in which they occurred, they were mild.

CONCLUSION

In conjunction with first-choice cancer treatment, HIIT has been shown to be an effective intervention in terms of CRF and QoL, as well as having optimal adherence rate. In addition, the implementation of HIIT in patients with cancer or cancer survivors is safe as it showed no or few adverse effects.