Feasibility study to assess the delivery of a lifestyle intervention (TreatWELL) for patients with colorectal cancer undergoing potentially curative treatment

Healthy Eating and Active Lifestyle after Bowel Cancer (HEAL ABC)-feasibility randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence from cohort studies indicates that a healthy lifestyle can improve cancer survival but evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) is lacking. Thus, this study tested the feasibility of conducting a lifestyle intervention in patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment.

METHODS

An intervention was developed based on World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) recommendations, the Health Action Process Approach, Motivational Interviewing and tested a feasibility, mixed-methods RCT. Participants were allocated to a three-month telephone-based intervention versus standard care control group. The follow up period was six months. Data on feasibility and secondary outcomes were collected and analysed using Stata (V15, StataCorp LLC) and NVivo 12 (QSR International Pty Ltd., Doncaster, VIC).

RESULTS

Recruitment was challenging (31 ineligible, 37 declined; recruitment rate = 48.6%.). In total, 34/35 participants completed the intervention, and 31 (89%) completed follow up; all 31 completers participated in six telephone calls during intervention and six months follow up. Study retention was 97% (34/35) and 89% (31/35) at three and six months, respectively. Data completion rates were high (>90%). Intervention was acceptable to participants, met their needs and kept them accountable towards their goals. Participants in the intervention group showed significant improvement in WCRF/AICR, Diet Quality Index-International score and a 10% reduction in ultra-processed food consumption.

CONCLUSIONS

The HEAL ABC intervention was feasible for 87% of intervention participants, supporting them in healthy lifestyle changes. However, alternative recruitment strategies are needed for a fully powered RCT to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.

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.

A qualitative evaluation of a multi-modal cancer prehabilitation programme for colorectal, head and neck and lung cancers patients

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence indicates patients' survivorship outcomes can be enhanced through active engagement in a multi-modal cancer prehabilitation programme (MCPP), although this intervention is not uniformly embedded as a standard of care. MCPP aims to optimise patients physiologically and psychologically for cancer treatments, shorten recovery time, reduce complications, promote healthier lifestyles and improve quality of life. South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust (SET) developed and evaluated a system-wide collaborative approach to MMCP across three tumour groups (colorectal, lung, head and neck cancer). Addressing the lack of qualitative evaluation of MCPPs, this novel paper explores mechanisms promoting feasibility and acceptability of MCPP from patients' and interdisciplinary professionals' perspectives.

METHODS

Semi-structured virtual one-to-one interviews were conducted with 24 interdisciplinary professionals and nine patients. Transcripts were recorded, transcribed verbatim and themes developed using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

Analysis of findings identified three themes providing an in-depth understanding of key elements required to develop and promote system-wide delivery of a MCPP: 1) Equipping the team: Capability and capacity, 2) Timing of intervention and delivery timeframe and 3) Systems and processes.

CONCLUSION

The system-wide collaborative approach to developing a MCPP was deemed both feasible and acceptable. Success was attributed to visionary leadership, alongside a diverse group of interdisciplinary professionals being engaged, motivated and committed to intervention delivery in an effort to improve patient outcomes. Iterative, responsive troubleshooting during initial delivery is required to facilitate successful implementation. Further training is required for greater adherence to provision of prescriptive high intensity exercise within the programme, which may further promote enhanced patient outcomes. To enable sustainability of MCPP, ongoing training for professionals and funding is required.

Can people living with and beyond colorectal cancer make lifestyle changes with the support of health technology: A feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Rates of cancer survival are increasing, with more people living with and beyond cancer. Lifestyle recommendations for cancer survivors are based largely on extrapolation from cancer prevention recommendations. This feasibility study was designed to investigate diet and physical activity variables linked to primary prevention and digital behaviour change interventions in cancer survivors and delivered by an oncology dietitian to plan for future research.

METHODS

In this 2-month feasibility study, participants who had completed treatment for colorectal cancer were invited to complete online food diaries, underwent physical activity assessment, attended fortnightly telephone consultations with an oncology dietitian and completed an evaluation form. The baseline food diaries were used to help participants pick two lifestyle changes to focus on throughout the intervention. Demographic and clinical data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In total, 996 patients were screened for eligibility; of these, 78 were eligible to approach and 69 were approached, resulting in 20 participants consenting to take part. Overall, the intervention was acceptable with 65% of participants completing an online food diary and 70% engaging with the dietitian over the telephone. The intervention received good feedback, with 100% of those completing the evaluation form reporting they felt supported and found it helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study offers preliminary evidence that a lifestyle intervention delivered by an oncology dietitian using digital behaviour change interventions (DBCIs) to cancer survivors is feasible and accepted by participants and providers.

Do people change their eating habits after a diagnosis of cancer? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

People who live with and beyond cancer are thought to be motivated to change their diet. However, there is a lack of reviews conducted on what specific dietary changes people make and further evaluation may inform future interventional studies. Hence, we aim to summarise the evidence on dietary changes in observational studies before and after a cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

This systematic review followed the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Electronic searches were conducted in four databases to identify cohort and cross-sectional studies on dietary changes before and after a cancer diagnosis, excluding studies that evaluated an intervention. Quality assessment was undertaken, and meta-analyses were conducted where suitable.

RESULTS

We identified 14 studies with 16,443 participants diagnosed with cancer, age range 18-75 years. Dietary change was assessed <1-5 years before diagnosis and up to 12-years post-diagnosis. Meta-analyses showed that the standard mean difference (SMD) for energy (SMD-0.32, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.17) and carbohydrate consumption (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.14). Studies showed inconsistent findings for fat, protein, and fibre, most food groups, and supplement intake. A small decrease in red and processed meat consumption was consistently reported.

CONCLUSION

All studies reported some positive changes in dietary intake and supplement consumption after receiving a cancer diagnosis without any intervention. However, differences for food groups and nutrients were mainly small and not necessarily clinically meaningful. Evidence demonstrates that a cancer diagnosis alone is insufficient to motivate people to change their dietary intake, indicating that most people would benefit from a dietary intervention to facilitate change. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Current Landscape of Nutrition Within Prehabilitation Oncology Research: A Scoping Review

Background: Prehabilitation aims to improve functional capacity prior to cancer treatment to achieve better psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions vary considerably in design and delivery. In order to identify gaps in knowledge and facilitate the design of future studies, we undertook a scoping review of prehabilitation studies to map the range of work on prehabilitation being carried out in any cancer type and with a particular focus on diet or nutrition interventions. Objectives: Firstly, to describe the type of prehabilitation programs currently being conducted. Secondly, to describe the extent to which prehabilitation studies involved aspects of nutrition, including assessment, interventions, implementation, and outcomes. Eligibility Criteria: Any study of quantitative or qualitative design that employed a formal prehabilitation program before cancer treatment ("prehabilitation" listed in keywords, title, or abstract). Sources of Evidence: Search was conducted in July 2020 using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, and AMED. Charting Methods: Quantitative data were reported as frequencies. Qualitative nutrition data were charted using a framework analysis that reflects the Nutrition Care Process Model: assessment, intervention, and monitoring/evaluation of the nutrition intervention. Results: Five hundred fifty unique articles were identified: 110 studies met inclusion criteria of a formal prehabilitation study in oncology. prehabilitation studies were mostly cohort studies (41%) or randomized-controlled trials (38%) of multimodal (49%), or exercise-only (44%) interventions that were applied before surgery (94%). Nutrition assessment was inconsistently applied across these studies, and often conducted without validated tools (46%). Of the 110 studies, 37 (34%) included a nutrition treatment component. Half of these studies provided the goal for the nutrition component of their prehabilitation program; of these goals, less than half referenced accepted nutrition guidelines in surgery or oncology. Nutrition interventions largely consisted of counseling with dietary supplementation. The nutrition intervention was indiscernible in 24% of studies. Two-thirds of studies did not monitor the nutrition intervention nor evaluate nutrition outcomes. Conclusion: Prehabilitation literature lacks standardized and validated nutritional assessment, is frequently conducted without evidence-based nutrition interventions, and is typically implemented without monitoring the nutrition intervention or evaluating the intervention's contribution to outcomes. We suggest that the development of a core outcome set could improve the quality of the studies, enable pooling of evidence, and address some of the research gaps identified.

The Role of Behavioral Science in Personalized Multimodal Prehabilitation in Cancer

Multimodal prehabilitation is increasingly recognized as an important component of the pre-operative pathway in oncology. It aims to optimize physical and psychological health through delivery of a series of tailored interventions including exercise, nutrition, and psychological support. At the core of this prescription is a need for considerable health behavior change, to ensure that patients are engaged with and adhere to these interventions and experience the associated benefits. To date the prehabilitation literature has focused on testing the efficacy of devised exercise and nutritional interventions with a primary focus on physiological and mechanistic outcomes with little consideration for the role of behavioral science, supporting individual behavior change or optimizing patient engagement. Changing health behavior is complex and to maximize success, prehabilitation programs should draw on latest insights from the field of behavioral science. Behavioral science offers extensive knowledge on theories and models of health behavior change to further advance intervention effectiveness. Similarly, interventions developed with a person-centered approach, taking into consideration individual needs and preferences will increase engagement. In this article, we will provide an overview of the extent to which the existing prehabilitation literature incorporates behavioral science, as well as studies that have explored patient's attitudes toward prehabilitation. We will go on to describe and critique ongoing trials in a variety of contexts within oncology prehabilitation and discuss how current scientific knowledge may be enhanced from a behavioral science perspective. We will also consider the role of “surgery schools” and detail practical recommendations that can be embedded in existing or emerging clinical settings.

Lessons learned from a randomized controlled trial on a home delivered meal service in advanced cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Performing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the field of nutrition is challenging and success highly depends on understanding the factors that influence recruitment and dropout of participants. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a RCT that evaluated a home delivered meal service in advanced cancer patients while receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

This pilot RCT aimed to enroll 20 participants who were randomized into the home delivered meal service group or usual care group. Study procedures took place before chemotherapy (T0), 3 weeks after T0 (T1), 6 weeks after T0 (T2) and 3 months after T2 (T3). All information regarding recruitment, dropout and study procedures was recorded. Patient satisfaction was assessed by in-depth interviews.

RESULTS

Over 7 months, 20 of 41 approached patients (49%) were included, followed by a dropout rate of 35%. At baseline, hand grip strength (n = 8/16), the Short Physical Performance Battery (n = 12/16) and nutritional intake (n = 8/16) had the highest rate of missing values. Study procedures were not experienced as burdensome and planning of these procedures in line with fixed hospital appointments contributed to this low burden. Keeping the symptom diary was mentioned as being burdensome.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to conduct a RCT on a home delivered meal service in advanced cancer patients during chemotherapy, although recruitment is challenging. Close contact of patients with recruiting personnel is essential to sustain motivation. To increase compliance with the study protocol it is important to carefully instruct participants on how to complete questionnaires and to emphasize to use these in the communication with their practitioners.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03382171 .

Physical activity interventions for disease-related physical and mental health during and following treatment in people with non-advanced colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. A diagnosis of colorectal cancer and subsequent treatment can adversely affect an individuals physical and mental health. Benefits of physical activity interventions in alleviating treatment side effects have been demonstrated in other cancer populations. Given that regular physical activity can decrease the risk of colorectal cancer, and cardiovascular fitness is a strong predictor of all-cause and cancer mortality risk, physical activity interventions may have a role to play in the colorectal cancer control continuum. Evidence of the efficacy of physical activity interventions in this population remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of physical activity interventions on the disease-related physical and mental health of individuals diagnosed with non-advanced colorectal cancer, staged as T1-4 N0-2 M0, treated surgically or with neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy (i.e. chemotherapy, radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy), or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 6), along with OVID MEDLINE, six other databases and four trial registries with no language or date restrictions. We screened reference lists of relevant publications and handsearched meeting abstracts and conference proceedings of relevant organisations for additional relevant studies. All searches were completed between 6 June and 14 June 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised control trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs comparing physical activity interventions, to usual care or no physical activity intervention in adults with non-advanced colorectal cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, performed the data extraction, assessed the risk of bias and rated the quality of the studies using GRADE criteria. We pooled data for meta-analyses by length of follow-up, reported as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects wherever possible, or the fixed-effect model, where appropriate. If a meta-analysis was not possible, we synthesised studies narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 16 RCTs, involving 992 participants; 524 were allocated to a physical activity intervention group and 468 to a usual care control group. The mean age of participants ranged between 51 and 69 years. Ten studies included participants who had finished active treatment, two studies included participants who were receiving active treatment, two studies included both those receiving and finished active treatment. It was unclear whether participants were receiving or finished treatment in two studies. Type, setting and duration of physical activity intervention varied between trials. Three studies opted for supervised interventions, five for home-based self-directed interventions and seven studies opted for a combination of supervised and self-directed programmes. One study did not report the intervention setting. The most common intervention duration was 12 weeks (7 studies). Type of physical activity included walking, cycling, resistance exercise, yoga and core stabilisation exercise. Most of the uncertainty in judging study bias came from a lack of clarity around allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. Blinding of participants and personnel was not possible. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate overall. We did not pool physical function results at immediate-term follow-up due to considerable variation in results and inconsistency of direction of effect. We are uncertain whether physical activity interventions improve physical function compared with usual care. We found no evidence of effect of physical activity interventions compared to usual care on disease-related mental health (anxiety: SMD -0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to 0.18; 4 studies, 198 participants; I2 = 0%; and depression: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.08; 4 studies, 198 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) at short- or medium-term follow-up. Seven studies reported on adverse events. We did not pool adverse events due to inconsistency in reporting and measurement. We found no evidence of serious adverse events in the intervention or usual care groups. Minor adverse events, such as neck, back and muscle pain were most commonly reported. No studies reported on overall survival or recurrence-free survival and no studies assessed outcomes at long-term follow-up We found evidence of positive effects of physical activity interventions on the aerobic fitness component of physical fitness (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.29; 7 studies, 295; I2 = 68%; low-quality evidence), cancer-related fatigue (MD 2.16, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.15; 6 studies, 230 participants; I2 = 18%; low-quality evidence) and health-related quality of life (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62; 6 studies, 230 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) at immediate-term follow-up. These positive effects were also observed at short-term follow-up but not medium-term follow-up. Only three studies reported medium-term follow-up for cancer-related fatigue and health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of studies included and the quality of the evidence. We are uncertain whether physical activity interventions improve physical function. Physical activity interventions may have no effect on disease-related mental health. Physical activity interventions may be beneficial for aerobic fitness, cancer-related fatigue and health-related quality of life up to six months follow-up. Where reported, adverse events were generally minor. Adequately powered RCTs of high methodological quality with longer-term follow-up are required to assess the effect of physical activity interventions on the disease-related physical and mental health and on survival of people with non-advanced colorectal cancer. Adverse events should be adequately reported.

Colorectal cancer survivors' beliefs on nutrition and cancer; correlates with nutritional information provision

Purpose

To investigate CRC survivors’ beliefs on nutrition and cancer and the association with nutritional information provision by (kind and number) of health professionals and to inquire about foods that CRC survivors believed either had a positive or negative influence on their cancer.

Methods

A total of 326 CRC survivors of an ongoing prospective cohort study filled out questionnaires 1 month after surgery on whether they had received nutritional information from health professionals. Also, their beliefs that nutrition influences (1) feelings of well-being, (2) complaints after treatment, (3) recovery and (4) cancer recurrence were investigated. Prevalence ratios were calculated (using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis) to study associations between information provision and the four beliefs adjusted for age, gender and cancer stage.

Results

Sixty-two percent of respondents received information about nutrition from one or more health professionals. Most respondents who received information strongly believe nutrition influences feelings of well-being (59%) and recovery after cancer (62%). Compared with those who did not receive information, respondents who received information from three professionals showed the strongest beliefs on the influence of nutrition on complaints after treatment (PR 3.4; 95% CI 1.6–7.4), recovery after treatment (PR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2–3.3) and recurrence (PR 2.8; 95% CI 1.3–6.2).

Conclusion

Nutritional information provision by health professionals positively influences the beliefs of CRC survivors on the influence of nutrition on cancer outcomes: stronger beliefs occur when respondents received information from three health professionals.