A feasibility trial of prehabilitation before oesophagogastric cancer surgery using a multi-component home-based exercise programme: the ChemoFit study

Effectiveness of prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer: a systematic review

Progression of the physical weakness during neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer is a serious problem; however, prehabilitation during NAT has the potential to overcome the unmet need. Nevertheless, systematic reviews on this topic have not been summarized. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to determine prehabilitation's effectiveness, acceptability, and safety during NAT for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PEDro databases. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness of prehabilitation during NAT, along with a descriptive analysis of acceptance and safety. This study analyzed data from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine non-RCTs involving 664 patients. The meta-analysis of two RCTs demonstrated that prehabilitation during NAT may be more effective than usual care in enhancing tolerance to NAT and grip strength; moreover, one RCT and three non-RCTs revealed that prehabilitation may reduce the risk of postoperative complications. The adherence rates for exercise programs in two RCTs and seven non-RCTs were 55-76%. Additionally, two studies reported a 76% adherence rate for multimodal prehabilitation programs, including exercise, dietary, and psychological care. Six studies reported no serious prehabilitation-related adverse events during NAT. Prehabilitation during NAT may be a safe and beneficial intervention strategy for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. However, the investigation of strategies to enhance adherence is essential. Furthermore, additional high-quality RCTs are needed to examine the effect of prehabilitation during NAT.

The use of technology in cancer prehabilitation: a systematic review

Aim

This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of cancer prehabilitation programs delivered through technological enablers compared to conventional face-to-face interventions.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published from inception to February 6, 2024. Studies were included if they involved adult cancer patients in primary research, utilized technology for prehabilitation, and assessed functional, psychological, and quality of life outcomes.

Results

Sixteen studies were included, encompassing wearables, apps, teleprehabilitation, and virtual reality. All studies reported feasibility, but challenges included technical issues, lack of supervision, and non-compliance. Effectiveness depended on intervention rigor and technology type. Wearables offered objective monitoring but faced compliance issues. Videoconferencing provided supervision and could mitigate compliance concerns. Multimodal programs and intervention-specific outcome measures were recommended.

Conclusion

Technology-based prehabilitation programs seem feasible, but effectiveness depends on intervention design and technology employed. Future research should focus on developing robust evidence to guide clinical practice and explore the potential of integrated technological solutions.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022376028.

Identification of subgroups of patients with oesophageal cancer based on exercise intensity during prehabilitation

PURPOSE

To identify subgroups of patients with oesophageal cancer based on exercise intensity during prehabilitation, and to investigate whether training outcomes varied between subgroups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from a multicentre cohort study were used, involving participants following prehabilitation before oesophagectomy. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using four cluster variables (intensity of aerobic exercise, the Borg score during resistance exercise, intensity of physical activity, and degree of fatigue). Aerobic capacity and muscle strength were estimated before and after prehabilitation.

RESULTS

In 64 participants, three clusters were identified based on exercise intensity. Cluster 1 (n = 23) was characterised by fatigue and physical inactivity, cluster 2 (n = 9) by a low training capacity, despite high physical activity levels, and cluster 3 (n = 32) by a high training capacity. Cluster 1 showed the greatest improvement in aerobic capacity (p = 0.37) and hand grip strength (p = 0.03) during prehabilitation compared with other clusters.

CONCLUSIONS

This cluster analysis identified three subgroups with distinct patterns in exercise intensity during prehabilitation. Participants who were physically fit were able to train at high intensity. Fatigued participants trained at lower intensity but showed the greatest improvement. A small group of participants, despite being physically active, had a low training capacity and could be considered frail.

Multidisciplinary prehabilitation to improve frailty and functional capacity in high-risk elective surgical patients: a retrospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Frailty is associated with worse outcomes and higher healthcare costs. The long waiting time for surgery is a potential 'teachable' moment. We examined the feasibility and safety of a pilot prehabilitation programme on high-risk frail patients undergoing major elective surgery.

METHODS

A single-centre, retrospective pilot study (Dec 2020-Nov 2021) on a one-stop prehabilitation programme (structured exercise training, nutritional counselling/therapy, and psychological support) in collaboration with geriatricians and allied health professionals. At least 4 weeks before surgery, patients at high risk of frailty or malnutrition, or undergoing major hepatectomy, esophagectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, or radical cystectomy, were referred for prehabilitation (2-3 sessions/week). The primary outcomes were the feasibility and safety of prehabilitation. The secondary outcomes were changes in functional, emotional, and nutritional status and days alive and at home within 30 days after surgery (DAH30) associated with prehabilitation.

RESULTS

Over a 12-month period, 72 out of 111 patients (64.9%) from the Perioperative Medicine Clinic were eligible for prehabilitation, of which 54 (75%) were recruited. The mean (standard deviation) age was 71.9 (6.9) years. The adherence rate to 3 weeks of prehabilitation was high in 52 (96.3%) participants. Prehabilitation improved exercise capacity (P = 0.08), enhanced some functional mobility measures (P = 0.02), and increased nutritional energy (P = 0.04) and protein intakes (P < 0.01). However, prehabilitation-related changes in muscle strength, cognitive function, and emotional resilience were minimal. The median (interquatile range) DAH30 was 19 (14-23) days. No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This outpatient-based, one-stop multidisciplinary prehabilitation programme was feasible, safe, and improved several measures of patient's physiological reserve and functional capacity.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05668221.

Effects of exercise training on cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to analyze the effects of different exercise protocols on physical fitness (cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength, and body composition), quality of life, cancer-related fatigue, and sleep quality in patients with different types of cancer undergoing neoadjuvant treatment.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of existing literature was carried out using four electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (published until October 19, 2022). All databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental investigations, and pre-post investigations assessing the effects of exercise in cancer patients during neoadjuvant treatment. Excluded articles included multicomponent interventions, such as exercise plus diet or behavioral therapy, and investigations performed during adjuvant treatment or survivorship. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven trials involving 999 cancer patients were included in this review. The interventions were conducted in cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for rectal (n = 11), breast (n = 5), pancreatic (n = 4), esophageal (n = 3), gastro-esophageal (n = 2), and prostate (n = 1) cancers, and leukemia (n = 1). Among the investigations included, 14 utilized combined exercise protocols, 11 utilized aerobic exercise, and two utilized both aerobic and resistance training separately. Exercise interventions appeared to improve cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength, body composition, and quality of life, although many investigations lacked a between-group analysis.

CONCLUSION

Despite limited evidence, exercise interventions applied during neoadjuvant treatment demonstrate promising potential in enhancing cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength, body composition, and overall quality of life. However, a scarcity of evidence remains on the effects of exercise on cancer-related fatigue and sleep quality. Further research with high-quality randomized controlled trials is warranted.