The Role of Behavioral Science in Personalized Multimodal Prehabilitation in Cancer

The impact of goal-directed prehabilitation therapy on functional capacity in patients undergoing hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence has supported the idea that goal-directed prehabilitation is a promising approach to boost functional capacity in preoperative patients. However, its usefulness has not been tested in the hepatobiliary and pancreatic fields. The objective of this trial was to investigate the efficacy of goal-directed prehabilitation for improving functional capacity in patients who were planned to undergo major hepatobiliary and pancreatic operations.

METHODS

This assessor-blinded, parallel-arm, randomized clinical trial recruited patients who were scheduled for major hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgeries for malignancy. Patients were randomly allocated into the step goal-directed prehabilitation group as the test group and into the conventional prehabilitation group as the control group. Patients in the goal-directed prehabilitation group participated in a walking prehabilitation program with an intergrading goal of the step count. Patients in the conventional prehabilitation group received standard physical and nutritional prehabilitation. The primary outcome was change in the 6-minute walking distance, which ranged from the time before starting prehabilitation (baseline) to the time after completing prehabilitation (immediately before surgery).

RESULTS

Among 180 randomized patients, 144 patients were included in the primary analysis (73 patients in the conventional prehabilitation group and 71 patients in the goal-directed prehabilitation group). The mean change in the 6-minute walking distance was 27 meters in the conventional prehabilitation group and 31 meters in the goal-directed prehabilitation group (P = .633).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing major hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgeries for malignancies, a goal-directed prehabilitation program did not result in a significantly greater increase in functional capacity than did conventional prehabilitation.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000038791 (https://www.umin.ac.jp/).

Safety and efficacy evaluation of personalized exercise prescription during chemotherapy for lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

To explore the safety and effectiveness of personalized exercise intervention during chemotherapy for lung cancer patients who were relatively weak and with compromised cardiopulmonary function.

METHODS

Thirty-eight lung cancer patients treated with chemotherapy at Peking University Third Hospital were enrolled in this prospective study. The exercise group (N = 21) received individualized exercise guidance based on personal test results and exercised regularly, while the control group (N = 17) only received exercise education and planed exercise methods according to their own preferences. Both groups underwent three fitness tests and clinical indicator assessments at 0, 6, and 12 weeks after starting the exercise, and the differences in trends of various indicators between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

No exercise-related adverse events occurred during the 12-week exercise period. After 12 weeks of exercise training, in terms of fitness, the exercise group showed significant improvements in 6-min walk test (6MWT) (p < 0.001), peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) (p = 0.005), muscle content (p < 0.001), muscle percentage (p < 0.001), and grip strength (p = 0.008) compared to the control group. In terms of clinical indicators, the exercise group showed significant improvements in vital capacity (p = 0.018), D-dimer (p = 0.031), and C-reactive protein (CRP) (p = 0.01), uric acid (p = 0.003), triglycerides (p < 0.001), functional average score (p < 0.001), and main symptom average score (p = 0.004) compared to the control group in trends over time.

CONCLUSION

Rehabilitation exercises using individualized exercise prescriptions tailored by exercise prescription specialists during chemotherapy are safe for lung cancer patients. Adhering to exercise can achieve comprehensive improvements in physical fitness and quality of life at 12 weeks.

The Development of a Multi-Modal Cancer Rehabilitation (Including Prehabilitation) Service in Sheffield, UK: Designing the Active Together Service

Cancer patients undergoing major interventions face numerous challenges, including the adverse effects of cancer and the side effects of treatment. Cancer rehabilitation is vital in ensuring cancer patients have the support they need to maximise treatment outcomes and minimise treatment-related side effects and symptoms. The Active Together service is a multi-modal rehabilitation service designed to address critical support gaps for cancer patients. The service is located and provided in Sheffield, UK, an area with higher cancer incidence and mortality rates than the national average. The service aligns with local and regional cancer care objectives and aims to improve the clinical and quality-of-life outcomes of cancer patients by using lifestyle behaviour-change techniques to address their physical, nutritional, and psychological needs. This paper describes the design and initial implementation of the Active Together service, highlighting its potential to support and benefit cancer patients.

Feasibility study of a multimodal prehabilitation programme in women receiving neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in a major cancer hospital: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Neoadjuvant therapy has become a standard treatment for patients with stage II/III HER2 positive and triple negative breast cancer, and in well-selected patients with locally advanced and borderline resectable high risk, luminal B breast cancer. Side effects of neoadjuvant therapy, such as fatigue, cardiotoxicity, neurotoxicity, anxiety, insomnia, vasomotor symptoms, gastrointestinal disturbance as well as a raft of immune-related adverse events, may impact treatment tolerance, long-term outcomes, and quality of life. Providing early supportive care prior to surgery (typically termed 'prehabilitation') may mitigate these side effects and improve quality of life.During our codesign of the intervention, consumers and healthcare professionals expressed desire for a programme that 'packaged' care, was easy to access, and was embedded in their care pathway. We hypothesise that a multimodal supportive care programme including exercise and complementary therapies, underpinned by behavioural change theory will improve self-efficacy, quality of life, readiness for surgery and any additional treatment for women with breast cancer. We seek to explore cardiometabolic, residual cancer burden and surgical outcomes, along with chemotherapy completion (relative dose intensity). This article describes the protocol for a feasibility study of a multimodal prehabilitation programme.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective, mixed-method, feasibility study of a multi-modal programme in a hospital setting for 20-30 women with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Primary outcomes are recruitment rate, retention rate, adherence and acceptability. Secondary outcomes include patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), surgical outcomes, length of stay, satisfaction with surgery, chemotherapy completion rates, changes in metabolic markers and adverse events. Interviews and focus groups to understand the experience with prehabilitation and different factors that may affect feasibility of the intervention . The output of this study will be a codesigned, evidence-informed intervention assessed for feasibility and acceptability by women with breast cancer and the healthcare professionals that care for them.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study received ethics approval from the St Vincents Hospital HREC (HREC/2021/ETH12198). Trial results will be communicated to participants, healthcare professionals, and the public via publication and conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12622000584730.

Acceptability of prehabilitation for cancer surgery: a multi-perspective qualitative investigation of patient and 'clinician' experiences

BACKGROUND

'Prehabilitation' interventions aim to enhance individuals' physical fitness prior to cancer treatment, typically involve exercise training as a key component, and may continue to support physical activity, strength, and fitness during or after treatment. However, uptake of prehabilitation is variable. This study investigated how patients from diverse socio-economic status groups perceived an exemplar prehabilitation and recovery programme, aiming to understand factors impacting acceptability, engagement and referral.

METHODS

This research was conducted in the context of the Prehab4Cancer and Recovery Programme, a prehabilitation and recovery programme available across Greater Manchester, UK. Qualitative, semi-structured phone/video-call interviews were conducted with 18 adult patient participants referred to the programme (16 'engagers', 2 'non-engagers'; half the sample lived in localities with low socio-economic status scores). An online questionnaire with free-response and categorical-response questions was completed by 24 'clinician' participants involved in referral (nurses, doctors and other staff roles). An inductive, multi-perspective, thematic analysis was performed, structured using the Framework approach.

RESULTS

Discussing and referring patients to prehabilitation can be challenging due to large quantities of information for staff to cover, and for patients to absorb, around the time of diagnosis. The programme was highly valued by both participant groups; the belief that participation would improve recovery seemed a major motivator for engagement, and some 'clinicians' felt that prehabilitation should be treated as a routine part of treatment, or extended to support other patient groups. Engagers seemed to appreciate a supportive approach where they did not feel forced to do any activity and tailoring of the programme to meet individual needs and abilities was appreciated. Initial engagement could be daunting, but gaining experience with the programme seemed to increase confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The prehabilitation programme was highly valued by engagers. Introducing prehabilitation at a challenging time means that personalised approaches might be needed to support engagement, or participation could be encouraged at a later time. Strategies to support individuals lacking in confidence, such as buddying, may be valuable.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The study protocol was uploaded onto the Open Science Framework 24 September 2020 ( https://osf.io/347qj/ ).

Prehabilitation in the lung cancer pathway: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the third most common type of cancer in the UK. Treatment outcomes are poor and UK deaths from lung cancer are higher than any other cancer. Prehabilitation has shown to be an important means of preparing patients both physically and psychologically for cancer treatment. However, little is understood about the context and mechanisms of prehabilitation that can impact physiological and psychological wellbeing. Our aim was to review and summarise primary research on prehabilitation in the lung cancer pathway using a realist approach.

METHODS

A scoping review of empirical primary research was conducted. Five online medical databases from 2016 - February 2023 were searched. All articles reporting on prehabilitation in lung cancer were included in the review. For this review, prehabilitation was defined as either a uni-modal or multi-modal intervention including exercise, nutrition and/or psychosocial support within a home, community or hospital based setting. A realist framework of context, mechanism and outcome was used to assist with the interpretation of findings.

RESULTS

In total, 31 studies were included in the review, of which, three were published study protocols. Over 95% of studies featured an exercise component as part of a prehabilitation programme. Twenty-six of the studies had a surgical focus. Only two studies reported using theory to underpin the design of this complex intervention. There was large heterogeneity across all studies as well as a lack of clinical trials to provide definitive evidence on the programme design, setting, type of intervention, patient criteria, delivery, duration and outcome measures used.

CONCLUSION

A standardised prehabilitation programme for lung cancer patients does not yet exist. Future lung cancer prehabilitation programmes should take into account patient led values, needs, goals, support structures and beliefs, as these factors can affect the delivery and engagement of interventions. Future research should consider using a conceptual framework to conceptualise the living with and beyond cancer experience to help shape and inform personalised prehabilitation services.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

We included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

We found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Is personalised prehabilitation feasible to implement for patients undergoing oncological treatment for lung cancer at a London teaching hospital? Protocol of a feasibility trial

INTRODUCTION

There is significant potential to improve outcomes for patients with lung cancer in terms of quality of life and survival. There is some evidence that prehabilitation can help, but, to date, this has only been tested in surgical populations, despite 70%-80% of patients with lung cancer in the UK receiving non-surgical treatment. The physiological and psychological benefits of prehabilitation seen in surgical patients could be extrapolated to those receiving non-surgical treatment, particularly in such a poor prognosis group. With patients and healthcare professionals, we have co-designed a personalised and evidence-based prehabilitation programme. This draws on a conceptual framework that aligns with patient values and needs as well as functional goals. We aim to investigate whether this programme is feasible to implement and evaluate in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An open-label, single-group feasibility study incorporating quantitative assessments, a qualitative free text questionnaire and reflective field notes. Thirty participants will be recruited over an eight-month period from a single London teaching hospital. All recruited participants will receive a personalised prehabilitation programme during their oncological treatment. This includes a one-hour face-to-face appointment prior to, at week three and at week six of their treatment regimen as well as a weekly telephone call. Interventions including nutrition, physical activity and psychological well-being are stratified according to a patient's priorities, level of readiness and expressed needs. The primary outcome will be feasibility of the personalised prehabilitation programme in clinical practice by investigating areas of uncertainty regarding patient recruitment, attrition, treatment fidelity, intervention adherence and acceptability of study outcome measures. Secondary outcomes will include quality of life, functional capacity and grip strength.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Health Research Authority (reference number 22/PR/0390). Results of this study will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed articles, presentations at scientific conferences and in collaboration with patient and public involvement representatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05318807.

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.

What moves patients to participate in prehabilitation before major surgery? A mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation offers patients the opportunity to actively participate in their perioperative care by preparing themselves for their upcoming surgery. Experiencing barriers may lead to non-participation, which can result in a reduced functional capacity, delayed post-operative recovery and higher healthcare costs. Insight in the barriers and facilitators to participation in prehabilitation can inform further development and implementation of prehabilitation. The aim of this review was to identify patient-experienced barriers and facilitators for participation in prehabilitation.

METHODS

For this mixed methods systematic review, articles were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they contained data on patient-reported barriers and facilitators to participation in prehabilitation in adults undergoing major surgery. Following database search, and title and abstract screening, full text articles were screened for eligibility and quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Relevant data from the included studies were extracted, coded and categorized into themes, using an inductive approach. Based on these themes, the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model was chosen to classify the identified themes.

RESULTS

Three quantitative, 14 qualitative and 6 mixed methods studies, published between 2007 and 2022, were included in this review. A multitude of factors were identified across the different COM-B components. Barriers included lack of knowledge of the benefits of prehabilitation and not prioritizing prehabilitation over other commitments (psychological capability), physical symptoms and comorbidities (physical capability), lack of time and limited financial capacity (physical opportunity), lack of social support (social opportunity), anxiety and stress (automatic motivation) and previous experiences and feeling too fit for prehabilitation (reflective motivation). Facilitators included knowledge of the benefits of prehabilitation (psychological capability), having access to resources (physical opportunity), social support and encouragement by a health care professional (social support), feeling a sense of control (automatic motivation) and beliefs in own abilities (reflective motivation).

CONCLUSIONS

A large number of barriers and facilitators, influencing participation in prehabilitation, were found across all six COM-B components. To reach all patients and to tailor prehabilitation to the patient's needs and preferences, it is important to take into account patients' capability, opportunity and motivation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021250273) on May 18th, 2021.

Physical activity behaviour change in people living with and beyond cancer following an exercise intervention: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Exercise interventions can increase physical activity and wellbeing of people living with/beyond cancer. However, little is known about maintenance of physical activity in this population ≥ 6 months post-exercise intervention, when theoretical evidence suggests behaviour maintenance occurs. Study aims are to (i) systematically review maintenance of physical activity ≥ 6-month post-exercise intervention, and (ii) investigate the influence of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) on physical activity maintenance in people living with/beyond cancer.

METHODS

CINAHL, CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched for randomised controlled trials up to August 2021. Trials including adults diagnosed with cancer that assessed physical activity ≥ 6 months post-exercise intervention were included.

RESULTS

Of 142 articles assessed, 21 reporting on 18 trials involving 3538 participants were eligible. Five (21%) reported significantly higher physical activity ≥ 6 months post-exercise intervention versus a control/comparison group. Total number of BCTs (M = 8, range 2-13) did not influence intervention effectiveness. The BCTs Social support, Goal setting (behaviour), and Action planning, alongside supervised exercise, were important, but not sufficient, components for long-term physical activity maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for long-term physical activity maintenance post-exercise intervention for people living with/beyond cancer is limited and inconclusive. Further research is required to ensure the physical activity and health benefits of exercise interventions do not quickly become obsolete.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Implementation of the BCTs Social support, Goal setting (behaviour), and Action planning, alongside supervised exercise, may enhance physical activity maintenance and subsequent health outcomes in people living with/beyond cancer.

Multimodal prehabilitation for major surgery in elderly patients to lower complications: protocol of a randomised, prospective, multicentre, multidisciplinary trial (PREHABIL Trial)

INTRODUCTION

The global volume of surgery is growing and the population ageing, and economic pressure is rising. Major surgery is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality. Postoperative reduction in physiological and functional capacity is especially marked in the elderly, multimorbid patient with low fitness level, sarcopenia and malnutrition. Interventions aiming to optimise the patient prior to surgery (prehabilitation) may reduce postoperative complications and consequently reduce health costs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, multidisciplinary, prospective, 2-arm parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complications Index at 30 days. Within 3 years, we aim to include 2×233 patients with a proven fitness deficit undergoing major surgery to be randomised using a computer-generated random numbers and a minimisation technique. The study intervention consists of a structured, multimodal, multidisciplinary prehabilitation programme over 2-4 weeks addressing deficits in physical fitness and nutrition, diabetes control, correction of anaemia and smoking cessation versus standard of care.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The PREHABIL trial has been approved by the responsible ethics committee (Kantonale Ethikkomission Bern, project ID 2020-01690). All participants provide written informed consent prior to participation. Participant recruitment began in February 2022 (10 and 8 patients analysed at time of submission), with anticipated completion in 2025. Publication of the results in peer-reviewed scientific journals are expected in late 2025.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04461301.

NAVIGATE: improving survival in vulnerable patients with lung cancer through nurse navigation, symptom monitoring and exercise - study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Low socioeconomic position (SEP) has been shown to be strongly associated with impaired lung cancer survival. Barriers related to receiving recommended treatment among patients with lung cancer with low SEP may include adverse health behaviour and limited physical and psychosocial resources influencing the ability to react on high-risk symptoms and to navigate the healthcare system. To address the underlying factors that drive both decisions of treatment, adherence to treatment and follow-up in vulnerable patients with lung cancer, we developed the Navigate intervention. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to investigate the effect of the intervention on survival (primary outcome), lung cancer treatment adherence, health-related quality of life and other psychosocial outcomes as well as health costs and process evaluation (secondary outcomes) in a study population of vulnerable patients with lung cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This two-armed multicentre randomised trial will recruit patients from five lung cancer clinics in Denmark identified as vulnerable according to a screening instrument with nine clinical and patient-reported vulnerability criteria developed for the study. We will enrol 518 vulnerable patients >18 years old diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer at all stages with a performance status <2. Participants will be randomly allocated to either standard treatment and intervention or standard treatment alone. The Navigate intervention is based on principles from motivational interviewing and includes three components of nurse navigation, systematic monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and physical exercise in a person-centred delivery model. Data will be collected at baseline and 3, 6, 12 months after randomisation using questionnaires, clinical data and physical function tests.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics Committee, Region Zealand (SJ-884/EMN-2020-37380) and the Data Protection Agency in Region Zealand (REG-080-2021) approved the trial. Participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05053997.

Preoperative exercise and prehabilitation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this narrative review is to give an overview about the effects of multimodal prehabilitation and current existing and prospectively planned studies. The potential efficacy of exercise in the context of prehabilitation ranges from preoperatively improving patients' functional capacity to inducing cellular mechanisms that affect organ perfusion via endothelial regeneration, anti-inflammatory processes and tumour defense.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current studies show that prehabilitation is capable of reducing certain postoperative complications and length of hospital stay in certain patient populations. These findings are based on small to mid-size trials with large heterogeneity, lacking generalizability and evidence that prehabilitation has positive effects on long term survival.

SUMMARY

The concept of prehabilitation contains the features, namely preoperative exercise, nutritional intervention and psychological support. Preoperative exercise holds potential molecular effects that can be utilized in the perioperative period in order to improve patients' postoperative outcome. Future multimodal prehabilitation trials must specifically clarify the clinical impact of this concept on patients' quality of life after major cancer surgery and cancer-specific survival.

The Role of Exercise Before Cancer Treatment

OBJECTIVES

We aim to describe on the role of exercise in preparation for cancer treatments (prehabilitation) that include surgery and neoadjuvant or nonsurgical approaches. We discuss the evidence for the role of exercise and provide guidelines to exercise prescription and examples of the structure of prehabilitation exercise programs.

DATA SOURCE

We use peer-reviewed articles obtained through PubMed searches with search terms: exercise, oncology, cancer surgery, exercise physiology, respiratory exercises, prehabilitation, and behavior change.

CONCLUSION

The emergence of prehabilitation in preparing patients for cancer care has followed a rapidly upward trajectory over the past 20 years. Exercise prehabilitation remains the cornerstone of management, particularly in patients attending for major surgery. Multimodal approaches to supporting patients before cancer treatment are now well accepted and include screening and individualized treatments of functional, nutritional, and psychological impairments. Respiratory training before surgery and the addition of behavior change strategies to improve adherence to interventions and promote improved longer-term outcomes are now included in many prehabilitation programs. For exercise to be an effective treatment in improving fitness and strength, supervised aerobic and resistance exercises at moderate intensity are recommended. There remains debate regarding the use of higher-intensity exercise, the appropriate outcome to measure efficacy, and the mechanisms driving the efficacy of exercise.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

We provide background evidence and knowledge pertaining to the role and provision of exercise prehabilitation. Understanding screening, risk factors, and potential efficacy assists in knowing who to refer for prehabilitation and what the programs include. This enables more effective com munication with patients attending for cancer treatments.

Tailoring prehabilitation to address the multifactorial nature of functional capacity for surgery

Mounting evidence suggests that recovery begins before the surgical incision. The pre-surgery phase of recovery - the preparation for optimal surgical recovery - can be reinforced with prehabilitation. Prehabilitation is the approach of enhancing the functional capacity of the individual to enable them to withstand a stressful event. With this narrative review, we apply the Wilson & Cleary conceptual model of patient outcomes to specify the complex and integrative relationship of health factors that limit functional capacity before surgery. To have the greatest impact on patient outcomes, prehabilitation programs require individualized and coordinated care from medical, nutritional, psychosocial, and exercise services. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The Role of Prehabilitation in Modern Esophagogastric Cancer Surgery: A Comprehensive Review

Simple Summary

Surgery is the only potentially curative treatment option for esophagogastric cancer. Although esophagectomy/gastrectomy remains associated with major surgical trauma and significant morbidity. Prehabilitation has emerged as a novel strategy to improve postoperative outcomes by preparing patients for a surgery-associated physiological challenge. We discuss current knowledge and the results of studies on the role of prehabilitation in esophagogastric cancer surgery.

Abstract

Esophagogastric cancer is among the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgery with or without neoadjuvant therapy is the only potentially curative treatment option. Although esophagogastric resections remain associated with major surgical trauma and significant postoperative morbidity. Prehabilitation has emerged as a novel strategy to improve clinical outcomes by optimizing physical and psychological status before major surgery through exercise and nutritional and psychological interventions. Current prehabilitation programs may be unimodal, including only one intervention, or multimodal, combining the benefits of different types of interventions. However, it still is an investigational treatment option mostly limited to clinical trials. In this comprehensive review, we summarize the current evidence for the role of prehabilitation in modern esophagogastric cancer surgery. The available studies are very heterogeneous in design, type of interventions, and measured outcomes. Yet, all of them confirm at least some positive effects of prehabilitation in terms of improved physical performance, nutritional status, quality of life, or even reduced postoperative morbidity. However, the optimal interventions for prehabilitation remain unclear; thus, they cannot be standardized and widely adopted. Future studies on multimodal prehabilitation are necessary to develop optimal programs for patients with esophagogastric cancer.

Prehabilitation, enhanced recovery after surgery, or both? A narrative review

This narrative review presents a biological rationale and evidence to describe how the preoperative condition of the patient contributes to postoperative morbidity. Any preoperative condition that prevents a patient from tolerating the physiological stress of surgery (e.g. poor cardiopulmonary reserve, sarcopaenia), impairs the stress response (e.g. malnutrition, frailty), and/or augments the catabolic response to stress (e.g. insulin resistance) is a risk factor for poor surgical outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions that include exercise, nutrition, and psychosocial components can be applied before surgery to strengthen physiological reserve and enhance functional capacity, which, in turn, supports recovery through attaining surgical resilience. Prehabilitation complements Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care to achieve optimal patient outcomes because recovery is not a passive process and it begins preoperatively.

Surgery school-who, what, when, and how: results of a national survey of multidisciplinary teams delivering group preoperative education

Background

Group education is increasing in popularity as a means of preparing patients for surgery. In recent years, these ‘surgery schools’ have evolved from primarily informing patients of what to expect before and after surgery, to providing support and encouragement for patients to ‘prehabilitate’ prior to surgery, through improving physical fitness, nutrition and emotional wellbeing.

Method

A survey aimed at clinicians delivering surgery schools was employed to capture a national overview of activity to establish research and practice priorities in this area. The survey was circulated online via the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery UK Society and the Centre for Perioperative Care mailing lists as well as social media.

Results

There were 80 responses describing 28 active and 4 planned surgery schools across the UK and Ireland. Schools were designed and delivered by multidisciplinary teams, contained broadly similar content and were well attended. Most were funded by the National Health Service. The majority included aspects of prehabilitation most commonly the importance of physical fitness. Seventy five percent of teams collected patient outcome data, but less than half collected data to establish the clinical effectiveness of the school. Few describe explicit inclusion of evidence-based behavior change techniques, but collaboration and partnerships with community teams, gyms and local charities were considered important in supporting patients to make changes in health behaviors prior to surgery.

Conclusion

It is recommended that teams work with patients when designing surgery schools and use evidence-based behavior change frameworks and techniques to inform their content. There is a need for high-quality research studies to determine the clinical effectiveness of this type of education intervention.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13741-021-00188-2.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: An Advanced Personalized Multidisciplinary Prehabilitation Model (APMP-M) to Optimize Outcomes

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly being employed in the management of breast cancer patients. Efforts and resources have been devoted over the years to the search for an optimal strategy that can improve outcomes in the neoadjuvant setting. Today, a multidisciplinary approach with the application of evidence-based medicine is considered the gold standard for the improvement of oncological results and patient satisfaction. However, several clinical complications and psychological issues due to various factors can arise during neoadjuvant therapy and undermine outcomes. To ensure that health care needs are adequately addressed, clinicians must consider that women with breast cancer have a high risk of developing "unmet needs" during treatment, and often require a clinical intervention or additional care resources to limit possible complications and psychological issues that can occur during neoadjuvant treatment. This work describes a multidisciplinary model developed at "Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli" (FPG) in Rome in an effort to optimize treatment, ease the application of evidence-based medicine, and improve patient quality of life in the neoadjuvant setting. In developing our model, our main goal was to adequately meet patient needs while preventing high levels of distress.