Cargando…
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 P...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8267161/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34110101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4021 |
_version_ | 1783720087074635776 |
---|---|
author | Michael, Christina M. Lehrer, Eric J. Schmitz, Kathryn H. Zaorsky, Nicholas G. |
author_facet | Michael, Christina M. Lehrer, Eric J. Schmitz, Kathryn H. Zaorsky, Nicholas G. |
author_sort | Michael, Christina M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8267161 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82671612021-07-13 Prehabilitation exercise therapy for cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis Michael, Christina M. Lehrer, Eric J. Schmitz, Kathryn H. Zaorsky, Nicholas G. Cancer Med Clinical Cancer Research 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8267161/ /pubmed/34110101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4021 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Cancer Research Michael, Christina M. Lehrer, Eric J. Schmitz, Kathryn H. Zaorsky, Nicholas G. Prehabilitation exercise therapy for cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
title | Prehabilitation exercise therapy for cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
title_full | Prehabilitation exercise therapy for cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
title_fullStr | Prehabilitation exercise therapy for cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Prehabilitation exercise therapy for cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
title_short | Prehabilitation exercise therapy for cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
title_sort | prehabilitation exercise therapy for cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis |
topic | Clinical Cancer Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8267161/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34110101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4021 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT michaelchristinam prehabilitationexercisetherapyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lehrerericj prehabilitationexercisetherapyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT schmitzkathrynh prehabilitationexercisetherapyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zaorskynicholasg prehabilitationexercisetherapyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |