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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Michael, Christina M., Lehrer, Eric J., Schmitz, Kathryn H., Zaorsky, Nicholas G.
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