OBJECTIVES:Peak VO2, as measure of physical performance is central to a correct preoperative evaluation in patients with both non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) because it is closely related both to operability criteria and the rate of postoperative complications. Strategies to improve peak VO2, as a preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation programme (PRP), should be considered favourably in these patients. In order to clarify the role of pulmonary rehabilitation, we have evaluated the effects of 3-week preoperative high-intensity training on physical performance and respiratory function in a group of patients with both NSCLC and COPD who underwent lobectomy. METHODS: We studied 40 patients with both NSCLC and COPD, age < 75 years, TNM stages I-II, who underwent lobectomy. Patients were randomly divided into two groups (R and S): Group R underwent an intensive preoperative PRP, while Group S underwent only lobectomy. We evaluated peak VO2 in all patients at Time 0 (T0), after PRP/before surgery in Group R/S (T1) and 60 days after surgery, respectively, in both groups (T2). RESULTS: There was no difference between groups in peak VO2 at T0, while a significant difference was observed both at T1 and T2. In Group R, peak VO2 improves significantly from T0 to T1: 14.9 ± 2.3-17.8 ± 2.1 ml/kg/min ± standard deviation (SD), P < 0.001 (64.5 ± 16.5-76.1 ± 14.9% predicted ± SD, P < 0.05) and deteriorates from T1 to T2: 17.8 ± 2.1-15.1 ± 2.4, P < 0.001 (76.1 ± 14.9-64.6 ± 15.5, P < 0.05), reverting to a similar value to that at T0, while in Group S peak VO2 did not change from T0 to T1 and significantly deteriorates from T1 to T2: 14.5 ± 1.2-11.4 ± 1.2 ml/kg/min ± SD, P < 0.00001 (60.6 ± 8.4-47.4 ± 6.9% predicted ± SD, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS:PRP was a valid preoperative strategy to improve physical performance in patients with both NSCLC and COPD and this advantage was also maintained after surgery.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Peak VO2, as measure of physical performance is central to a correct preoperative evaluation in patients with both non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) because it is closely related both to operability criteria and the rate of postoperative complications. Strategies to improve peak VO2, as a preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation programme (PRP), should be considered favourably in these patients. In order to clarify the role of pulmonary rehabilitation, we have evaluated the effects of 3-week preoperative high-intensity training on physical performance and respiratory function in a group of patients with both NSCLC and COPD who underwent lobectomy. METHODS: We studied 40 patients with both NSCLC and COPD, age < 75 years, TNM stages I-II, who underwent lobectomy. Patients were randomly divided into two groups (R and S): Group R underwent an intensive preoperative PRP, while Group S underwent only lobectomy. We evaluated peak VO2 in all patients at Time 0 (T0), after PRP/before surgery in Group R/S (T1) and 60 days after surgery, respectively, in both groups (T2). RESULTS: There was no difference between groups in peak VO2 at T0, while a significant difference was observed both at T1 and T2. In Group R, peak VO2 improves significantly from T0 to T1: 14.9 ± 2.3-17.8 ± 2.1 ml/kg/min ± standard deviation (SD), P < 0.001 (64.5 ± 16.5-76.1 ± 14.9% predicted ± SD, P < 0.05) and deteriorates from T1 to T2: 17.8 ± 2.1-15.1 ± 2.4, P < 0.001 (76.1 ± 14.9-64.6 ± 15.5, P < 0.05), reverting to a similar value to that at T0, while in Group S peak VO2 did not change from T0 to T1 and significantly deteriorates from T1 to T2: 14.5 ± 1.2-11.4 ± 1.2 ml/kg/min ± SD, P < 0.00001 (60.6 ± 8.4-47.4 ± 6.9% predicted ± SD, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: PRP was a valid preoperative strategy to improve physical performance in patients with both NSCLC and COPD and this advantage was also maintained after surgery.
Authors: Srijit Banerjee; Kate Manley; Barnabas Shaw; Liane Lewis; Gabriel Cucato; Robert Mills; Mark Rochester; Allan Clark; John M Saxton Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sean M Stokes; Elliot Wakeam; Mara B Antonoff; Leah M Backhus; Robert A Meguid; David Odell; Thomas K Varghese Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Jessica M Scott; Emily C Zabor; Emily Schwitzer; Graeme J Koelwyn; Scott C Adams; Tormod S Nilsen; Chaya S Moskowitz; Konstantina Matsoukas; Neil M Iyengar; Chau T Dang; Lee W Jones Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: George D Bablekos; Antonis Analitis; Stylianos A Michaelides; Konstantinos A Charalabopoulos; Anastasia Tzonou Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2016-06