B Salhi1, W Huysse2, G Van Maele3, V F Surmont4, E Derom4, J P van Meerbeeck5. 1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. Electronic address: Bihiyga.Salhi@UGent.be. 2. Department of Medical Imaging, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. 3. Biostatistical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Ghent University, Belgium. 4. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. 5. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium; Thoracic Oncology, MOCA, Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the impact of an oncological treatment on muscle mass and strength in patients with lung cancer and the impact of a subsequent rehabilitation program. This study investigates the effect of radical treatment and post-treatment pulmonary rehabilitation on muscle mass and strength in patients with lung cancer and the relationship between muscle mass and strength. METHODS:Lung cancer patients, candidate for radical treatment, were randomly (2:1) allocated after radical treatment to either standard follow up (CON) or a 12-week rehabilitation training program (RT). Muscle mass was estimated by bioelectric impedance and CT-scan. Muscle strength was estimated by measuring quadriceps force (QF) with a hand held dynamometer. All variables were measured before (M1) and after radical treatment (M2), and at the earliest 12 weeks after randomization (M3). Data are presented as means with standard deviation. RESULTS:45 lung cancer patients (age: 65 years (9)) participated in the study. At M2, both muscle cross sectional area (MCSA) and QF were significantly decreased (p<0.05). 28 patients were randomized. 13/18 RT and 9/10 CON patients ended the trial. At M3, RT-patients improved significantly their MCSA compared to CON-patients (ΔMCSA: 6 cm(2) (6) (p=0.003) vs. 1cm(2) (11) (p=0.8)). CONCLUSION:Muscle mass and strength: (1) are decreased at presentation in a substantial part of lung cancer patients; (2) are significantly negatively affected by radical treatment and (3) completely recover after a 12 week structured rehabilitation program, whereas a further decline was observed in CON-patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the impact of an oncological treatment on muscle mass and strength in patients with lung cancer and the impact of a subsequent rehabilitation program. This study investigates the effect of radical treatment and post-treatment pulmonary rehabilitation on muscle mass and strength in patients with lung cancer and the relationship between muscle mass and strength. METHODS:Lung cancerpatients, candidate for radical treatment, were randomly (2:1) allocated after radical treatment to either standard follow up (CON) or a 12-week rehabilitation training program (RT). Muscle mass was estimated by bioelectric impedance and CT-scan. Muscle strength was estimated by measuring quadriceps force (QF) with a hand held dynamometer. All variables were measured before (M1) and after radical treatment (M2), and at the earliest 12 weeks after randomization (M3). Data are presented as means with standard deviation. RESULTS: 45 lung cancerpatients (age: 65 years (9)) participated in the study. At M2, both muscle cross sectional area (MCSA) and QF were significantly decreased (p<0.05). 28 patients were randomized. 13/18 RT and 9/10 CON patients ended the trial. At M3, RT-patients improved significantly their MCSA compared to CON-patients (ΔMCSA: 6 cm(2) (6) (p=0.003) vs. 1cm(2) (11) (p=0.8)). CONCLUSION: Muscle mass and strength: (1) are decreased at presentation in a substantial part of lung cancerpatients; (2) are significantly negatively affected by radical treatment and (3) completely recover after a 12 week structured rehabilitation program, whereas a further decline was observed in CON-patients.
Authors: Mayra Cruz-Fernández; Alexander Achalandabaso-Ochoa; Tania Gallart-Aragón; Francisco Artacho-Cordón; María José Cabrerizo-Fernández; Nicolás Pacce-Bedetti; Irene Cantarero-Villanueva Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Vinicius Cavalheri; Sue Jenkins; Nola Cecins; Kevin Gain; Martin J Phillips; Lucas H Sanders; Kylie Hill Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Ersilia Nigro; Fabio Perrotta; Filippo Scialò; Vito D'Agnano; Marta Mallardo; Andrea Bianco; Aurora Daniele Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.390