Ioanna Tsimopoulou1, Sandro Pasquali2, Ruth Howard1, Anant Desai3, David Gourevitch3, Inigo Tolosa4, Ravinder Vohra5. 1. School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 2. Midlands Abdominal and Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. pasqualisandro@hotmail.com. 3. Midlands Abdominal and Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 4. Psychology Service, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 5. Academic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. ravinder.vohra@uhb.nhs.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer patients experience anxiety and depression after diagnosis and during treatment. A wide range of psychological interventions have been proposed to alleviate distress, but the evidence about the perioperative effectiveness of such interventions is not clear. This systematic review examined the effect of preoperative psychological interventions or prehabilitation on the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the published data was performed using Embase, Medline, and PsycInfo for the period from 1946 to February 2014. A total of 951 publications (case series, single case reports, and reviews) were found. Only seven of these studies included patients undergoing an operation for cancer and a preoperative psychological intervention. RESULTS: Six of the seven studies were randomized controlled trials. Four were conducted with patients who had breast cancer (n = 356). The other studies included patients with gynecologic cancer (n = 30), colorectal cancer (n = 60), and prostate cancer (n = 159). Assessment of the studies showed four to be of good quality, two to be of moderate quality, and one to be of poor quality. Interventions did not affect traditional surgical outcomes (e.g., length of hospital stay, complications, analgesia use, or mortality) but positively affected patients' immunologic function. However, psychological interventions appeared to have an impact on patients' reported outcome measures including psychological outcomes, quality of life, and somatic symptoms. CONCLUSION: Available data suggested that preoperative psychological prehabilitation may have a role for cancer patients undergoing surgery. Further evidence is needed to evaluate its role.
BACKGROUND:Cancerpatients experience anxiety and depression after diagnosis and during treatment. A wide range of psychological interventions have been proposed to alleviate distress, but the evidence about the perioperative effectiveness of such interventions is not clear. This systematic review examined the effect of preoperative psychological interventions or prehabilitation on the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the published data was performed using Embase, Medline, and PsycInfo for the period from 1946 to February 2014. A total of 951 publications (case series, single case reports, and reviews) were found. Only seven of these studies included patients undergoing an operation for cancer and a preoperative psychological intervention. RESULTS: Six of the seven studies were randomized controlled trials. Four were conducted with patients who had breast cancer (n = 356). The other studies included patients with gynecologic cancer (n = 30), colorectal cancer (n = 60), and prostate cancer (n = 159). Assessment of the studies showed four to be of good quality, two to be of moderate quality, and one to be of poor quality. Interventions did not affect traditional surgical outcomes (e.g., length of hospital stay, complications, analgesia use, or mortality) but positively affected patients' immunologic function. However, psychological interventions appeared to have an impact on patients' reported outcome measures including psychological outcomes, quality of life, and somatic symptoms. CONCLUSION: Available data suggested that preoperative psychological prehabilitation may have a role for cancerpatients undergoing surgery. Further evidence is needed to evaluate its role.
Authors: Mara A McAdams-DeMarco; Hao Ying; Sarah Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Jennifer Schrack; Christine E Haugen; Nadia M Chu; Marlís González Fernández; Niraj Desai; Jeremy D Walston; Dorry L Segev Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Brian P Chen; Rashami Awasthi; Shane N Sweet; Enrico M Minnella; Andreas Bergdahl; Daniel Santa Mina; Francesco Carli; Celena Scheede-Bergdahl Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Doris M Howell; Kelly Metcalfe; Shiying Kong; Joanne Stephen; Ivo A Olivotto; Nancy Baxter; Christine M Friedenreich; Ellen Warner; Mohammed Reza Akbari; Kristine McBain; Steven Narod; May Lynne Quan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-04-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Mark A Clark; John V Cox; Burton M Needles; Carole Seigel; Bijal A Balasubramanian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Virginia Sun; Jae Y Kim; Dan J Raz; Walter Chang; Loretta Erhunmwunsee; Carolina Uranga; Anne Marie Ireland; Karen Reckamp; Brian Tiep; Jennifer Hayter; Michael Lew; Betty Ferrell; Ruth McCorkle Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Ira L Leeds; Patrick M Meyers; Zachary O Enumah; Jin He; Richard A Burkhart; Elliott R Haut; Jonathan E Efron; Fabian M Johnston Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sophie K Allen; Vanessa Brown; Daniel White; David King; Julie Hunt; Joe Wainwright; Annabelle Emery; Emily Hodge; Aga Kehinde; Pradeep Prabhu; Timothy A Rockall; Shaun R Preston; Javed Sultan Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 5.344