Sophie K Allen1,2, Vanessa Brown1,2, Daniel White1,2, David King3, Julie Hunt3, Joe Wainwright3, Annabelle Emery3, Emily Hodge4, Aga Kehinde4, Pradeep Prabhu5, Timothy A Rockall1,2, Shaun R Preston1, Javed Sultan6. 1. Department of General Surgery, The Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Guildford, UK. 2. Minimal Access Therapy Training Unit (MATTU), Guildford, UK. 3. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biosciences and Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. 4. The Fountain Centre, St Luke's Cancer Centre, Guildford, UK. 5. Department of Anaesthetics, The Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Guildford, UK. 6. Department of General Surgery, The Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Guildford, UK. javed.sultan@srft.nhs.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy reduces fitness, muscle mass, and quality of life (QOL). For patients undergoing chemotherapy and surgery for esophagogastric cancer, maintenance of fitness is paramount. This study investigated the effect of exercise and psychological prehabilitation on anaerobic threshold (AT) at cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Secondary endpoints included peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2), skeletal muscle mass, QOL, and neoadjuvant therapy completion. METHODS: This parallel-arm randomized controlled trial assigned patients with locally advanced esophagogastric cancer to receive prehabilitation or usual care. The 15-week program comprised twice-weekly supervised exercises, thrice-weekly home exercises, and psychological coaching. CPET was performed at baseline, 2 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy, and 1 week preoperatively. Skeletal muscle cross-sectional area at L3 was analyzed on staging and restaging computed tomography. QOL questionnaires were completed at baseline, mid-neoadjuvant therapy, at restaging laparoscopy, and postoperatively at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 6 months. RESULTS: Fifty-four participants were randomized (prehabilitation group, n = 26; control group, n = 28). No difference in AT between groups was observed post-neoadjuvant therapy. Prehabilitation resulted in an attenuated peak VO2 decline {-0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.8 to 0.1] vs. -2.5 [95% CI -2.8 to -2.2] mL/kg/min; p = 0.022}, less muscle loss [-11.6 (95% CI -14.2 to -9.0) vs. -15.6 (95% CI -18.7 to -15.4) cm2/m2; p = 0.049], and improved QOL. More prehabilitation patients completed neoadjuvant therapy at full dose [prehabilitation group, 18 (75%) vs. control group, 13 (46%); p = 0.036]. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated some retention of cardiopulmonary fitness (peak VO2), muscle, and QOL in prehabilitation subjects. Further large-scale trials will help determine whether these promising findings translate into improved clinical and oncological outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02950324.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy reduces fitness, muscle mass, and quality of life (QOL). For patients undergoing chemotherapy and surgery for esophagogastric cancer, maintenance of fitness is paramount. This study investigated the effect of exercise and psychological prehabilitation on anaerobic threshold (AT) at cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Secondary endpoints included peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2), skeletal muscle mass, QOL, and neoadjuvant therapy completion. METHODS: This parallel-arm randomized controlled trial assigned patients with locally advanced esophagogastric cancer to receive prehabilitation or usual care. The 15-week program comprised twice-weekly supervised exercises, thrice-weekly home exercises, and psychological coaching. CPET was performed at baseline, 2 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy, and 1 week preoperatively. Skeletal muscle cross-sectional area at L3 was analyzed on staging and restaging computed tomography. QOL questionnaires were completed at baseline, mid-neoadjuvant therapy, at restaging laparoscopy, and postoperatively at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 6 months. RESULTS: Fifty-four participants were randomized (prehabilitation group, n = 26; control group, n = 28). No difference in AT between groups was observed post-neoadjuvant therapy. Prehabilitation resulted in an attenuated peak VO2 decline {-0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.8 to 0.1] vs. -2.5 [95% CI -2.8 to -2.2] mL/kg/min; p = 0.022}, less muscle loss [-11.6 (95% CI -14.2 to -9.0) vs. -15.6 (95% CI -18.7 to -15.4) cm2/m2; p = 0.049], and improved QOL. More prehabilitation patients completed neoadjuvant therapy at full dose [prehabilitation group, 18 (75%) vs. control group, 13 (46%); p = 0.036]. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated some retention of cardiopulmonary fitness (peak VO2), muscle, and QOL in prehabilitation subjects. Further large-scale trials will help determine whether these promising findings translate into improved clinical and oncological outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02950324.
Authors: M A West; R Asher; M Browning; G Minto; M Swart; K Richardson; L McGarrity; S Jack; M P W Grocott Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: S Jack; M A West; D Raw; S Marwood; G Ambler; T M Cope; M Shrotri; R P Sturgess; P M A Calverley; C H Ottensmeier; M P W Grocott Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: M Navidi; A W Phillips; S M Griffin; K E Duffield; A Greystoke; K Sumpter; R C F Sinclair Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Salah-Eddin Al-Batran; Nils Homann; Claudia Pauligk; Thorsten O Goetze; Johannes Meiler; Stefan Kasper; Hans-Georg Kopp; Frank Mayer; Georg Martin Haag; Kim Luley; Udo Lindig; Wolff Schmiegel; Michael Pohl; Jan Stoehlmacher; Gunnar Folprecht; Stephan Probst; Nicole Prasnikar; Wolfgang Fischbach; Rolf Mahlberg; Jörg Trojan; Michael Koenigsmann; Uwe M Martens; Peter Thuss-Patience; Matthias Egger; Andreas Block; Volker Heinemann; Gerald Illerhaus; Markus Moehler; Michael Schenk; Frank Kullmann; Dirk M Behringer; Michael Heike; Daniel Pink; Christian Teschendorf; Carmen Löhr; Helga Bernhard; Gunter Schuch; Volker Rethwisch; Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal; Jörg T Hartmann; Michael Kneba; Severin Daum; Karsten Schulmann; Jörg Weniger; Sebastian Belle; Timo Gaiser; Fuat S Oduncu; Martina Güntner; Wael Hozaeel; Alexander Reichart; Elke Jäger; Thomas Kraus; Stefan Mönig; Wolf O Bechstein; Martin Schuler; Harald Schmalenberg; Ralf D Hofheinz Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joel Shapiro; J Jan B van Lanschot; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Pieter van Hagen; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Geke A P Hospers; Johannes J Bonenkamp; Miguel A Cuesta; Reinoud J B Blaisse; Olivier R C Busch; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Cornelis J A Punt; John Th M Plukker; Henk M W Verheul; Ernst J Spillenaar Bilgen; Herman van Dekken; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Tom Rozema; Katharina Biermann; Jannet C Beukema; Anna H M Piet; Caroline M van Rij; Janny G Reinders; Hugo W Tilanus; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Natalie S Blencowe; Sean Strong; Angus G K McNair; Sara T Brookes; Tom Crosby; S Michael Griffin; Jane M Blazeby Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: David Cunningham; William H Allum; Sally P Stenning; Jeremy N Thompson; Cornelis J H Van de Velde; Marianne Nicolson; J Howard Scarffe; Fiona J Lofts; Stephen J Falk; Timothy J Iveson; David B Smith; Ruth E Langley; Monica Verma; Simon Weeden; Yu Jo Chua Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Oscar Barnes; Rebekah L Wilson; Paola Gonzalo-Encabo; Dong-Woo Kang; Cami N Christopher; Thomas Bentley; Christina M Dieli-Conwright Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 6.706