Alix Sleight1, Lynn H Gerber2, Timothy F Marshall3, Alicia Livinski4, Catherine M Alfano5, Shana Harrington6, Ann Marie Flores7, Aneesha Virani8, Xiaorong Hu9, Sandra A Mitchell10, Mitra Varedi11, Melissa Eden12, Samah Hayek13, Beverly Reigle14, Anya Kerkman15, Raquel Neves16, Kathleen Jablonoski17, Eileen Danaher Hacker18, Virginia Sun19, Robin Newman20, Karen Kane McDonnell21, Allison L'Hotta22, Alana Schoenhals23, Nicole L Stout Dpt24. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United States; Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle (CIRCL), Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United States; Cedars Sinai Cancer, Los Angeles, California, United States; Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States. Electronic address: AlixSleight.Warner@cshs.org. 2. College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, Fairfax County, Virginia, United States; Inova Health System, Inova Medicine Services, Falls Church, Virginia, United States. 3. Ivy Rehab Network, New York, United States. 4. National Institutes of Health Library, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States. 5. Northwell Health Cancer Institute, New Hyde Park, New York, United States; Center for Personalized Health, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, United States; Department of Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York, United States. 6. Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, United States. 7. Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cancer Survivorship Institute, Chicago, Illinois, United States. 8. Rehabilitation Department, Northside Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. 9. Rehabilitation Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States; Rehabilitation Medicine School, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China. 10. Outcomes Research Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States. 11. Epidemiology and Cancer Control Department, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, United States. 12. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, United States. 13. Clalit Health Services, Clalit Research Institute, Ramat-Gan, Israel. 14. College of Nursing, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. 15. Lincoln Cancer Rehabilitation, Lincoln, Nebraska, United States; CHI Health St Elizabeth, Lincoln, Nebraska, United States. 16. Czech Rehabilitation Hospital, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates. 17. Department of Epidemiology, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States; Department of Biostatistics, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States. 18. Department of Science of Nursing Care, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. 19. Department of Population Sciences, City of Hope, Duarte, California, United States; Department of Surgery, City of Hope, Duarte, California, United States. 20. Department of Occupational Therapy, Boston University College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent College, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 21. College of Nursing, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, United States. 22. Department of Occupational Therapy, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, United States. 23. Mrs T.H. Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States. 24. West Virginia University Cancer Institute, West Virginia University School of Public Health, Morgantown, West Virginia, United States; Rehabilitation Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence regarding rehabilitation interventions targeting optimal physical or cognitive function in adults with a history of cancer and describe the breadth of evidence as well as strengths and limitations across a range of functional domains. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. The time scope was January 2008 to April 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective, controlled trials including single- and multiarm cohorts investigating rehabilitative interventions for cancer survivors at any point in the continuum of care were included, if studies included a primary functional outcome measure. Secondary data analyses and pilot/feasibility studies were excluded. Full-text review identified 362 studies for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Extraction was performed by coauthor teams and quality and bias assessed using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Classification of Evidence Scheme (class I-IV). DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies for which the functional primary endpoint achieved significance were categorized into 9 functional areas foundational to cancer rehabilitation: (1) quality of life (109 studies), (2) activities of daily living (61 studies), (3) fatigue (59 studies), (4) functional mobility (55 studies), (5) exercise behavior (37 studies), (6) cognition (20 studies), (7) communication (10 studies), (8) sexual function (6 studies), and (9) return to work (5 studies). Most studies were categorized as class III in quality/bias. Averaging results found within each of the functional domains, 71% of studies reported statistically significant results after cancer rehabilitation intervention(s) for at least 1 functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence supporting the efficacy of rehabilitative interventions for individuals with a cancer history. The findings should be balanced with the understanding that many studies had moderate risk of bias and/or limitations in study quality by AAN criteria. These results may provide a foundation for future work to establish clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitative interventions across cancer disease types.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence regarding rehabilitation interventions targeting optimal physical or cognitive function in adults with a history of cancer and describe the breadth of evidence as well as strengths and limitations across a range of functional domains. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. The time scope was January 2008 to April 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective, controlled trials including single- and multiarm cohorts investigating rehabilitative interventions for cancer survivors at any point in the continuum of care were included, if studies included a primary functional outcome measure. Secondary data analyses and pilot/feasibility studies were excluded. Full-text review identified 362 studies for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Extraction was performed by coauthor teams and quality and bias assessed using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Classification of Evidence Scheme (class I-IV). DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies for which the functional primary endpoint achieved significance were categorized into 9 functional areas foundational to cancer rehabilitation: (1) quality of life (109 studies), (2) activities of daily living (61 studies), (3) fatigue (59 studies), (4) functional mobility (55 studies), (5) exercise behavior (37 studies), (6) cognition (20 studies), (7) communication (10 studies), (8) sexual function (6 studies), and (9) return to work (5 studies). Most studies were categorized as class III in quality/bias. Averaging results found within each of the functional domains, 71% of studies reported statistically significant results after cancer rehabilitation intervention(s) for at least 1 functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence supporting the efficacy of rehabilitative interventions for individuals with a cancer history. The findings should be balanced with the understanding that many studies had moderate risk of bias and/or limitations in study quality by AAN criteria. These results may provide a foundation for future work to establish clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitative interventions across cancer disease types.
Authors: Kelley C Wood; Mackenzi Pergolotti; Tim Marshall; Heather J Leach; Julia L Sharp; Grace Campbell; Grant R Williams; Jack B Fu; Tiffany D Kendig; Nancy Howe; Anita Bundy Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Marco Invernizzi; Lorenzo Lippi; Arianna Folli; Alessio Turco; Lorenzo Zattoni; Antonio Maconi; Alessandro de Sire; Nicola Fusco Journal: Front Mol Biosci Date: 2022-09-08