Search Results (6)

Purpose: The effectiveness and feasibility of cancer prehabilitation have been well-validated in surgical settings, but its role in non-surgical treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT), remains unclear. This scoping review aims to systematically explore the existing literature on prehabilitation programs for non-surgical cancer treatments. Methods: Following the scoping review methodology developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute, seven databases were systematically searched from their inception to October 2024 for peer-reviewed studies involving prehabilitation prior to non-surgical treatment. Data were extracted and reported adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines, using a convergent synthesis design to present qualitative and quantitative evidence. No formal risk-of-bias or quality appraisal was conducted. Results: Of 22,122 studies, 39 met the inclusion criteria, yielding a combined sample of 6073 patients and thirty-four unique interventions. Sample sizes ranged from 9 to 1992, with randomized control trials being the most common (16). Head and neck cancer was the most frequently studied, followed by breast, esophageal/gastric, and lung cancer. Of the included interventions, 23 were unimodal and 16 were multimodal. Exercise was the most common component (30), with nutrition (13), psychosocial (10), and educational (8) components also present. Most efficacy studies (84%) reported improved outcomes and nearly all (93%) feasibility studies found prehabilitation acceptable and implementable. Conclusions: This review highlights a growing body of literature examining prehabilitation prior to chemotherapy or RT in adult cancer patients, with studies suggesting potential benefits and feasibility. However, long-term trials, especially in diverse cancers and older populations, remain scarce. Our results provide insight into future implementation, evaluation of outcomes, and directions for future prehabilitation research. Full article

Cancer prehabilitation is the process between the time of cancer diagnosis and the beginning of the active acute treatment; prehabilitation consists of various need-based interventions, e.g., physical activity, a nutritional program, and psychological support. It can be delivered as unimodal or multimodal interventions. Physical activity, including resistant exercise and aerobic activities, has to be tailored according to the patient’s characteristics; nutritional support is aimed at preventing malnutrition and sarcopenia; while psychological intervention intercepts the patient’s distress and supports specific intervention to address it. In addition, multimodal prehabilitation could have a potential impact on the immune system, globally reducing the inflammatory processes and, as a consequence, influencing cancer progression. However, many challenges are still to be addressed, foremost among them the feasibility of prehabilitation programs, the lack of adequate facilities for these programs’ implementation, and the fact that not all prehabilitation interventions are reimbursed by the national health system. Full article

Cancer surgery places a significant burden on a patients’ functional status and quality of life. In addition, cancer surgery is fraught with postoperative complications, themselves influenced by a patient’s functional status. Prehabilitation is a unimodal or multimodal strategy that aims to increase a patient’s functional capacity to reduce postoperative complications and improve postoperative recovery and quality of life. In most cases, it involves exercise, nutrition, and anxiety-reducing interventions. The impact of prehabilitation has been explored in several types of cancer surgery, most commonly colorectal and thoracic. Overall, the existing evidence suggests prehabilitation improves physiological outcomes (e.g., lean body mass, maximal oxygen consumption) as well as clinical outcomes (e.g., postoperative complications, quality of life). Notably, the benefit of prehabilitation is additional to that of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs. While safe, prehabilitation programs require multidisciplinary coordination preoperatively. Despite the existence of numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the certainty of evidence demonstrating the efficacy and safety of prehabilitation is low to moderate, principally due to significant methodological heterogeneity and small sample sizes. There is a need for more large-scale multicenter randomized controlled trials to draw strong clinical recommendations. Full article

The paradigm of comprehensive treatment approaches for children with cerebral palsy has gained traction, prompting clinicians to deliberate between independent and integrated treatment delivery. However, this decision-making process is often hindered by the dearth of empirical evidence available to inform optimal therapeutic strategies. This study, therefore, sought to compare the effects of Pilates-based core strengthening (PsCS), plyometric-based muscle loading (PlyoML), and their combination on postural control, balance, and mobility in children with unilateral cerebral palsy (ULCP). Eighty-one children with ULCP (age: 12–18 years) were randomized to PsCS (n = 27), PlyoML (n = 27), or a combined intervention (n = 27; equated for total sets/repetitions) group. The three interventions were applied twice/week over 12 successive weeks. Postural control (directional and overall limits of stability—LoS), balance, and mobility (Community Balance and Mobility Scale—CB&M; Functional Walking Test—FWT; Timed Up and Down Stair test—TUDS) were assessed pre- and post-intervention. The combined group exhibited greater increases in directional LoS compared to PsCS and PlyoML including the backward (p = 0.006 and 0.033, respectively), forward (p = 0.015 and 0.036, respectively), paretic (p = 0.017 and 0.018, respectively), and non-paretic directions (p = 0.006 and 0.004, respectively)], and this was also the case for overall LoS (p < 0.001 versus PsCS and PlyoML). In addition, the combined group displayed greater improvements compared to the PsCS and PlyoML groups regarding CB&M (p = 0.037 and p = 0.002, respectively), FWT (p = 0.012 and p = 0.038, respectively), and TUDS (p = 0.046 and p = 0.021, respectively). In conclusion, the combined PsCS and PlyoML exercise program promotes considerably greater improvements in postural control, balance, and mobility compared to unimodal training in children with ULCP. Full article

Esophagogastric cancer is among the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgery with or without neoadjuvant therapy is the only potentially curative treatment option. Although esophagogastric resections remain associated with major surgical trauma and significant postoperative morbidity. Prehabilitation has emerged as a novel strategy to improve clinical outcomes by optimizing physical and psychological status before major surgery through exercise and nutritional and psychological interventions. Current prehabilitation programs may be unimodal, including only one intervention, or multimodal, combining the benefits of different types of interventions. However, it still is an investigational treatment option mostly limited to clinical trials. In this comprehensive review, we summarize the current evidence for the role of prehabilitation in modern esophagogastric cancer surgery. The available studies are very heterogeneous in design, type of interventions, and measured outcomes. Yet, all of them confirm at least some positive effects of prehabilitation in terms of improved physical performance, nutritional status, quality of life, or even reduced postoperative morbidity. However, the optimal interventions for prehabilitation remain unclear; thus, they cannot be standardized and widely adopted. Future studies on multimodal prehabilitation are necessary to develop optimal programs for patients with esophagogastric cancer. Full article

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of strength training (ST), as compared to alternative multimodal or unimodal exercise programs, on the number of falls in older adults (≥60 years). Ten databases were consulted (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, EMBASE, PEDro, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science), without limitations on language or publication date. Eligibility criteria were as follows: RCTs with humans ≥60 years of age of any gender with one group performing supervised ST and a group performing another type of exercise training, reporting data pertaining falls. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analysis used a random effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) for number of falls. Five RCTs with six trials were included (n = 543, 76% women). There was no difference between ST and alternative exercise interventions for falls (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.77–1.30, p = 0.99). The certainty of evidence was very low. No dose–response relationship could be established. In sum, ST showed comparable RR based on number of falls in older adults when compared to other multimodal or unimodal exercise modalities, but evidence is scarce and heterogeneous, and additional research is required for more robust conclusions. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020222908. Full article