ENhAncing Lifestyle Behaviors in EndometriaL CancEr (ENABLE): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Endometrial cancer is associated with the highest comorbid disease burden of any cancer. The aim of this trial was to assess the feasibility and safety of an allied health intervention during adjuvant treatment. METHODS: A mixed-methods pilot randomized (2:1) controlled trial with concealed allocation and assessor-blinding. Eligibility criteria: adjuvant endometrial cancer treatment scheduled, disease stage I-IIIC1, ECOG 0-2 and able to perform unsupervised physical activity (PA). Participants received usual care and 8 sessions of weekly, individualized, lifestyle education (diet and PA) with behavior change and social support (intervention group), delivered predominantly by telehealth, or usual care alone. Feasibility outcomes: recruitment and consent rates, decline reasons, program acceptability, intervention adherence and retention. RESULTS: 22/44 eligible patients (50%, 95%CI: 36%, 64%) were recruited over 10 months (14 intervention, 8 usual care). The recruitment rate was 2.2 patients/month (95%CI: 1.4, 3.3). Patients who declined had too much going on (7/22, 32%) or were not interested (6/22, 27%). Mean (SD) age and BMI were 63.2 years (6.8) and 31.9 kg/m2 (6.7). A majority were FIGO stage I (15/22, 68%) and received vaginal brachytherapy (14/22, 64%). Adherence was high, 11/14 (79%, 95%CI: 52%, 92%) participants attended >70% of scheduled sessions. Retention was 100% (95%CI: 85%, 100%) at 9 weeks, however completion of objective measures was impacted by COVID-19 restrictions. Telehealth and online questionnaires enabled participation. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: The intervention was acceptable to participants with high levels of adherence and retention. Trial findings will be used to design a future RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN12619000631101) 29/04/2019.

Exploring the Use of Two Brief Fatigue Screening Tools in Cancer Outpatient Clinics.

PURPOSE: Cancer fatigue guidelines recommend routine fatigue screening, with further assessment for people reporting moderate to severe fatigue. There is neither a gold-standard, nor a broadly accepted screening method, and knowledge about the impact of screening on care processes is limited. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of 2 fatigue screening methods and current clinical practice in cancer outpatient clinics. METHODS: Hospital outpatients attending cancer clinics during 1 week completed a five-item survey: a numeric scale for current tiredness, 2 categorical pictorial scales rating tiredness last week and the impact of fatigue (Fatigue Pictogram), screening tool preference and help needed for survey completion. Participant demographics and fatigue documentation by clinical staff for that appointment were extracted from medical records. Analyses used descriptive statistics. Groups were compared using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: Over 75% of participants rated their fatigue consistently as mild or significant on both screening tools. Of 1709 eligible outpatients, 533 (31%) completed the survey. Records were audited for 430 (81%) identifiable participants. Over half of the participants reported moderate or severe tiredness either "now" (237, 57%) and/or "last week" (226, 53%). Clinician documentation of fatigue seldom matched self-reports. Fatigue was rated as severe by 103 participants (24%), yet was noted in only 21 (20%) of these individuals' clinical notes. Both screening tools were equally preferred. CONCLUSION: The numeric rating scale and Fatigue Pictogram are equally applicable for screening fatigue in cancer outpatient care. There is a high prevalence of clinically significant fatigue in a hospital outpatient setting that is not documented. Adequate care pathways for further management should be established alongside fatigue screening.

'Probably better than any medication we can give you': General practitioners' views on exercise and nutrition in cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Exercise and healthy eating patterns are effective in improving health-related quality of life for patients with cancer. However, little is known about general practitioners' (GPs') views and experiences regarding providing exercise and nutrition recommendations to their patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to 1) report GPs' experiences of providing nutrition and exercise advice to their patients and 2) identify perceived barriers and enablers to implementation of exercise and nutrition advice throughout the cancer journey from the GP perspective. METHOD: Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted, and transcripts coded by two independent researchers. A thematic analysis was performed to derive main themes. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: the importance of exercise and nutrition recommendations for patients with cancer, the influence of the patient agenda, the influence of additional training or personal interest of the GP, and limitations of the primary care setting. DISCUSSION: Increased communication between primary and tertiary care, availability of resources, professional development opportunities and access to allied health services is needed to further support GPs to deliver exercise and nutrition information to their patients with cancer. This study provides evidence of GPs' desire to be involved in supporting the healthy exercise and nutrition habits of their patients with cancer and presents avenues for future research and resource development.

A 12-Week Multi-Modal Exercise Program: Feasibility of Combined Exercise and Simplified 8-Style Tai Chi Following Lung Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, safety, and preliminary effect of a 12-week multi-modal rehabilitation program targeted at improving health-related quality of life and physical activity levels of patients with lung cancer following treatment. METHODS: Patients with stage I to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer were included 6 to 12 weeks following completion of treatment. The intervention comprised of aerobic exercise (brisk walking), resistance training and 8-style Tai Chi. The 12-week program included 2 supervised center-based sessions per week of 90 minutes duration and home-based exercise. The primary outcomes were the feasibility and safety of the intervention. Secondary outcomes (assessed pre and post program) were physical and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were approached during the 6-month recruitment period and 17 (22%) consented to the study. Eight participants (47%) met the definition of adherence to the program (attending at least 70% of supervised sessions). No serious adverse events occurred. A significant reduction in anxiety and depression was observed post-program. In addition, improvements in respiratory function, sleep quality, and some health-related quality of life domains were observed post-program. There were no significant differences in functional capacity or physical activity levels. CONCLUSION: This multi-modal exercise training program was safe, although the feasibility of the program in its current state is not supported given the low consent rate and low adherence to the intervention.

Attitudes and Perceptions to Prehabilitation in Lung Cancer.

Background: Prehabilitation to maximize exercise capacity before lung cancer surgery has the potential to improve operative tolerability and patient outcomes. However, translation of this evidence into clinical practice is limited. Aims: To determine the acceptability and perceived benefit of prehabilitation in lung cancer among thoracic surgeons. Procedure: 198 cardiothoracic surgeons within Australia and New Zealand were surveyed to evaluate their attitudes and perceived benefits of prehabilitation in lung cancer. Results: Response rate was 14%. A moderate proportion of respondents reported that there is a need to refer lung resection patients to preoperative physiotherapy/prehabilitation, particularly high-risk patients or those with borderline fitness for surgery. 91% of surgeons were willing to delay surgery (as indicated by cancer stage/type) to optimize patients via prehabilitation. The main barriers to prehabilitation reported were patient comorbidities and access to allied health professionals, with 33% stating that they were unsure who to refer to for prehabilitation in thoracic surgery. This is despite 60% of the cohort reporting that pulmonary rehabilitation is available as a preoperative resource. 92% of respondents believe that further research into prehabilitation in lung cancer is warranted. Conclusion: The benefits of prehabilitation for the oncology population have been well documented in the literature over recent years and this is reflected in the perceptions surgeons had on the benefits of prehabilitation for their patients. This survey demonstrates an interest among cardiothoracic surgeons in favor of prehabilitation, and therefore further research and demonstration of its benefit is needed in lung cancer to facilitate implementation into practice.