International consensus is needed on a core outcome set to advance the evidence of best practice in cancer prehabilitation services and research.

Prehabilitation aims to optimise patients' physical and psychological status before treatment. The types of outcomes measured to assess the impact of prehabilitation interventions vary across clinical research and service evaluation, limiting the ability to compare between studies and services and to pool data. An international workshop involving academic and clinical experts in cancer prehabilitation was convened in May 2022 at Sheffield Hallam University's Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, England. The workshop substantiated calls for a core outcome set to advance knowledge and understanding of best practice in cancer prehabilitation and to develop national and international databases to assess outcomes at a population level.

Invitation strategies and participation in a community-based lung cancer screening programme located in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation.

INTRODUCTION: Although lung cancer screening is being implemented in the UK, there is uncertainty about the optimal invitation strategy. Here, we report participation in a community screening programme following a population-based invitation approach, examine factors associated with participation, and compare outcomes with hypothetical targeted invitations. METHODS: Letters were sent to all individuals (age 55-80) registered with a general practice (n=35 practices) in North and East Manchester, inviting ever-smokers to attend a Lung Health Check (LHC). Attendees at higher risk (PLCOm2012NoRace score≥1.5%) were offered two rounds of annual low-dose CT screening. Primary care recorded smoking codes (live and historical) were used to model hypothetical targeted invitation approaches for comparison. RESULTS: Letters were sent to 35 899 individuals, 71% from the most socioeconomically deprived quintile. Estimated response rate in ever-smokers was 49%; a lower response rate was associated with younger age, male sex, and primary care recorded current smoking status (adjOR 0.55 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.58), p<0.001). 83% of eligible respondents attended an LHC (n=8887/10 708). 51% were eligible for screening (n=4540/8887) of whom 98% had a baseline scan (n=4468/4540). Screening adherence was 83% (n=3488/4199) and lung cancer detection 3.2% (n=144) over 2 rounds. Modelled targeted approaches required 32%-48% fewer invitations, identified 94.6%-99.3% individuals eligible for screening, and included 97.1%-98.6% of screen-detected lung cancers. DISCUSSION: Using a population-based invitation strategy, in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation, is effective and may increase screening accessibility. Due to limitations in primary care records, targeted approaches should incorporate historical smoking codes and individuals with absent smoking records.

Acceptability of prehabilitation for cancer surgery: a multi-perspective qualitative investigation of patient and 'clinician' experiences.

BACKGROUND: 'Prehabilitation' interventions aim to enhance individuals' physical fitness prior to cancer treatment, typically involve exercise training as a key component, and may continue to support physical activity, strength, and fitness during or after treatment. However, uptake of prehabilitation is variable. This study investigated how patients from diverse socio-economic status groups perceived an exemplar prehabilitation and recovery programme, aiming to understand factors impacting acceptability, engagement and referral. METHODS: This research was conducted in the context of the Prehab4Cancer and Recovery Programme, a prehabilitation and recovery programme available across Greater Manchester, UK. Qualitative, semi-structured phone/video-call interviews were conducted with 18 adult patient participants referred to the programme (16 'engagers', 2 'non-engagers'; half the sample lived in localities with low socio-economic status scores). An online questionnaire with free-response and categorical-response questions was completed by 24 'clinician' participants involved in referral (nurses, doctors and other staff roles). An inductive, multi-perspective, thematic analysis was performed, structured using the Framework approach. RESULTS: Discussing and referring patients to prehabilitation can be challenging due to large quantities of information for staff to cover, and for patients to absorb, around the time of diagnosis. The programme was highly valued by both participant groups; the belief that participation would improve recovery seemed a major motivator for engagement, and some 'clinicians' felt that prehabilitation should be treated as a routine part of treatment, or extended to support other patient groups. Engagers seemed to appreciate a supportive approach where they did not feel forced to do any activity and tailoring of the programme to meet individual needs and abilities was appreciated. Initial engagement could be daunting, but gaining experience with the programme seemed to increase confidence. CONCLUSIONS: The prehabilitation programme was highly valued by engagers. Introducing prehabilitation at a challenging time means that personalised approaches might be needed to support engagement, or participation could be encouraged at a later time. Strategies to support individuals lacking in confidence, such as buddying, may be valuable. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study protocol was uploaded onto the Open Science Framework 24 September 2020 ( https://osf.io/347qj/ ).

Impact of a prehabilitation and recovery programme on emotional well-being in individuals undergoing cancer surgery: a multi-perspective qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation and recovery programmes aim to optimise patients' physical fitness and mental well-being before, during and after cancer treatment. This paper aimed to understand the impact of such a programme on emotional well-being in individuals undergoing cancer surgery. The programme was multi-modal, containing physical activity, well-being and nutritional support. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 individuals who participated in a prehabilitation and recovery programme. Twenty-four health care staff involved in referral completed an online survey. An inductive, thematic analysis was conducted, integrating perspectives of patients and staff, structured with the Framework approach. RESULTS: Patients seemed to experience emotional benefits from the programme, appearing less anxious and more confident in their ability to cope with treatment. They seemed to value having something positive to focus on and control over an aspect of treatment. Ongoing, implicit psychological support provided by Exercise Specialists, who were perceived as expert, available and caring, seemed valued. Some patients appeared to appreciate opportunities to talk about cancer with peers and professionals. Discomfort with talking about cancer with other people, outside of the programme, was expressed. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a prehabilitation and recovery programme appeared to yield valuable emotional well-being benefits, even without referral to specialist psychological support. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study protocol was uploaded onto the Open Science Framework 24 September 2020 ( https://osf.io/347qj/ ).

Feasibility and outcomes of a real-world regional lung cancer prehabilitation programme in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation, or multimodality patient optimisation before major treatment, has demonstrated meaningful improvements in patients' outcomes. In the setting of lung cancer surgery, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay are reduced, but there is currently limited access to prehabilitation. Prehab4Cancer (P4C) is an innovative regional programme serving all areas of Greater Manchester (GM). METHODS: The lung cancer P4C service commenced in 2019 as a collaboration between the GM Cancer alliance and 12 leisure and community organisations. Patients planning surgical resection could be referred to receive exercise, nutrition, and well-being assessment and interventions before surgery. We evaluated the programme's feasibility, uptake, and outcomes during the 11 months before COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS: In total, 377 patients were referred to the lung cancer P4C service from all 11 hospitals in GM. Of the patients reached by telephone, 80.0% (n=280/348) attended initial P4C assessment, which occurred a median of 8 days (inter-quartile range [IQR]: 4-14) after referral. In addition, 74.3% (n=280/377) attended for baseline assessment and 47.7% (n=180/377) completed prehabilitation, attending a median of six sessions (IQR: 4-9). Statistically significant improvements in all objective physiological and subjective functional assessments were observed preoperatively, including a mean increase in the incremental shuttle walk test of 50 m (95% confidence interval: 25-74; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The P4C programme demonstrated feasibility at scale, high uptake, and promising impact on the status of patients with lung cancer before surgery. P4C is the first regional prehabilitation service internationally, and this evaluation provides a framework for implementing similar services in other regions.

Nutritional screening in a cancer prehabilitation programme: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are often malnourished pre-operatively. The present study aimed to establish whether current screening was appropriate for use in prehabilitation and investigate any association between nutritional risk, functionality and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: This cohort study used routinely collected data from September 2020 to August 2021 from patients in a Prehab4cancer programme. Included patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had colorectal, lung or oesophago-gastric cancer and were scheduled for surgery. Nutritional assessment included Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) Short-Form and QoL with a sit-to-stand test. Association between nutritional risk and outcomes was analysed using adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: From 928 patients referred to Prehab4Cancer service over 12 months, data on nutritional risk were collected from 526 patients. Pre-operatively, 233 out of 526 (44%) patients were at nutritional risk (score ≥ 2). During prehabilitation, 31% of patients improved their PG-SGA and 74% of patients maintained or improved their weight. Odds ratios (OR) with confidence intervals (CI) showed that patients with better QoL using EuroQol-5 Dimensions (OR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.45, p = 0.01), EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.93, 1.00, p = 0.04) or sit-to-stand (OR = 0.96, 95% 0.93, 1.00, p = 0.04) were less likely to be nutritional at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of patients in Prehab4Cancer programme assessed using PG-SGA were at risk of malnutrition. However, almost half of the sample did not have their risk assessed. Patients at risk of malnutrition were more likely to have a poorer QoL and sit-to-stand test than those who were not at risk.

When to reinvite initially ineligible populations for targeted lung cancer screening?

INTRODUCTION: Targeted low-dose CT lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer mortality. England's Targeted Lung Health Check programme uses risk prediction tools to determine eligibility for biennial screening among people with a smoking history aged 55-74. Some participants initially ineligible for lung cancer screening will later become eligible with increasing age and ongoing tobacco exposure. It is, therefore, important to understand how many people could qualify for reinvitation, and after how long, to inform implementation of services. METHODS: We prospectively predicted future risk (using Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian trial's risk model (PLCOm2012) and Liverpool Lung Project version 2 (LLPv2) risk models) and time-to-eligibility of 5345 participants to estimate how many would become eligible through the course of a Lung Health Check screening programme for 55-74 years. RESULTS: Approximately a quarter eventually become eligible, with those with the lowest baseline risks unlikely to ever become eligible. Time-to-eligibility is shorter for participants with higher baseline risk, increasing age and ongoing smoking status. At a PLCOm2012 threshold ≥1.51%, 68% of those who continue to smoke become eligible compared with 18% of those who have quit. DISCUSSION: Predicting which participants may become eligible, and when, during a screening programme can help inform reinvitation strategies and service planning. Those with risk scores closer to the eligibility threshold, particularly people who continue to smoke, will reach eligibility in subsequent rounds while those at the lowest risk may be discharged from the programme from the outset.

RadBone: bone toxicity following pelvic radiotherapy - a prospective randomised controlled feasibility study evaluating a musculoskeletal health package in women with gynaecological cancers undergoing pelvic radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Patients receiving radiotherapy are at risk of developing radiotherapy-related insufficiency fractures, which are associated with increased morbidity and pose a significant burden to patients' quality of life and to the health system. Therefore, effective preventive techniques are urgently required. The RadBone randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a musculoskeletal health package (MHP) intervention in women undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for gynaecological malignancies and to preliminary explore clinical effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The RadBone RCT will evaluate the addition to standard care of an MHP consisting of a physical assessment of the musculoskeletal health, a 3-month prehabilitation personalised exercise package, as well as an evaluation of the fracture risk and if required the prescription of appropriate bone treatment including calcium, vitamin D and-for high-risk individuals-bisphosphonates. Forty participants will be randomised in each group (MHP or observation) and will be followed for 18 months. The primary outcome of this RCT will be feasibility, including the eligibility, screening and recruitment rate, intervention fidelity and attrition rates; acceptability and health economics. Clinical effectiveness and bone turnover markers will be evaluated as secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/NW/0410, November 2020). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, will be presented in national and international conferences and will be communicated to relevant stakeholders. Moreover, a plain English report will be shared with the study participants, patients' organisations and media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04555317.

Implementing a system-wide cancer prehabilitation programme: The journey of Greater Manchester's 'Prehab4cancer'.

Patients undergoing major cancer interventions such as major surgical resection, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy are prone to the adverse effects of their cancer, as well as to the side effects of the treatments designed to cure them. The Prehabilitation process supports cancer patients in preparing for the physiological challenges of their cancer treatments, whilst aiming to shorten recovery time, reduce peri-operative complications and improve compliance with non-surgical treatments. Prehabilitation will be most useful in older patients. Greater Manchester Integrated Care system is the first regional system in the UK to introduce delivery of system-wide, large scale physical activity supported multi-modal prehabilitation and recovery programme, Prehab4Cancer as a standard of care for cancer patients. It builds upon the successful implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery + programme to improve surgical care in Greater Manchester. During this review we describe the journey to develop a system wide prehabilitation model for patients with cancer. Prehab4Cancer to date has focused on robust co-design, development, and implementation of an effective service model with attention paid to stakeholder engagement. This has led to receipt of high numbers of referrals from across Greater Manchester for the all the cancer groups involved. The successful implementation of the P4C pathway in GM presents a best practice model that might be adopted by other local and combined authority areas nationally.

The care of older cancer patients in the United Kingdom.

The ageing population poses new challenges globally. Cancer care for older patients is one of these challenges, and it has a significant impact on societies. In the United Kingdom (UK), as the number of older cancer patients increases, the management of this group has become part of daily practice for most oncology teams in every geographical area. Older cancer patients are at a higher risk of both under- and over-treatment. Therefore, the assessment of a patient's biological age and effective organ functional reserve becomes paramount. This may then guide treatment decisions by better estimating a prognosis and the risk-to-benefit ratio of a given therapy to anticipate and mitigate against potential toxicities/difficulties. Moreover, older cancer patients are often affected by geriatric syndromes and other issues that impact their overall health, function and quality of life. Comprehensive geriatric assessments offer an opportunity to identify and address health problems which may then optimise one's fitness and well-being. Whilst it is widely accepted that older cancer patients may benefit from such an approach, resources are often scarce, and access to dedicated services and research remains limited to specific centres across the UK. The aim of this project is to map the current services and projects in the UK to learn from each other and shape the future direction of care of older patients with cancer.