Prehabilitation versus no prehabilitation to improve functional capacity, reduce postoperative complications and improve quality of life in colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the cornerstone in curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, surgery itself can adversely affect patient health. 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' programmes, which include multimodal interventions, have improved patient outcomes substantially. However, these are mainly applied peri- and postoperatively. Multimodal prehabilitation includes multiple preoperative interventions to prepare patients for surgery with the aim of increasing resilience, thereby improving postoperative outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of multimodal prehabilitation programmes on functional capacity, postoperative complications, and quality of life in adult patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in January 2021. We also searched trial registries up to March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for surgery, comparing multimodal prehabilitation programmes (defined as comprising at least two preoperative interventions) with no prehabilitation. We focused on the following outcomes: functional capacity (i.e. 6-minute walk test, VO2peak, handgrip strength), postoperative outcomes (i.e. complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, re-admissions), health-related quality of life, compliance, safety of prehabilitation, and return to normal activities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Any disagreements were solved with discussion and consensus. We pooled data to perform meta-analyses, where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs that enrolled 250 participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for elective (mainly laparoscopic) surgery. Included trials were conducted in tertiary care centres and recruited patients during periods ranging from 17 months to 45 months. A total of 130 participants enrolled in a preoperative four-week trimodal prehabilitation programme consisting of exercise, nutritional intervention, and anxiety reduction techniques. Outcomes of these participants were compared to those of 120 participants who started an identical but postoperative programme. Postoperatively, prehabilitation may improve functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test at four and eight weeks (mean difference (MD) 26.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.81 to 65.85; 2 studies; n = 131; and MD 26.58, 95% CI -8.88 to 62.04; 2 studies; n = 140); however, the certainty of evidence is low and very low, respectively, due to serious risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. After prehabilitation, the functional capacity before surgery improved, with a clinically relevant mean difference of 24.91 metres (95% CI 11.24 to 38.57; 3 studies; n = 225). The certainty of evidence was moderate due to downgrading for serious risk of bias. The effects of prehabilitation on the number of complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; 3 studies; n = 250), emergency department visits (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.32; 3 studies; n = 250) and re-admissions (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.65; 3 studies; n = 250) were small or even trivial. The certainty of evidence was low due to downgrading for serious risk of bias and imprecision. The effects on VO2peak, handgrip strength, length of hospital stay, mortality rate, health-related quality of life, return to normal activities, safety of the programme, and compliance rate could not be analysed quantitatively due to missing or insufficient data. The included studies did not report a difference between groups for health-related quality of life and length of hospital stay. Data on remaining outcomes were not reported or were reported inadequately in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation may result in an improved functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test both preoperatively and postoperatively. A solid effect on the number of omplications, postoperative emergency department visits and re-admissions could not be established. The certainty of evidence ranges from moderate to very low, due to downgrading for serious risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. In addition, only three heterogeneous studies were included in this review. Therefore, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Numerous relevant RCTs are ongoing and will be included in a future update of this review.

Prehabilitation versus no prehabilitation to improve functional capacity, reduce postoperative complications and improve quality of life in colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the cornerstone in curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, surgery itself can adversely affect patient health. 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' programmes, which include multimodal interventions, have improved patient outcomes substantially. However, these are mainly applied peri- and postoperatively. Multimodal prehabilitation includes multiple preoperative interventions to prepare patients for surgery with the aim of increasing resilience, thereby improving postoperative outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of multimodal prehabilitation programmes on functional capacity, postoperative complications, and quality of life in adult patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in January 2021. We also searched trial registries up to March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for surgery, comparing multimodal prehabilitation programmes (defined as comprising at least two preoperative interventions) with no prehabilitation. We focused on the following outcomes: functional capacity (i.e. 6-minute walk test, VO2peak, handgrip strength), postoperative outcomes (i.e. complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, re-admissions), health-related quality of life, compliance, safety of prehabilitation, and return to normal activities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Any disagreements were solved with discussion and consensus. We pooled data to perform meta-analyses, where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs that enrolled 250 participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for elective (mainly laparoscopic) surgery. Included trials were conducted in tertiary care centres and recruited patients during periods ranging from 17 months to 45 months. A total of 130 participants enrolled in a preoperative four-week trimodal prehabilitation programme consisting of exercise, nutritional intervention, and anxiety reduction techniques. Outcomes of these participants were compared to those of 120 participants who started an identical but postoperative programme. Postoperatively, prehabilitation may improve functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test at four and eight weeks (mean difference (MD) 26.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.81 to 65.85; 2 studies; n = 131; and MD 26.58, 95% CI -8.88 to 62.04; 2 studies; n = 140); however, the certainty of evidence is low and very low, respectively, due to serious risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. After prehabilitation, the functional capacity before surgery improved, with a clinically relevant mean difference of 24.91 metres (95% CI 11.24 to 38.57; 3 studies; n = 225). The certainty of evidence was moderate due to downgrading for serious risk of bias. Prehabilitation may also result in fewer complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; 3 studies; n = 250) and fewer emergency department visits (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.32; 3 studies; n = 250). The certainty of evidence was low due to downgrading for serious risk of bias and imprecision. On the other hand, prehabilitation may also result in a higher re-admission rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.65; 3 studies; n = 250). The certainty of evidence was again low due to downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision. The effect on VO2peak, handgrip strength, length of hospital stay, mortality rate, health-related quality of life, return to normal activities, safety of the programme, and compliance rate could not be analysed quantitatively due to missing or insufficient data. The included studies did not report a difference between groups for health-related quality of life and length of hospital stay. Data on remaining outcomes were not reported or were reported inadequately in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation may result in an improved functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test both preoperatively and postoperatively. Complication rates and the number of emergency department visits postoperatively may also diminish due to a prehabilitation programme, while the number of re-admissions may be higher in the prehabilitation group. The certainty of evidence ranges from moderate to very low, due to downgrading for serious risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. In addition, only three heterogeneous studies were included in this review. Therefore, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Numerous relevant RCTs are ongoing and will be included in a future update of this review.

From Theory to Practice: An International Approach to Establishing Prehabilitation Programmes.

Purpose: This article focuses on the following:The importance of prehabilitation in people with cancer and the known and hypothesised benefits.Exploration of the principles that can be used when developing services in the absence of a single accepted model of how these services could be established or configured.Description of approaches and learning in the development and implementation of prehabilitation across three different countries: Canada, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, based on the authors' experiences and perspectives. Recent Findings: Practical tips and suggestions are shared by the authors to assist others when implementing prehabilitation programmes. These include experience from three different approaches with similar lessons.Important elements include the following: (i) starting with a small identified clinical group of patients to refine and test the delivery model and demonstrate proof of concept; (ii) systematic data collection with clearly identified target outcomes from the outset; (iii) collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders including those who will be designing, developing, delivering, funding and using the prehabilitation services; (iv) adapting the model to fit local situations; (v) project leaders who can bring together and motivate a team; (vi) recognition and acknowledgement of the value that each member of a diverse multidisciplinary team brings; (vii) involvement of the whole team in prehabilitation prescription including identification of patients' levels of risk through appropriate assessment and need-based interventions; (viii) persistence and determination in the development of the business case for sustainable funding; (ix) working with patients ambassadors to develop and advocate for the case for support; and (x) working closely with commissioners of healthcare. Summary: Principles for the implementation of prehabilitation have been set out by sharing the experiences across three countries. These principles should be considered a framework for those wishing to design and develop prehabilitation services in their own areas to maximise success, effectiveness and sustainability.

Acute toxicity and surgical complications after preoperative (chemo)radiation therapy for rectal cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

PURPOSE: Preoperative therapy reduces local recurrences and may facilitate surgery in rectal cancer patients. However, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) this treatment is often withheld due to the perceived risk of excessive side-effects, even though evidence is limited. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of preoperative therapy on acute toxicity and post-operative complications in IBD patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: The Dutch pathology registry (PALGA) was searched for patients with IBD and rectal cancer treated between January 1991 and May 2010. Histopathology and clinical charts were reviewed to confirm IBD diagnosis and evaluate clinical and pathological characteristics. RESULTS: Out of 161 patients, 66 received preoperative therapy (41%), including short-course radiation therapy (SC-RT), long course radiation therapy (LC-RT), and chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in 32, 13, and 21 patients respectively. Grade≥3 acute toxicity occurred in 0 patients (0.0%), 1 patient (7.7%), and 6 patients (28.6%) respectively (p=0.004). Systemic corticosteroids were used by 10.5% of patients at time of treatment. Grade≥3 post-operative 30-day complication rate (28.1% overall) was not associated with type of preoperative therapy. CONCLUSION: Results did not show excessive rates of toxicity or post-operative complications and support the use of standard preoperative therapies for rectal cancer (especially SC-RT) in IBD patients with relatively indolent disease. Caution is warranted in patients with active IBD, since the exact impact of active bowel inflammation could not be determined retrospectively. Prospective studies should investigate the influence of active IBD on acute and late toxicity in patients receiving pelvic irradiation.