Effectiveness of Prehabilitation Modalities on Postoperative Outcomes Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing curative colorectal cancer surgery is high. Prehabilitation has been suggested to reduce postoperative morbidity, however its effectiveness is still lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of prehabilitation in reducing postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted in the CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Medline, PsychINFO, AMED, and Embase databases from inception to April 2023. Randomised controlled trials testing the effectiveness of prehabilitation, including exercise, nutrition, and/or psychological interventions, compared with usual care in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery were included. Two independent review authors extracted relevant information and assessed the risk of bias. Random-effect meta-analyses were used to pool outcomes, and the quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 23 trials were identified (N = 2475 patients), including multimodal (3 trials), exercise (3 trials), nutrition (16 trials), and psychological (1 trial) prehabilitation. There was moderate-quality evidence that preoperative nutrition significantly reduced postoperative infectious complications (relative risk 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.94) and low-quality evidence on reducing the length of hospital stay (mean difference 0.87, 95% CI 0.17-1.58) compared with control. A single trial demonstrated an effect of multimodal prehabilitation on postoperative complication. CONCLUSION: Nutrition prehabilitation was effective in reducing infectious complications and length of hospital stay. Whether other multimodal, exercise, and psychological prehabilitation modalities improve postoperative outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery is uncertain as the current quality of evidence is low. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VW72N ).

Patients' and carers' views on research priorities in prehabilitation for cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The views of patients and carers are important for the development of research priorities. This study aimed to determine and compare the top research priorities of cancer patients and carers with those of multidisciplinary clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study surveyed patients recovering from cancer surgery at a major tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia, and/or their carers between March and July 2023. Consenting patients and carers were provided a list of research priorities according to clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation, as determined in a recent International Delphi study. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each research priority using a 5-item Likert scale (ranging from 1 = very high research priority to 5 = very low research priority). RESULTS: A total of 101 patients and 50 carers participated in this study. Four areas were identified as research priorities, achieving consensus of highest importance (> 70% rated as "high" or "very high" priority) by patients, carers, and clinical experts. These were "optimal composition of prehabilitation programs" (77% vs. 82% vs. 88%), "effect of prehabilitation on surgical outcomes" (85% vs. 90% vs. 95%), "effect of prehabilitation on functional outcomes" (83% vs. 86% vs. 79%), and "effect of prehabilitation on patient reported outcomes" (78% vs. 84% vs. 79%). Priorities that did not reach consensus of high importance by patients despite reaching consensus of highest importance by experts included "identifying populations most likely to benefit from prehabilitation" (70% vs. 76% vs. 90%) and "defining prehabilitation core outcome measures" (66% vs. 74% vs. 87%). "Prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapies" reached consensus of high importance by patients but not by experts or carers (81% vs. 68% vs. 69%). CONCLUSION: This study delineated the primary prehabilitation research priorities as determined by patients and carers, against those previously identified by clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. It is recommended that subsequent high-quality research and resource allocation be directed towards these highlighted areas of importance.

Outcome Heterogeneity in Prehabilitation Trials-Are We Comparing Apples and Oranges?

INTRODUCTION: Over the last decade, the number of prehabilitation randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has increased significantly. Therefore, this review aimed to describe the outcomes reported in prehabilitation RCTs in patients undergoing cancer surgery. METHODS: A search was conducted in Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to July 2021. We included RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of preoperative exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions on postoperative complications and length of hospital stay in adult oncology patients who underwent thoracic and gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The verbatim outcomes reported in each article were extracted, and each outcome was assessed to determine whether it was defined and measured using a validated tool. Verbatim outcomes were grouped into standardized outcomes and categorized into domains. The quality of outcome reporting in each identified article was assessed using the Harman tool (score range 0-6, where 0 indicated the poorest quality). RESULTS: A total of 74 RCTs were included, from which 601 verbatim outcomes were extracted. Only 110 (18.3%) of the verbatim outcomes were defined and 270 (44.9%) were labeled as either "primary" or "secondary" outcomes. Verbatim outcomes were categorized into 119 standardized outcomes and assigned into one of five domains (patient-reported outcomes, surgical outcomes, physical/functional outcomes, disease activity, and intervention delivery). Surgical outcomes were the most common outcomes reported (n = 71 trials, 95.9%). The overall quality of the reported outcomes was poor across trials (median score: 2.0 [IQR = 0.00-3.75]). CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation RCTs display considerable heterogeneity in outcome reporting, and low outcome reporting quality. The development of standardized core outcome sets may help improve article quality and enhance the clinical utility of prehabilitation following cancer surgery.