Cancer Rehabilitation: Impact on Breast Cancer Survivors' Work Ability and Health-Related Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer survivors (BCSs) report persistent, diminished ability to work, and decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Cancer rehabilitation interventions (physical therapy or occupational therapy [PT/OT]) aim to improve these outcomes, but little is known about their impact in the community. METHODS: This retrospective, pre-post, uncontrolled study examined cases of younger BCSs (age <65 years) who attended cancer-specialized PT/OT over a 2-year period. Outcomes and covariates (age, race, US region, payer type, number of visits, length of care [weeks]) were extracted from electronic medical records. Patient-reported outcomes were overall-Work Ability Score (WASoverall), physical-WAS (WASphysical), and mental-WAS (WASmental) and PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH), Global Mental Health (GMH), Physical Function (PF), and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities (SRA). We used linear mixed effect models to examine pre- to post-rehabilitation change overall, and separately, while controlling for covariates. RESULTS: PT/OT cases (NPT=758; NOT=140) had a mean [SD] age of 51.39 [8.49] years and attended approximately 12 visits (IQR, 8.0-19.0) over 10.71 weeks (IQR, 6.14-17.00). Overall, work ability outcomes (WASoverall: +1.79; WASphysical: +0.78; WASmental: +0.47; all P<.001) and HRQoL outcomes improved significantly (GPH: +5.38; GMH: +2.90; PF: +5.17; SRA: +5.83; all P<.001), and average change on each HRQoL outcome exceeded the minimal important change (2 points). Outcome scores were similar at each timepoint for both PT and OT cases (all P>.05) and both groups improved significantly (all P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this large study of the impact of cancer-specialized, community-based PT and OT, younger BCSs reported significant improvement in ability to work and HRQoL. Although more research is needed, these findings suggest improved access to PT/OT could improve work ability and HRQoL for younger BCSs.

Cancer rehabilitation services for older women with breast cancer: Impact on health-related quality of life outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Older breast cancer survivors (BCS, age ≥ 65) are vulnerable to experiencing persistent symptoms and associated declines in health-related quality of life (HRQOL). In research trials, cancer rehabilitation interventions (physical or occupational therapy, PT/OT) have been shown to enhance HRQOL, but the impact of community-based PT/OT services for older BCS is unknown. We performed a retrospective, observational study to better understand the impact of PT/OT services on the HRQOL of older BCS. METHODS: Outcomes and covariates were extracted from the outpatient rehabilitation medical record. HRQOL outcomes included: PROMIS® global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH), physical function (PF), and ability to participate in social roles and activities (SRA). Linear mixed-effect models were used to examine change in HRQOL outcomes and explore the influence of patient age and service type (PT/OT). ICD-10 codes were examined and compared between service types to describe the impairments treated. RESULTS: PT/OT cases (N = 694) were 71.79 ± 5.44 years old and participated in a median of 11 visits (IQR: 7.0-17.25) over 9.71 weeks (IQR: 6.29-15.29). Most (84.4%) attended PT (n = 579; 84%) versus OT (n = 115; 16%). Overall, significant improvement was observed in each HRQOL outcome (GPH: +3.00, p < 0.001; GMH: +1.80, p < 0.001; PF: +1.97, p < 0.001; SRA: +2.34, p < 0.001). Service type influenced only GPH (p = 0.041); mean improvement was +3.24 (SE: 0.290, p < 0.001) for PT cases and + 1.78 for OT cases (SE: 0.651, p = 0.007). PT cases commonly received treatment for weakness/atrophy, pain, walking, and posture; OT cases commonly received treatment for lymphedema and scarring/fibrosis. No age effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this large study of older BCS who participated in community-based PT/OT services across the United States, we observed significant improvements in HRQOL outcomes that are important to older BCS and their providers. Although more research is needed, these findings suggest that improved access to PT/OT could help address unmet HRQOL needs among this population.

Impact of Real-World Outpatient Cancer Rehabilitation Services on Health-Related Quality of Life of Cancer Survivors across 12 Diagnosis Types in the United States.

Compared to adults without cancer, cancer survivors report poorer health-related quality of life (HRQOL), which is associated with negative treatment outcomes and increased healthcare use. Cancer-specialized physical and occupational therapy (PT/OT) could optimize HRQOL; however, the impact among survivors with non-breast malignancies is unknown. This retrospective (2020-2022), observational, study of medical record data of 12 cancer types, examined pre/post-HRQOL among cancer survivors who completed PT/OT. PROMIS® HRQOL measures: Global Health (physical [GPH] and mental [GMH]), Physical Function (PF), and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities (SRA) were evaluated using linear mixed effect models by cancer type, then compared to the minimal important change (MIC, 2 points). Survivors were 65.44 ± 12.84 years old (range: 19-91), male (54%), with a median of 12 visits. Improvements in GPH were significant (p < 0.05) for all cancer types and all achieved MIC. Improvements in GMH were significant for 11/12 cancer types and 8/12 achieved MIC. Improvements in PF were significant for all cancer types and all achieved the MIC. Improvements in SRA were significant for all cancer types and all groups achieved the MIC. We observed statistically and clinically significant improvements in HRQOL domains for each of the 12 cancer types evaluated.

Geriatric assessment-identified impairments and frailty in adults with cancer younger than 65: An opportunity to optimize oncology care.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty, a state of increased vulnerability to stressors due to aging or treatment-related accelerated aging, is associated with declines in physical, cognitive and/or social functioning, and quality of life for cancer survivors. For survivors aged <65 years, little is known about frailty status and associated impairments to inform intervention. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of frailty and contributing geriatric assessment (GA)-identified impairments in adults aged <65 versus ≥65 years with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of clinical trial data (NCT04852575). Participants were starting a new line of systemic therapy at a community-based oncology private practice. Before starting treatment, participants completed an online patient-reported GA and the Physical Activity (PA) Vital Sign questionnaire. Frailty score and category were derived from GA using a validated deficit accumulation model: frail (>0.35), pre-frail (0.2-0.35), or robust (0-0.2). PA mins/week were calculated, and participants were coded as either meeting/not-meeting guidelines (≥90 min/week). We used Spearman (ρ) correlation to examine the association between age and frailty score and chi-squared/Fisher's-exact or ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis statistic to compare frailty and PA outcomes between age groups. RESULTS: Participants (n = 96) were predominantly female (62%), Caucasian (68%), beginning first-line systemic therapy (69%), and 1.75 months post-diagnosis (median). Most had stage III to IV disease (66%). Common cancer types included breast (34%), gastrointestinal (23%), and hematologic (15%). Among participants <65, 46.8% were frail or pre-frail compared to 38.7% of those ≥65. There was no association between age and frailty score (ρ = 0.01, p = 0.91). Between age groups, there was no significant difference in frailty score (p = 0.95), the prevalence of frailty (p = 0.68), number of GA impairments (p = 0.33), or the proportion meeting PA guidelines (p = 0.72). However, older adults had more comorbid conditions (p = 0.03) and younger adults had non-significant but clinically relevant differences in functional ability, falls, and PA level. DISCUSSION: In our cohort, the prevalence of frailty was similar among adults with cancer <65 when compared to those older than 65, however, types of GA impairments differed. These results suggest GA and the associated frailty index could be useful to identify needs for intervention and inform clinical decisions during cancer treatment regardless of age. Additional research is needed to confirm our findings.

In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study.

Diminished health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is common among cancer survivors but often amendable to rehabilitation. However, few access real-world rehabilitation services. Hybrid delivery modes (using a combination of in-clinic and synchronous telehealth visits) became popular during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer a promising solution to improve access beyond the pandemic. However, it is unclear if hybrid delivery has the same impact on patient-reported outcomes and experiences as standard, in-clinic-only delivery. To fill this gap, we performed a retrospective, observational, comparative outcomes study of real-world electronic medical record (EMR) data collected by a national outpatient rehabilitation provider in 2020-2021. Of the cases meeting the inclusion criteria (N = 2611), 60 were seen to via hybrid delivery. The outcomes evaluated pre and post-rehabilitation included PROMIS® global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH), physical function (PF), and the ability to participate in social roles and activities (SRA). The patient experience outcomes included the Net Promoter Survey (NPS®) and the Select Medical Patient-Reported Experience Measure (SM-PREM). A linear and logistic regression was used to examine the between-group differences in the PROMIS and SM-PREM scores while controlling for covariates. The hybrid and in-clinic-only cases improved similarly in all PROMIS outcomes (all p < 0.05). The association between the delivery mode and the likelihood of achieving the minimal important change in the PROMIS outcomes was non-significant (all p > 0.05). No between-group differences were observed in the NPS or SM-PREM scores (all p > 0.05). Although more research is needed, this real-world evidence suggests that hybrid rehabilitation care may be equally beneficial for and acceptable to cancer survivors and supports calls to expand access to and reimbursement for telerehabilitation.

Understanding Patient Experience with Outpatient Cancer Rehabilitation Care.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patient experience is key to optimize access and quality of outpatient cancer rehabilitation (physical or occupational therapy, PT/OT) services. METHODS: We performed a retrospective mixed-method analysis of rehabilitation medical record data to better understand patient experience and aspects of care that influenced experience. From the medical record, we extracted case characteristics, patient experience data (Net Promoter Survey®, NPS) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. We categorized cases as 'promoters' (i.e., highly likely to recommend rehabilitation) or 'detractors', then calculated NPS score (-100 [worst] to 100 [best]). We identified key themes from NPS free-text comments using inductive content analysis, then used Pearson [r] or Spearman [ρ] correlation to explore relationships between NPS, characteristics, and PRO improvement. RESULTS: Patients (n = 383) were 60.51 ± 12.02 years old, predominantly women with breast cancer (69.2%), and attended 14.23 ± 12.37 visits. Most were 'promoters' (92%); NPS score was 91.4. Patients described two experiences (themes) that influenced their likelihood to recommend rehabilitation: (1) feeling comfortable with the process and (2) observable improvement in health/functioning, and described attributes of clinic staff, environment and clinical care that influenced themes. Likelihood to recommend rehabilitation was associated with achieving the minimal clinical important difference on a PRO (ρ = 0.21, p < 0.001) and cancer type (ρ = 0.10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients who received specialized cancer PT/OT were highly likely to recommend rehabilitation. Feeling comfortable with the rehabilitation process and making observable improvements in health and/or functioning influenced likelihood to recommend. Rehabilitation providers should leverage the findings of this study optimize access to and quality of cancer rehab services.

The Role of Exercise Self-Efficacy in Exercise Participation Among Women With Persistent Fatigue After Breast Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: Survivors of breast cancer with persistent cancer-related fatigue (CRF) report less exercise participation compared with survivors of breast cancer without CRF. Although CRF predicts other domains of self-efficacy among survivors, the effect of CRF on exercise self-efficacy (ESE)-an important predictor of exercise participation-has not been quantified. This study examined the relationship between CRF, ESE, and exercise participation and explored the lived experience of engaging in exercise among survivors of breast cancer with persistent CRF. METHODS: Fifty-eight survivors of breast cancer (3.7 [SD = 2.4] years after primary treatment) self-reported CRF, ESE, and exercise participation (hours of moderate-intensity exercise per week). Regression and mediation analyses were conducted. Survivors who reported clinically significant CRF and weekly exercise were purposively sampled for 1-on-1 interviews (N = 11). Thematic analysis was performed across participants and within higher versus lower ESE subsets. RESULTS: Greater CRF predicted lower ESE (ß = -0.32) and less exercise participation (ß = -0.08). ESE mediated the relationship between CRF and exercise participation (ß = -0.05, 95% CI = -0.09 to -0.02). Qualitative data showed that survivors of breast cancer with higher ESE perceived exercise as a strategy to manage fatigue, described self-motivation and commitment to exercise, and had multiple sources of support. In contrast, survivors with lower ESE described less initiative to manage fatigue through exercise, greater difficulty staying committed to exercise, and less support. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of breast cancer with persistent CRF may experience decreased ESE, which negatively influences exercise participation. Clinicians should screen for or discuss confidence as it relates to exercise and consider tailoring standardized exercise recommendations for this population to optimize ESE. This may facilitate more sustainable exercise participation and improve outcomes. IMPACT: This study highlights the behavioral underpinnings of CRF as a barrier to exercise. Individualized exercise tailored to optimize ESE may facilitate sustainable exercise participation among survivors of breast cancer with CRF. Strategies for clinicians to address ESE are described and future research is suggested. LAY SUMMARY: Women with fatigue after breast cancer treatment may have lower confidence about their ability to engage in exercise. Individually tailoring exercise to build confidence as it relates to exercise may result in more consistent exercise and better health-related outcomes.

Community-based outpatient cancer rehabilitation services for women with gynecologic cancer: acceptability and impact on patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Women with gynecologic cancers often experience functional impairments impacting quality of life. Physical and occupational therapy (PT/OT) treat functional impairment; however, the acceptability and impact of these services for women with gynecologic cancer are unknown. METHODS: We reviewed rehabilitation charts of women with gynecologic cancer who received PT/OT (i.e., patients) in 2019 and completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) selected by their therapist at intake (pre) and discharge (post). We calculated descriptive statistics for patient, rehabilitation, and acceptability (0-10) data. For PROM data, we used paired samples t-tests to evaluate pre-post change, and then calculated effect size (Hedge's g) and the proportion who achieved a minimal detectable change (MDC). RESULTS: PT/OT patients (N = 84) were 64.63 ± 11.04 years old with predominant diagnoses of ovarian (41.7%) or endometrial (32.1%) cancer. They attended a median of 13 sessions (IQR = 8.0-19.0). Sessions were predominantly PT (86%) vs. OT (14%). Median acceptability was 10 (IQR = 9.8-10.0). Pre-post improvement was observed for each of the 17 PROMs used by therapists. Significant improvement (p < .05) was observed for four PROMs: the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (M∆ = 2.93 ± 2.31, g = 1.47, 71% achieved MDC), the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (M∆ = 12.88 ± 12.31, g = 0.61, 60% achieved MDC), the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale (M∆ = 20.50 ± 20.61, g = 1.18, 58% achieved MDC), and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (M∆ = 6.55 ± 9.69, g = 0.33, 7% achieved MDC). CONCLUSION: PT/OT was acceptable and improved patient-reported outcomes for women with gynecologic cancers. Future research is needed to establish gynecologic-specific guidelines for referral and PT/OT practice.

Usability, acceptability, and implementation strategies for the Exercise in Cancer Evaluation and Decision Support (EXCEEDS) algorithm: a Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Oncology guidelines recommend participation in cancer rehabilitation or exercise services (CR/ES) to optimize survivorship. Yet, connecting the right survivor, with the right CR/ES, at the right time remains a challenge. The Exercise in Cancer Evaluation and Decision Support (EXCEEDS) algorithm was developed to enhance CR/ES clinical decision-making and facilitate access to CR/ES. We used Delphi methodology to evaluate usability, acceptability, and determine pragmatic implementation priorities. METHODS: Participants completed three online questionnaires including (1) simulated case vignettes, (2) 4-item acceptability questionnaire (0-5 pts), and (3) series of items to rank algorithm implementation priorities (potential users, platforms, strategies). To evaluate usability, we used Chi-squared test to compare frequency of accurate pre-exercise medical clearance and CR/ES triage recommendations for case vignettes when using EXCEEDS vs. without. We calculated mean acceptability and inter-rater agreement overall and in 4 domains. We used the Eisenhower Prioritization Method to evaluate implementation priorities. RESULTS: Participants (N = 133) mostly represented the fields of rehabilitation (69%), oncology (25%), or exercise science (17%). When using EXCEEDS (vs. without), their recommendations were more likely to be guideline concordant for medical clearance (83.4% vs. 66.5%, X2 = 26.61, p < .0001) and CR/ES triage (60.9% vs. 51.1%, X2 = 73.79, p < .0001). Mean acceptability was M = 3.90 ± 0.47; inter-rater agreement was high for 3 of 4 domains. Implementation priorities include 1 potential user group, 2 platform types, and 9 implementation strategies. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the EXCEEDS algorithm can be a pragmatic and acceptable clinical decision support tool for CR/ES recommendations. Future research is needed to evaluate algorithm usability and acceptability in real-world clinical pathways.