Prehabilitation programs for individuals with cancer: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

BackgroundPrehabilitation programs focusing on exercise training as the main component are known as a promising alternative for improving patients’ outcomes before cancer surgery. This systematic review determined the benefits and harms of prehabilitation programs compared with usual care for individuals with cancer.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to June 2022, and hand searched clinical trial registries. We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) in adults, survivors of any type of cancer, that compared prehabilitation programs that had exercise training as the major component with usual care or other active interventions. Outcome measures were health-related quality of life (HRQL), muscular strength, postoperative complications, average length of stay (ALOS), handgrip strength, and physical activity levels. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.ResultsTwenty-five RCTs (2682 participants) published between 2010 and 2022 met our inclusion criteria. Colorectal and lung cancers were the most common diagnoses. The studies had methodological concerns regarding outcome measurement, selective reporting, and attrition. Five prehabilitation programs were compared to usual care (rehabilitation): combined training, aerobic training, respiratory muscle training plus aerobic training, respiratory muscle training plus resistance training, and pelvic floor training. The studies provided no clear evidence of an effect between groups. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence as very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations and imprecision.ConclusionPrehabilitation programs focusing on exercise training may have an effect on adults with cancer, but the evidence is very uncertain. We have very little confidence in the results and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from these. Further research is needed before we can draw a more certain conclusion.Systematic review registrationCRD42019125658.