Rehabilitation In Lung Cancer Patients Research Articles

Efficacy of preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation in lung cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Although previous studies have shown that preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation training may improve postoperative prognosis in patients with lung cancer, the literature included in the existing meta-analysis is highly heterogeneous and lacks effective subgroup analysis. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis is needed to integrate the latest published randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT). This updated analysis was performed to identify the clinical effects of preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation on physical rehabilitation (lung function, activity endurance, and dyspnea), psychological rehabilitation, quality of life, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients with lung cancer. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database were searched since inception up to March 2024. A random-effects model was used to pool data, and sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the stability of outcomes and potential sources of heterogeneity. All analyses were conducted via Review Manager 5.4.1 and STATA 15.0. The final analysis included 11 RCTs with 1250 patients. The results of meta-analysis suggest that preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation can significantly improve the quality of life of patients with lung cancer after surgery (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.32; P = 0.04) and significantly reduce the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) (RR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.60; P < 0.0001). The results of subgroup analysis suggested that the effect of combined preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation was significantly better than that of preoperative rehabilitation alone, and the effect of short-term preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation (≤ 3 weeks) was significantly better than that of long-term rehabilitation. Preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with lung cancer can significantly improve their postoperative quality of life and reduce postoperative complications, but factors such as intervention time and intervention method may affect the rehabilitation effect.

Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation training on postoperative recovery in lung cancer patients undergoing thoracoscopic partial pulmonary resection: a meta-analysis.

To systematically analyze the impact of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) on postoperative recovery of lung cancer patients undergoing thoracoscopic partial pulmonary resection. This study has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024574965). A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL for literature on the effects of PR on postoperative rehabilitation in lung cancer patients undergoing thoracoscopic partial pulmonary resection, up to May 2024. Studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected for the meta-analysis. Valid data were extracted, and the integrated analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. A total of 10 relevant studies, involving 677 subjects, were included. Of these, 341 patients were in the experimental group, and 336 were in the control group. The meta-analysis showed that PR significantly improved the forced expiratory volume in the first second after surgery (FEV1) [SMD=1.73, 95% CI: (0.52-2.94)], peak expiratory flow (PEF) [SMD=0.45, 95% CI: (0.12-0.78)], forced vital capacity (FVC) [SMD=4.31, 95% CI: (1.98-6.63)], and 6 min walking distance (6MWD) [SMD=1.64, 95% CI: (0.64-2.65)]. PR also reduced the incidence of postoperative complications [OR=0.28, 95% CI: (0.18-0.43)] and shortened the duration of postoperative hospitalization [SMD=-0.56, 95% CI: (-0.88 - -0.24)] in lung cancer patients undergoing thoracoscopic partial pulmonary resection. There was no significant difference in anxiety [SMD=-0.34, 95% CI: (-1.27-0.60)] or depression [SMD=-0.15, 95% CI: (-0.48-0.18)] between the two groups. PR improves lung function and exercise tolerance, reduces postoperative complications, and shortens postoperative hospital stays in lung cancer patients undergoing thoracoscopic partial pulmonary resection. However, its effect on reducing negative mood remains unclear. Due to the limitations in the number and quality of included studies, further high-quality studies are needed to validate these findings.

Effects of Preoperative High-Intensity Interval Training Combined With Team Empowerment Education in Lung Cancer Patients With Surgery: A Quasi-experimental Trial.

Cancer itself and surgery put a heavy burden on lung cancer patients, physiologically and psychologically. Enhancing self-efficacy during high-intensity interval training is essential for achieving the full benefit of pulmonary rehabilitation in lung cancer patients. This study aimed to explore the effects of high-intensity interval training combined with team empowerment education on patients with lung resection. This is a quasi-experimental trial with a pretest-posttest design. Participants were assigned to one of the 3 groups according to the order of admission: (1) combined intervention group, (2) intervention group, or (3) routine care group. The outcome measures included dyspnea, exercise capacity, exercise self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, postoperative indwelling time of thoracic drainage tube, and total in-hospital stay. Per-protocol results showed that dyspnea, exercise capacity, exercise self-efficacy, anxiety, and depression of the patients in the combined intervention group were significantly improved. However, no significant difference was observed in postoperative indwelling time of thoracic drainage tube or total in-hospital stay among the 3 groups. This hospital-based short-term high-intensity interval training combined with team empowerment education for lung cancer patients undergoing surgery was safe and feasible, indicating this program can be a promising strategy to manage perioperative symptoms. This study provides evidence supporting preoperative high-intensity interval training as a promising method to make the best use of preoperative time, thus improving adverse symptoms in lung cancer patients undergoing surgery, and also provides a new strategy to raise exercise self-efficacy and promote patients' rehabilitation.

The efficacy of three-ball breathing apparatus exercise based on the concept of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients after lung cancer surgery

BackgroundPostoperative patients with lung cancer mostly experience different degrees of dyspnea and decreased activity tolerance, and these symptoms all significantly affect postoperative quality of life. The concept of pulmonary rehabilitation applicable to patients with chronic respiratory diseases is also applicable to patients with postoperative lung cancer. The current application of postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation for lung cancer is inconsistent, and reliable guidelines are lacking. The purpose of this study was to further verify the efficacy and feasibility of postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation for lung cancer patients, and to find a suitable local pulmonary rehabilitation program for postoperative patients with lung cancer that is clinically promoted in our department through this study.MethodsWe collected the clinical data of patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) wedge resection or lobectomy. The patients were divided into rehabilitation group (using three-ball breathing apparatus after discharge) and control group (routine follow-up after discharge) according to whether the patients were trained with three-ball breathing apparatus after operation. The detailed method using three-ball apparatus is as follows. To begin with, patients are required to put themselves in a comfortable position. Then, after the three-ball breathing apparatus put on the same plane of their eyes, patients hold the tube in their mouth closely and control their breath slowly. When patients inhale to their largest extent, the balls will rise up accordingly. Then they exhale. The evaluation results of pulmonary function, activity tolerance, anxiety scores and others were collected. All data was gathered at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. The effects of pulmonary rehabilitation training on wedge resection and lobectomy were compared.ResultsA total of 210 patients were included in this study, including 126 patients with VATS wedge resection and 84 patients with VATS lobectomies. No discrepancy was noticed when FEV1 loss between two groups were compared in the wedge resection patients, and the same results were also shown in patients undergoing lobectomy (12.8% ± 2.0% vs. 12.7% ± 1.9%, P = 0.84, wedge resection; 12.6% ± 2.9% vs. 12.1% ± 1.8%, P = 0.37, lobectomy). The loss of FVC in the control group was greater than that in the rehabilitation group for patients undergoing lobectomy (11.7% ± 5.2%, vs. 17.1% ± 5.6%, P < 0.001, lobectomy). No difference was found in the wedge resection patients between the control and rehabilitation groups (6.6% ± 2.8%, vs. 6.4% ± 3.2%, P = 0.76, lobectomy). Moreover, all patients showed no significant difference in 6MWD regardless of surgical procedure and with or without breathing exercises at T3 (392.6 ± 50.6 m, rehabilitation group vs. 394.0 ± 46.6 m, control group. P = 0.87, wedge resection; 381.3 ± 38.9 m, rehabilitation group vs. 369.1 ± 49.3 m, control group. P = 0.21, lobectomy).ConclusionsFor patients after thoracoscopic pulmonary wedge resection, the use of three-ball apparatus did not significantly improve postoperative pulmonary function and activity tolerance, dyspnea, and anxiety symptoms. In patients after thoracoscopic lobectomy, respiratory trainers were able to improve postoperative lung function but were unable to significantly improve dyspnea and anxiety symptoms. There was a significant benefit for the use of three-ball apparatus in patients after thoracoscopic lobectomy, whereas there was no significant benefit for the use of respiratory trainers after wedge resection.Registry: Medical Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. Registration number: no. 2022455.

Rehabilitation for lung cancer patients undergoing surgery: results of the PUREAIR randomized trial.

Surgery for non-small cell lung cancer is proven to be the most effective treatment in early stages, although concerns exist on its negative impact on patients' overall fitness. To establish whether intensive pulmonary rehabilitation, preoperative and postoperative, improves exercise capacity in patients undergoing lung resection. Single center, unblinded, designed for superiority, 1:1 randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms. S. Maria Nuova Hospital of Reggio Emilia (Reggio Emilia, Italy). Patients referred from local lung cancer multidisciplinary team for lung resection. Patients were randomized to either standard of care (SC) or SC + intensive perioperative pulmonary rehabilitation (SC+PR). The primary aim was to investigate the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving exercise capacity six months after surgery. Additionally, we wanted to investigate the same effect shortly after surgery (at one month), as well as the overall impact of rehabilitation on lung function, postoperative complications and length of stay, quality of life, mood disturbances and pain. Sample was sized based on the primary outcome assuming a minimal clinically significant difference of 25 meters in exercise tolerance, measured with 6 minutes walking test. The exercise tolerance at 6 months after surgery was significantly higher in patients undertaking PR compared to SC (+48.9 meters vs. -7.5 meters respectively, difference: +56.4 meters, 95% CI: 29.6-83.0, P<0.001) and it showed significantly lower impairment at 1 month after surgery in the intervention group (-3.0 meters vs. -30.1 meters difference: +27.1 meters, 95% CI: 3.4-50.8, P=0.025). No other significant differences between groups were found. Comparison between groups showed that pulmonary rehabilitation, administered pre and postoperatively, significantly improved exercise capacity at 6 months in patients undergoing lung resection; it also significantly reduced the decrease in exercise tolerance observed 1 month after surgery. The PUREAIR trial highlights the importance of combined preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation in reducing physical deconditioning in lung cancer patients undergoing surgery. Comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation improves exercise capacity at 1 and 6 months after surgery. The PUREAIR trial results increase knowledge on comprehensive rehabilitation's outcomes in the first six months after surgery.

Development of an index system for evaluating enhanced recovery after lung cancer surgery based on Donabedian Model

Objective To establish a scientific and reasonable evaluation index system of perioperative accelerated rehabilitation for lung cancer patients. Methods From March 2018 to January 2019, based on the Donabedian model, the evaluation index system of perioperative accelerated rehabilitation of lung cancer patients was established through literature review, semi-structured interview and Delphi methods. Results The authority coefficients of experts was 0.89, and the Kendall coordination coefficient was 0.411. After two rounds of inquiry, the evaluation index system of perioperative accelerated rehabilitation for lung cancer patients includes 3 primary indicators, 10 secondary indicators and 55 tertiary indicators. Conclusions Based on Donabedian model, the evaluation index system of perioperative accelerated rehabilitation of lung cancer patients is scientific and practical, which can provide scientific basis for the quality evaluation of perioperative accelerated rehabilitation of lung cancer patients.. Key words: Lung neoplasms; Enhanced recovery; Evaluation index; Delphi method; Donabedian Model

Preoperative Rehabilitation in Lung Cancer Patients: Yoga Approach.

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Surgical removal remains the best option for most tumors of this type. Reduction of cigarette consumption in patients with lung cancer candidates for the surgery could limit the impact of tobacco on postsurgical outcomes. Breathing exercises appear to help combat cigarette cravings. Yoga exercise benefits have been studied in lung cancer survivors, rather than in the preoperative setting. In this study, we have recruited 32 active smokers affected by lung cancer and being candidates for pulmonary surgery. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups: one treated by standard breathing and the other treated by yoga breathing (YB). The groups were evaluated at times T0 (baseline) and T1 (after 7days of treatment) to compare the effects of the two breathing treatments on pulmonary performance in a presurgery setting. Pulmonary and cardiocirculatory functions have been tested using a self-calibrating computerized spirometer and a portable pulse oximetry device. The findings demonstrate appreciable short-term improvement in lung function assessed by spirometry. We conclude that yoga breathing can be a beneficial preoperative support for thoracic surgery.

Short-term inpatient-based high-intensive pulmonary rehabilitation for lung cancer patients: is it feasible and effective?

This study was conducted to develop a preoperative in-hospital short-term rehabilitation program for surgical lung cancer patients, and investigate its feasibility, potential cost benefit and effectiveness on outcome measures including reduction of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) and postoperative length of stay. A 7-day inpatient-based high-intensive rehabilitation regimen was performed between March 01, 2014 and June 30, 2015. It was combined with inspiratory muscles training (IMT) and aerobic endurance training and was tested in an enriched cohort study with 939 lung cancer patients undergoing lobectomy in a regional thoracic unit. Finally, 939 patients were divided into pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) group (n=197) and non-PR (NPR) group (n=742), according to whether they received the 7-day preoperative in-hospital systematic rehabilitation. The PR group had a shorter total length of stay (14.7±4.0 vs. 16.7±6.2 days, P<0.001) as well as postoperative length of stay (6.2±3.3 vs. 8.3±5.6 days, P<0.001) than the NPR group. Lower incidences of total PPCs (18.3%, 36/197 vs. 26.1%, 194/742, P=0.022), pneumonia (11.2%, 22/197 vs. 17.3%, 128/742, P=0.024) and atelectasis (6.6%, 13/197 vs. 12.3%, 91/742, P=0.038) were found in the PR group compared with NPR group. Meanwhile, a multivariable analysis of risk to PPCs, atelectasis and pneumonia, revealed that the PR intervention was the independent risk factor of the occurrence of the PPCs (OR =0.57, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.93, P=0.033) and atelectasis (OR =0.49, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.91, P=0.024). The study showed the effectiveness of this systematic and high-intensive PR combining IMT and aerobic exercise in reductions of the length of stay and occurrence of PPCs without increase in in-hospital cost, suggesting the potential of this rehabilitation pattern as a practicable strategy performed preoperatively in surgical lung cancer patients.

Preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation for marginal-function lung cancer patients.

Background This study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation in lung cancer patients undergoing pulmonary resection surgery with marginal lung function. Methods Short-term outcomes of 42 patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s < 1.6 L who underwent lung resection between 01/2006 and 12/2010 were reviewed retrospectively. They were divided into group A (no preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation) and group B (receiving pulmonary rehabilitation). In group B, a second set of pulmonary function tests was obtained. Results There were no significant differences in terms of sex, age, race, pathologic stage, operative procedure, or smoking years. Mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide in group A was 1.40 ± 0.22 L and 10.28 ± 2.64 g∙dL-1 vs. 1.39 ± 0.13 L and 10.75 ± 2.08 g∙dL-1 in group B. Group B showed significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 s from 1.39 ± 0.13 to 1.55 ± 0.06 L ( p = 0.02). Mean intensive care unit stay was 6 ± 5 days in group A vs. 9 ± 9 days in group B ( p = 0.22). Mean hospital stay was 10 ± 4 days in group A vs. 14 ± 9 days in group B ( p = 0.31). There was no significant difference in morbidity or mortality between groups. Conclusion Preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation can significantly improve forced expiratory volume in 1 s in some marginal patients undergoing lung cancer resection. However, it does not improve length of stay, morbidity, or mortality.

慢性閉塞性肺疾患（COPD）合併肺癌の術前評価と呼吸リハビリテーション

慢性閉塞性肺疾患（COPD）合併肺癌の術前評価と呼吸リハビリテーション

Lung cancer and rehabilitation—what are the barriers? Results of a questionnaire survey and the development of regional lung cancer rehabilitation standards and guidelines

Evidence supports the role of rehabilitation in the management of lung cancer symptoms. Previous research reports that rehabilitation needs are inadequately recognised and managed, which may adversely affect patients' quality-of-life and create burden for caregivers. This study aims to explore the perceptions of palliative care and respiratory multidisciplinary team (MDT) members about the role of rehabilitation for lung cancer patients, examine patterns of referral for lung cancer patients to rehabilitation services, and highlight the barriers which prevent the referral of lung cancer patients to rehabilitation services. Questionnaires were completed by MDT members within a regional cancer network during June 2010. Fifty-nine healthcare professionals participated. Ninety-four per cent of respondents perceived their patients had rehabilitation needs. Referral most commonly occurred during the palliative (29.6 %) and post-treatment (23.7 %) disease phases. Barriers to referral included "lack of knowledge of services or referral mechanisms" (28.8 %), "waiting lists" (28.8 %) and the perception that patients "do not desire rehabilitation" (22 %). Rehabilitation needs were most frequently discussed at palliative in-patient MDT meetings [reported as "often" by 37 (62.7 %) respondents] and least discussed at lung MDTs (half of respondents reporting that rehabilitation was "never" discussed). Rehabilitation services were considered adequate by 39 % of respondents. Long waiting times and lack of knowledge of services are among several factors that may prevent lung cancer patients being offered rehabilitation. In order to improve the quality of care delivered to cancer patients, it is important to remove barriers that affect delivery of rehabilitation services.