Search

To examine the prevalence, severity, and co-occurrence of SPPADE symptoms as well as their association with cancer type and patient characteristics. The SPPADE symptoms (sleep disturbance, pain, physical function impairment, anxiety, depression, and low energy /fatigue) are prevalent, co-occurring, and undertreated in oncology and other clinical populations. Baseline SPPADE symptom data were analyzed from the E2C2 study, a stepped wedge pragmatic, population-level, cluster randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate a guideline-informed symptom management model targeting the six SPPADE symptoms. Symptom prevalence and severity were measured with a 0–10 numeric rating (NRS) scale for each of the six symptoms. Prevalence of severe (NRS ≥ 7) and potential clinically relevant (NRS ≥ 5) symptoms as well as co-occurrence of clinical symptoms were determined. Distribution-based methods were used to estimate the minimally important difference (MID). Associations of cancer type and patient characteristics with a SPPADE composite score were analyzed. A total of 31,886 patients were assessed for SPPADE symptoms prior to, during, or soon after an outpatient medical oncology encounter. The proportion of patients with a potential clinically relevant symptom ranged from 17.5% for depression to 33.4% for fatigue. Co-occurrence of symptoms was high, with the proportion of patients with three or more additional clinically relevant symptoms ranging from 45.2% for fatigue to 68.6% for depression. The summed SPPADE composite score demonstrated good internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha of 0.86), with preliminary MID estimates of 4.1–4.3. Symptom burden differed across several types of cancer but was generally similar across most sociodemographic characteristics. The high prevalence and co-occurrence of SPPADE symptoms in patients with all types of cancer warrants clinical approaches that optimize detection and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Significant benefit for ONB if compared to ICUD was detected only for specific subdomains of QoL questionnaires. • No direct comparison between ICUD/ONB and TMT is available. • These data should be used in clinical practice to empower patients in deciding about local treatment choice. Radical cystectomy (RC) is considered the standard treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, RC is often burdened by significant impact on quality of life (QoL); Continence preserving methods (e.g., continent cutaneous urinary diversion and orthotopic neobladder-ONB), have been proposed as alternatives to improve postoperative QoL. Trimodal therapy (TMT) emerged as alternative to surgery. To assess the impact of these treatments from the patients' perspective, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature, focusing on studies reporting QoL data about each of the abovementioned approaches. A systematic review was carried out including all prospective and retrospective studies enrolling patients treated with radical intent for non-metastatic MIBC from 1999 to 2021 (either RC or TMT). All studies included specifically reported QoL for one of the main treatment approaches explored (RC followed by ileal conduit urinary diversion-ICUD, ONB or TMT). Pooled analysis for EORTC QLQ-C30 and BLM-30 questionnaires showed that ONB yielded a significant advantage only for Physical Functioning (pooled mean standardized difference −0.73 SD, p-value 0.019, I 2 = 93 %) and for Emotional Functioning (pooled mean standardized difference −0.16 SD, p-value 0.029, I 2 = 0 %). A trend in favour of higher mean reported values after TMT for Global Health Score, Physical Functioning and Role Functioning was found, if compared to both RC approaches. Significant benefit for ONB if compared to ICUD was detected only for specific subdomains of QoL questionnaires. No direct comparison with TMT is available, but data suggest advantage of this approach when compared to both reconstructive scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background App-based strategies are a promising solution to deliver nutrition and exercise interventions during social distancing. With limited RCT data in individuals with chronic disease, further information is required both to determine impact, and to guide delivery. The Heal-Me app is an evidence-based, theoretically informed nutrition and exercise solution that can be tailored for use across a range of individuals with chronic disease. As compared to controls receiving educational material, the aim of this study is to assess the acceptability, effectiveness, and cost of Heal-Me app programming delivered alongside two levels of dietitian and exercise-specialist support. Methods Heal-Me PiONEer is a 12-week, 3-arm RCT with randomization to one of three study groups (n=72 per group, 216 total). Group 1 (control: educational material), Group 2 (Heal-Me app + virtual group dietitian/exercise-specialist sessions), Group 3 (Heal-Me app + virtual group and 1-to-1 dietitian/exercise-specialist sessions). Inclusion criteria: adults with cancer, chronic lung disease or status post-transplantation from liver or lung transplant; previous completion of an exercise rehabilitation program; access to an internet-connected device. Study outcomes measured at study weeks 0 and 12 include: Primary - Lower Extremity Functional Scale; Secondary – virtual physical function tests, loneliness, resilience, anxiety, well-being and health-related quality of life; Exploratory outcomes – protein intake, behavioral beliefs around exercise and nutrition, adherence, adverse events, acceptability, and cost-utility. Conclusions The Heal-Me PiONEer RCT holds promise to provide a comprehensive understanding of the delivery and impact of app-based nutrition and exercise programming in a diverse group of participants with chronic disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, new challenges are presented in clinical research settings to increase exercise levels, particularly in vulnerable populations such as cancer survivors. While in-person supervised exercise is an effective format to improve patient-reported outcomes and physical function for cancer survivors, the COVID-19 pandemic limited this form of exercise as a feasible option within research and cancer care. As such, exercise oncology interventions were adapted to home-based instruction. In this review, we examine the current evidence of exercise interventions in cancer populations during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified that group-based virtually supervised home-based exercise was the most used format among exercise oncology interventions during the pandemic. Preliminary results support feasibility and effectiveness of this emerging exercise setting in cancer survivors; however, it needs to be further investigated in adequately designed larger trials. Additionally, we provide recommendations and perspective for the implementation of virtually supervised home-based exercise. [Display omitted] • The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a transition to home-based exercise interventions in cancer survivors. • Virtually supervised group-based exercise interventions were the most common format among exercise oncology interventions during COVID-19. • Preliminary results suggest feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of virtually supervised exercise. • We provide recommendations and perspectives for the implementation of virtually supervised exercise in future exercise oncology trials. • There is a need to develop high-quality research in exercise oncology to support cancer survivors beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer patients undergoing surgery are often left physically deconditioned and/or with functional deficits. Exercise interventions may improve pulmonary and physical function before and after lung resection. We conducted a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) testing the impact of pre-, post-, and combined pre-and-post surgery exercise interventions on physical and pulmonary function in lung cancer patients. Exercise pre-surgery seems to substantially improve physical and pulmonary function, which are factors associated with improved ability to undergo surgery while reducing post-surgery complications. Evidence is inconsistent for post-surgery interventions, reporting no or moderate effects. Results from pre-and-post surgery interventions are limited to one study. In conclusion, pre- and post-surgery exercise interventions, individually, have shown beneficial effects for lung cancer patients undergoing surgery. The impact of interventions combining both pre- and post-surgery exercise programs remains unknown. More evidence is needed on the ideal exercise setting, and timing across the lung cancer care continuum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]