ABSTRACT
Background: Surgery is the standard treatment for early-stage colorectal and upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers. Prehabilitation aims to improve preoperative functional reserves through physical, nutritional, and/or psychological interventions. We aimed to evaluate the implementation of a multimodal prehabilitation program in gastrointestinal cancer surgery patients. Method(s): Single-arm implementation trial using a pre-post study design. Colorectal or UGI cancer patients scheduled for curative intent surgery at Concord Hospital, with >=14 days pre-surgery were recruited. Intervention delivered face-toface or by telehealth (COVID adaptations): 2-4-week program consisting of: i) supervised exercise (minimum 1/week);ii) dietary education session and daily high protein supplement;iii) weekly nursing support. Assessments: baseline, pre-surgery, and 30-days post-surgery. Primary Outcome: implementation using RE-AIM (Reach/Efficacy/Adoption/Implementation/ Maintenance) framework. Secondary outcomes included functional capacity, nutritional and psychological status changes. Result(s): Total 198 were screened over 16 months;100 (51%) were eligible. Reach/representativeness: 77/100 recruited (64 colorectal, 13 UGI). Mean (SD) age 67 (12.4) years;46 (60%) males. Median intervention duration 16 days (IQR:8). Adoption: 91% (70/77) referrals directly from surgeons. Implementation: 72/77 completed the intervention (34% of assessments and intervention sessions delivered by telehealth). Five withdrew: psychological stress (n = 2), medical (n = 1), disease progression (n = 1), noncompliance COVID precautions (n = 1). Adherence to all modalities was 34% (64% exercise, 81% nutrition, 63% nursing). Adherence rate for 31/35 patients was affected by staff unavailability. Efficacy: Functional capacity (mean 6-minute walk test) change from baseline to pre-surgery 464.4-471.7m(p=.775);and baseline to after surgery 464.4 to 482m(p = .052). No significant changes were seen in nutritional and psychological outcomes. Patient satisfaction:96%strongly recommended prehabilitation. Clinician satisfaction was high. Conclusion(s): Our results show a brief prehabilitation intervention (exercise, nutrition, psychological support) can be successfully implemented in a real-world setting;with a trend to improvement in functional capacity. Prehabilitation is an opportunity to optimize patients' function before gastrointestinal cancer surgery.
ABSTRACT
Background: Treatment options for patients with HSPC have broadened, and data regarding patient preferences for therapies can aid in therapeutic decision-making. This study evaluated the impact of attributes associated with therapies for US patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC) or metastatic HSPC (mHSPC) from the perspective of patient preferences. Methods: An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was developed for patients with LAPC or mHSPC. The DCE included 12 questions designed to systematically require tradeoffs between treatment attributes of efficacy (5-year overall survival [OS]), tolerability (fatigue, skin rash, neurotoxicity, and common chemotherapy-related toxicity), and convenience (administration factors [route, frequency, and setting], concomitant use of steroids, and monitoring requirements). Respondents could choose androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone or with hypothetical therapies that improved 5-year OS but had additional adverse events (AEs). Attribute-specific importance weights measuring their relative impact on treatment choices were estimated using a mixed-logit model, which also controlled for heterogeneity in preferences. Results: From September 3 to October 14, 2021, 82 respondents (mean age 61 years) completed the survey (LAPC, n = 40;mHSPC, n = 42), with 61 (74.4%) receiving ADT at the time of the survey. Respondents reported treatment efficacy (36% [95% confidence interval (CI) 22, 49]) as the most important aspect of treatment choice, followed by changes in chemotherapy-related toxicity (13% [95% CI 3, 22]) and the need for concomitant steroid use (12% [95% CI 5, 19]). Respondents considered monitoring requirements (8% [95% CI 5, 19]) to be more important than fatigue (5% [95% CI 2, 13]). Administration factors were comparable in importance to therapy AEs (Table). Respondents preferred, by at least 10 percentage points, adding therapies to ADT that could improve 5-year OS, at the detriment of additional AEs. Conclusions: After efficacy, convenience was considered to impact treatment choices at a rate comparable to tolerability issues, potentially influenced by perceived COVID-19 exposure risks. Patients with LAPC and mHSPC prioritize efficacy despite the detriment of additional AEs.