The influence of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions on disability: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To characterize delivery features and explore effectiveness of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions that address disability in adult cancer survivors. METHODS: A systematic review of electronic databases (CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library: Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, National Health Service's Health Technology Assessment, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) was conducted in December 2019 and updated in April 2021. RESULTS: Searches identified 3,499 unique studies. Sixty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. There were 81 unique interventions across included studies. Interventions were primarily delivered post-treatment and lasted an average of 16.5 weeks (SD = 13.1). They were most frequently delivered using telephone calls (59%), administered delivered by nursing professionals (35%), and delivered in a one-on-one format (88%). Risk of bias of included studies was primarily moderate to high. Included studies captured 55 measures of disability. Only 54% of reported outcomes had data that allowed calculation of effect sizes ranging -3.58 to 15.66. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses suggest small effects of telehealth-based cancer interventions on disability, though the heterogeneity seen in the measurement of disability makes it hard to draw firm conclusions. Further research using more diverse samples, common measures of disability, and pragmatic study designs is needed to advance telehealth in cancer rehabilitation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions have the potential to increase access to care designed to reduce disability across the cancer care continuum.

Exercise, Diet, and Weight Management During Cancer Treatment: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance on exercise, diet, and weight management during active cancer treatment in adults. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature identified systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of aerobic and resistance exercise, specific diets and foods, and intentional weight loss and avoidance of weight gain in adults during cancer treatment, on quality of life, treatment toxicity, and cancer control. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to May 2021. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The evidence base consisted of 52 systematic reviews (42 for exercise, nine for diet, and one for weight management), and an additional 23 randomized controlled trials. The most commonly studied types of cancer were breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal. Exercise during cancer treatment led to improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, fatigue, and other patient-reported outcomes. Preoperative exercise in patients with lung cancer led to a reduction in postoperative length of hospital stay and complications. Neutropenic diets did not decrease risk of infection during cancer treatment. RECOMMENDATIONS: Oncology providers should recommend regular aerobic and resistance exercise during active treatment with curative intent and may recommend preoperative exercise for patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer. Neutropenic diets are not recommended to prevent infection in patients with cancer during active treatment. Evidence for other dietary and weight loss interventions during cancer treatment was very limited. The guideline discusses special considerations, such as exercise in individuals with advanced cancer, and highlights the critical need for more research in this area, particularly regarding diet and weight loss interventions during cancer treatment.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Systematic Review of Functional Outcomes in Cancer Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence regarding rehabilitation interventions targeting optimal physical or cognitive function in adults with a history of cancer and describe the breadth of evidence as well as strengths and limitations across a range of functional domains. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. The time scope was January 2008 to April 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective, controlled trials including single- and multiarm cohorts investigating rehabilitative interventions for cancer survivors at any point in the continuum of care were included, if studies included a primary functional outcome measure. Secondary data analyses and pilot/feasibility studies were excluded. Full-text review identified 362 studies for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Extraction was performed by coauthor teams and quality and bias assessed using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Classification of Evidence Scheme (class I-IV). DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies for which the functional primary endpoint achieved significance were categorized into 9 functional areas foundational to cancer rehabilitation: (1) quality of life (109 studies), (2) activities of daily living (61 studies), (3) fatigue (59 studies), (4) functional mobility (55 studies), (5) exercise behavior (37 studies), (6) cognition (20 studies), (7) communication (10 studies), (8) sexual function (6 studies), and (9) return to work (5 studies). Most studies were categorized as class III in quality/bias. Averaging results found within each of the functional domains, 71% of studies reported statistically significant results after cancer rehabilitation intervention(s) for at least 1 functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence supporting the efficacy of rehabilitative interventions for individuals with a cancer history. The findings should be balanced with the understanding that many studies had moderate risk of bias and/or limitations in study quality by AAN criteria. These results may provide a foundation for future work to establish clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitative interventions across cancer disease types.

The Feasibility of Community-Based, Supervised Exercise Programs to Engage and Monitor Patients in a Postrehabilitation Setting.

Objective. To evaluate the feasibility of disease-specific, community-based supervised exercise programs (CSEPs) to improve biometric and functional outcomes among persons with a variety of chronic medical conditions. Design. Feasibility, cohort study. Subjects were recruited through community placed flyers and provider offices. Exercise programs consisted of aerobic and resistance training that adhered to American College of Sports Medicine guidelines. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess program outcomes. Setting. Ten, community-based, medical fitness centers. Subjects. A total of 382 total participants. The number of participants in each CSEP ranged from 38 to 119. Individuals were 18 years of age or older and treated for various chronic medical conditions. Results. Varied by cohort, but generally consisted of (a) favorable changes in body composition ( P < .05), (b) significant improvements in submaximal exercise tolerance and functional outcome measures ( P < .05), and (3) significant increase in self-reported exercise behaviors ( P < .05). Conclusion. CSEPs improve outcomes in patients with chronic medical conditions and may be relevant within the continuum of care in outpatient rehabilitation medicine, particularly among bundled or value-based payment models. Further research is needed to evaluate outcomes from CSEPs versus controls.

Consensus-Building efforts to identify best tools for screening and assessment for supportive services in oncology.

Purpose: To build consensus around an optimal patient-reported outcome measure of cancer symptoms and patient needs to facilitate patient-provider communication and trigger referrals to supportive services.Methods and materials: The Grid-Enabled Measures platform was used to crowdsource and facilitate collaboration to achieve consensus. Respondents were invited to nominate and independently rate the usefulness of measures that: (1) have been actively used at a healthcare institution, (2) have a multiple choice or yes/no type format, (3) are applicable to adults with cancer, (4) are patient-reported, and 5) have psychometric data if possible. Discussion boards within the GEM workspace allowed respondents to identify barriers to implementing patient assessment and referral systems.Results: 166 individuals from various disciplines from 25 organizations participated. Six instruments were nominated, and 553 rating surveys were submitted. The three most highly-rated overall instruments were the Distress Thermometer, the James Supportive Case Screening, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Participants noted that wide-scale implementation of this process requires both identifying problems and providing clinicians with algorithms to facilitate appropriate referrals.Conclusions: Consensus reported three most highly-related measures as optimal for comprehensive screening and identification for referral by assessing multiple domains of functioning and quality of life.Implications for RehabilitationGaining consensus on the best patient reported outcome measures is an important step towards improving access to cancer rehabilitation services.A consensus agreed on several measures to use for cancer rehabilitation screening. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, National Comprehensive Cancer. Network Distress Thermometer and the James Instrument.The selected measures do not put undue burden on clinicians and patients.

Follow the trail: Using insights from the growth of palliative care to propose a roadmap for cancer rehabilitation.

Despite research explicating the benefits of cancer rehabilitation interventions to optimize physical, social, emotional, and vocational functioning, many reports document low rates of referral to and uptake of rehabilitation in oncology. Cancer rehabilitation clinicians, researchers, and policy makers could learn from the multidisciplinary specialty of palliative care, which has benefited from a growth strategy and has garnered national recognition as an important and necessary aspect of oncology care. The purpose of this article is to explore the actions that have increased the uptake and integration of palliative care to yield insights and multimodal strategies for the development and growth of cancer rehabilitation. After examining the history of palliative care and its growth, the authors highlight 5 key strategies that may benefit the field of cancer rehabilitation: 1) stimulating the science in specific gap areas; 2) creating clinical practice guidelines; 3) building clinical capacity; 4) ascertaining and responding to public opinion; and 5) advocating for public policy change. Coordinated and simultaneous advances on these 5 strategies may catalyze the growth, utilization, and effectiveness of patient screening, timely referrals, and delivery of appropriate cancer rehabilitation care that reduces disability and improves quality of life for cancer survivors who need these services.

Delphi Study to Determine Rehabilitation Research Priorities for Older Adults With Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To solicit expert opinions and develop consensus around the research that is needed to improve cancer rehabilitation for older adults. DESIGN: Delphi methods provided a structured process to elicit and prioritize research questions from national experts. SETTING: National, Web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Members (N=32) of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine completed at least 1 of 3 investigator-developed surveys. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In the first survey, participants identified up to 5 research questions that needed to be answered to improve cancer rehabilitation for older adults. In 2 subsequent surveys, participants viewed the compilation of questions, rated the importance of each question, and identified the 5 most important questions. This generated priority scores for each question. Consensus scores were created to describe the degree of agreement around the priority of each question. RESULTS: Highest priority research concerns the epidemiology and measurement of function and disability in older adult cancer survivors; the effects of cancer rehabilitation interventions on falls, disability, participation, survival, costs, quality of care, and health care utilization; and testing models of care that facilitate referrals from oncology to rehabilitation providers as part of coordinated, multicomponent care. CONCLUSIONS: A multipronged approach is needed to fill these gaps, including targeted funding opportunities developed with an advisory panel of cancer rehabilitation experts, development of a research network to facilitate novel collaborations and grant proposals, and coordinated efforts of clinical groups to advocate for funding, practice change, and policy change.