Commentary: importance of considering sex and gender when designing cancer care programs.

Due to perceived methodological complications, scientific studies have often excluded females. As a result, male-based findings have been generalized to females, despite physiological and biological differences between sexes. Gender has been even less considered in the literature, with little exploration specifically beyond traditional man/woman representation. This practice is compounded by a lack of what sex and gender encompass, including their erroneous use as synonyms. Sex- and gender-based differences, which are not clearly defined and recognized in scientific literature, are disregarded in health care delivery and, specifically relevant to the focus of this commentary, the development of cancer care programs. Conversely, accounting for sex- and gender in anti-cancer treatments and pathways can help create effective and personalized programming which could lead to an increased likelihood of adoption and adherence to treatment protocols. Although sex- and gender-specific programming may not be necessary in all situations, awareness of the concepts and possible impact on cancer care programs is paramount as more inclusive and personalized methodologies take shape. The goals of this commentary are to (a) clarify the terms sex and gender and (b) raise awareness of their applications and considerations for cancer care program design.

Multimodal Prehabilitation for Patients Undergoing Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Surgery: A Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Elective treatment options for aortic abdominal aneurysms include open repair or the less-invasive endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Recovery from EVAR is generally considered easier and faster than open repair. Despite this, EVAR remains a major procedure, and average return to preoperative quality of life is at least 3 months. The purpose of this study is to determine the safety and feasibility of multimodal prehabilitation, a multidisciplinary preoperative optimization intervention, in patients undergoing EVAR and its impact on perioperative functional capacity and quality of life. METHODS: Candidates for EVAR with an infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysm <7.5cm were invited to participate in a 6-week multimodal prehabilitation program that included (1) supervised and home-based exercise, (2) nutritional support, (3) psychosocial support, and (4) smoking cessation. Functional capacity and quality of life were assessed at baseline, before surgery and 6 weeks postoperatively. Recruitment rate, safety, and compliance were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients were included, 17 males (70%) and 7 females (30%). No adverse events occurred during the program. Compliance to each component of the program (median [Q1-Q3]) was 66% [67] for supervised training, 100% [67] for home-based training, and 100% [100] for nutrition. The multimodal prehabilitation program elicited a significant increase in functional capacity and quality of life preoperatively. CONCLUSION: Multimodal prehabilitation for patients awaiting EVAR is feasible and safe. Multimodal prehabilitation improves both functional capacity and quality of life preoperatively. Further research is needed to assess the impact of multimodal prehabilitation on postoperative quality of life and functional capacity. CLINICAL IMPACT: Multimodal prehabilitation is safe and feasible in patients awaiting endovascular aneurysm repair. The importance of this finding is that multimodal prehabilitation can be safely delivered preoperatively in patients awaiting EVAR. Although further research is needed, multimodal prehabilitation seems to improve preoperative functional capacity and quality of life. This could have an impact for the future implementation of prehabilitation interventions in order to increase functional reserve and quality of life preoperatively so that this high-risk population can cope better with the surgical stress and return to their normal life faster postoperatively.