Liam Humphreys

Introduction A core screening, assessment and outcome set is needed in cancer prehabilitation to standardise what is measured in both research and services. Currently, there is significant variation in measures used, which limits comparability between studies and evidence synthesis. Standardising measures will improve the quality, comparability and impact of research by reducing heterogeneity between studies, minimising reporting bias, improving trial efficiency, enabling data synthesis into large datasets, supporting international collaboration and data sharing, and accelerating the implementation of best practices. Methods and analysis An international Delphi consensus process will be conducted involving patients, healthcare professionals and researchers to identify screening, assessment and outcomes and their corresponding measurement instruments, to be included in a core set. The study consists of three phases: (1) A scoping review to identify screening, assessment and outcomes and associated measurement instruments currently used in cancer prehabilitation. (2) At least two rounds of a modified Delphi survey to prioritise the identified screening, assessment and outcomes using a 1–9 Likert scale. Consensus will be defined across stakeholder groups using prespecified thresholds. A consensus meeting will be held if agreement is not reached. (3) Measurement instruments corresponding to each retained screening, assessment and outcome will be assessed for quality for measurement properties and feasibility. Further Delphi rounds will be conducted to reach consensus on the most appropriate measurement instrument for each core screening, assessment and outcome. Ethics and dissemination The study has ethical approval (Ref: 25/NW/0159). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, stakeholder networks and made publicly available via the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database.

Introduction: Research suggests that multi-modal prehabilitation can improve quality of life and clinical outcomes. There is limited evidence, however, on the effect of prehabilitation on hospital resource use. Materials and Methods: Patients receiving surgery for colorectal, lung or upper gastrointestinal cancer between January 2022 and March 2024, were referred to a multi-modal prehabilitation service (Active Together). Patients who declined to participate in Active Together and historical patient data (2017-2021) were used as comparator groups. Outcome measures were length of hospital stay, length of critical care stay, the total number of days spent in hospital as a readmission in the 90 days following surgery, and one-year survival rate. Results: 305 patients completed prehabilitation, 96 patients declined to join the service, and 869 patients were included in the historical dataset. Active Together colorectal patients spent less time in critical care than historical colorectal patients (0.9 vs 1.2 days, p = 0.011). Whereas Active Together lung patients spent longer in critical care than historical lung patients (2.5 vs 1.7 days, p < 0.001). One-year survival rate was greater in Active Together patients compared to the declined group (95% vs 85%, p= 0.013), and not significantly different from the historical group (95% vs 92%, p= 0.14). The probability of the prehabilitation being cost saving was 58%, 60%, and 59% for colorectal, lung and upper gastrointestinal patients, respectively. Conclusion: Prehabilitation has a limited effect on healthcare resource use and may improve one-year survival. Further research with large sample sizes is required to confirm small differences.

Background Cancer and its treatment can negatively impact physical function, general well-being and quality of life. An evidence-based strategy to manage this is to prescribe exercise. One approach is to prescribe exercise prehabilitation to improve pretreatment health and function. However, current exercise prehabilitation programmes are under-researched, and the quality of their reporting has not been systematically assessed. Objectives This review aimed to identify the following: the characteristics of prehabilitation exercise programmes; how intensity, physical function, patient-reported outcomes and treatment-related outcomes were measured; the quality of reporting and programme implementation. Eligibility criteria Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported a cancer prehabilitation exercise intervention, reported outcomes relating to physical function and patient-reported outcomes, and full-text copies were available in English. Sources of evidence PubMed, Mednar and Scopus were screened for studies from inception until 4 of April 2024. Charting methods Exercise characteristics were extracted and manually charted in Microsoft Excel using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. The tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise (TESTEX) framework was used to assess study quality and intervention reporting. Results 1495 results were retrieved, 28 of which were included. Exercise sessions lasted a mean of 42.5±21.9 min and were completed 3.7±1.3 times per week. 22 studies implemented concurrent exercise, five prescribed aerobic, and one prescribed resistance. High-intensity exercise was prescribed in four studies, moderate-high in 12, seven prescribed moderate, three prescribed low-moderate, and one was low intensity. 10 studies prescribed exercise intensity using the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale, five prescribed heart rate (HR) zones, six used a set workload, and seven did not monitor intensity. A mean TESTEX score of 9.3±2.3 out of 15 was achieved. The lowest scoring criterion (n=3) related to the reporting of the exercise dose. Conclusions There was heterogeneity among studies regarding exercise intervention characteristics and measures of effectiveness. The overall quality of reporting was satisfactory, yet inconsistencies were apparent regarding quantifying and monitoring exercise dose, which limits the ability of researchers and clinicians to replicate, evaluate or scale cancer prehabilitation exercise interventions, impeding evidence-based practice. As such, to be able to optimise cancer prehabilitation exercise programmes, research must first focus on improving the quality of reporting and standardising outcome measures and methods of monitoring and prescribing exercise.

Summary: Introduction: Prehabilitation aims to improve physiological reserve and psychological resilience, enabling patients to better tolerate the physiological stress of major surgery, thereby reducing the risk of complications and improving surgical outcomes. In this review, we provide an update of the development of prehabilitation in patients having cancer surgery. Methods: We searched databases of peer‐reviewed research to identify appropriate papers. Keywords comprised ‘prehabilitation’, ‘cancer surgery’ and associated synonyms (prehab; pre‐operative rehabilitation; cancer). The results were combined with articles identified by reviewing the references of key papers and the use of the grey literature to develop our discussion. Results: We detail the different elements of prehabilitation (exercise, nutrition, psychological support) relevant to patients with cancer undergoing surgery, focusing on the recent evidence base and ongoing challenges. Within this, we consider the role of behaviour change in enabling patients to undertake prehabilitation interventions and reflect on the different models of prehabilitation that have been utilised. Facilitators and barriers to implementation of prehabilitation are explored. Key findings include positioning prehabilitation as an integral part of the oncological surgical pathway which includes, but is discrete from, medical optimisation. Discussion: Prehabilitation has the potential to improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing cancer surgery. Further evidence is needed to understand how and what we provide to patients as optimal exercise, nutrition and psychological interventions as part of their surgical care, and how we improve long‐term lifestyle using behaviour change methodology. Digital technology offers the opportunity for scaling and greater personalisation of prehabilitation but needs to be deliberately fashioned to ensure equitable access.

Background: Approximately 3 million people in the United Kingdom are currently living with or beyond cancer. People undergoing treatment for cancer are at risk of complications following treatment. Increasing evidence supports the role of rehabilitation (including prehabilitation) in enhancing psychological and physical well-being in patients with cancer and improving outcomes. Active Together is an evidence-based, multimodal rehabilitation service for patients with cancer, providing support to help patients prepare for and recover from treatment. This paper presents the evaluation protocol for the Active Together service, aiming to determine its impact on patient-reported outcomes and clinical endpoints, as well as understand processes and mechanisms that influence its delivery and outcomes. Methods: This evaluation comprises an outcome and process evaluation, with service implementation data integrated into the analysis of outcome measures. The outcome evaluation will assess changes in outcomes of patients that attend the service and compare health care resource use against historical data. The process evaluation will use performance indicators, semistructured interviews, and focus groups to explore mechanisms of action and contextual factors influencing delivery and outcomes. Integrating psychological change mechanisms with outcome data might help to clarify complex causal pathways within the service. Conclusions: Evidence to support the role of multimodal rehabilitation before, during, and after cancer treatment is increasing. The translation of that evidence into practice is less advanced. Findings from this evaluation will contribute to our understanding of the real-world impact of cancer rehabilitation and strengthen the case for widespread adoption of rehabilitation into routine care for people with cancer.

Anna Myers and Gabriella Frith were not included as authors in the original publication

Cancer patients undergoing major interventions face numerous challenges, including the adverse effects of cancer and the side effects of treatment. Cancer rehabilitation is vital in ensuring cancer patients have the support they need to maximise treatment outcomes and minimise treatment-related side effects and symptoms. The Active Together service is a multi-modal rehabilitation service designed to address critical support gaps for cancer patients. The service is located and provided in Sheffield, UK, an area with higher cancer incidence and mortality rates than the national average. The service aligns with local and regional cancer care objectives and aims to improve the clinical and quality-of-life outcomes of cancer patients by using lifestyle behaviour-change techniques to address their physical, nutritional, and psychological needs. This paper describes the design and initial implementation of the Active Together service, highlighting its potential to support and benefit cancer patients.

Cancer patients undergoing major interventions face numerous challenges, including the adverse effects of cancer and the side effects of treatment. Cancer rehabilitation is vital in ensuring cancer patients have the support they need to maximise treatment outcomes and minimise treatment-related side effects and symptoms. The Active Together service is a multi-modal rehabilitation service designed to address critical support gaps for cancer patients. The service is located and provided in Sheffield, UK, an area with higher cancer incidence and mortality rates than the national average. The service aligns with local and regional cancer care objectives and aims to improve clinical and quality of life outcomes of cancer patients by using lifestyle behaviour change techniques to address their physical, nutritional, and psychological needs. This paper describes the design and initial implementation of the Active Together service, highlighting its potential to support and benefit cancer patients.

Prehabilitation and rehabilitation will be essential services in an ageing population to support patients with cancer to live well through their life spans. Active Together is a novel evidence-based service embedded within existing healthcare pathways in an innovative collaboration between health, academic, and charity organisations. Designed to improve outcomes for cancer patients and reduce the demand on healthcare resources, it offers physical, nutritional, and psychological prehabilitation and rehabilitation support to patients undergoing cancer treatment. The service is underpinned by behaviour change theories and an individualised and personalised approach to care, addressing the health inequalities that might come about through age, poverty, ethnicity, or culture. Meeting the challenge of delivering high-quality services across multiple stakeholders, while addressing the complexity of patient need, has required skilled leadership, flexibility, and innovation. To support patients equally, regardless of geography or demographics, future services will need to be scaled regionally and be available in locations amenable to the populations they serve. To deliver these services across wide geographic regions, involving multiple providers and complex patient pathways, will require a systems approach. This means embracing and addressing the complexity of the contexts within which these services are delivered, to ensure efficient, high-quality provision of care, while supporting staff well-being and meeting the needs of patients.