Review of Cancer Prehabilitation Exercise Studies Highlights Need for Better Reporting Standards

What is it about?

The study conducted a scoping review to analyze the characteristics and quality of reporting in cancer prehabilitation exercise programs by examining existing literature. The methodology involved screening databases like PubMed, Mednar, and Scopus for studies available in English that reported on cancer prehabilitation exercise interventions, focusing on physical function and patient-reported outcomes. Out of 1495 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed using the TESTEX framework and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to assess the quality of reporting and exercise characteristics. The findings indicated a wide variance in exercise modalities, with most studies implementing concurrent exercise and only one focusing on resistance training. Exercise sessions averaged 42.5 minutes, occurring approximately 3.7 times per week, with variations in prescribed intensity levels. The average TESTEX score was 9.3 out of 15, highlighting inconsistencies in reporting exercise dose and monitoring methods. The study concludes with a call for standardizing intervention design to improve the comparability and effectiveness of prehabilitation programs.

Featured Image

Photo by VD Photography on Unsplash

Photo by VD Photography on Unsplash

Why is it important?

This study is important as it systematically examines the characteristics and quality of reporting in cancer prehabilitation exercise programmes, a relatively new yet promising approach to mitigating the adverse effects of cancer treatment. By highlighting the inconsistencies in exercise modalities, outcome measures, and the monitoring of exercise doses, this research underscores the need for standardization in prehabilitation interventions. This is crucial for improving the reproducibility and effectiveness of these programmes, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes by better preparing them physically and mentally before treatment. The findings serve as a foundation for developing more consistent and evidence-based prehabilitation strategies in cancer care. Key Takeaways: 1. Heterogeneity in Exercise Characteristics: The study reveals significant variability in exercise modalities among existing cancer prehabilitation programmes, with most studies employing concurrent exercise and only one focusing solely on resistance training. 2. Quality of Reporting: Despite satisfactory overall study quality, there are clear disparities in reporting exercise dose and intensity, which complicates the replication and evaluation of interventions and limits their scalability and integration into clinical practice. 3. Need for Standardization: The research identifies a critical gap in the standardization of outcome measures and exercise monitoring methods, emphasizing the necessity for improved reporting practices to optimize prehabilitation programmes and ensure they effectively enhance patient outcomes.