Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP), an often unanticipated result of necessary and even life-saving procedures, develops in 5–10% of patients one-year after major surgery. Substantial advances have been made in identifying patients at elevated risk of developing CPSP based on perioperative pain, opioid use, and negative affect, including depression, anxiety, pain catastrophizing, and posttraumatic stress disorder-like symptoms. The Transitional Pain Service (TPS) at Toronto General Hospital (TGH) is the first to comprehensively address the problem of CPSP at three stages: 1) preoperatively, 2) postoperatively in hospital, and 3) postoperatively in an outpatient setting for up to 6 months after surgery. Patients at high risk for CPSP are identified early and offered coordinated and comprehensive care by the multidisciplinary team consisting of pain physicians, advanced practice nurses, psychologists, and physiotherapists. Access to expert intervention through the Transitional Pain Service bypasses typically long wait times for surgical patients to be referred and seen in chronic pain clinics. This affords the opportunity to impact patients’ pain trajectories, preventing the transition from acute to chronic pain, and reducing suffering, disability, and health care costs. In this report, we describe the workings of the Transitional Pain Service at Toronto General Hospital, including the clinical algorithm used to identify patients, and clinical services offered to patients as they transition through the stages of surgical recovery. We describe the role of the psychological treatment, which draws on innovations in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy that allow for brief and effective behavioral interventions to be applied transdiagnostically and preventatively. Finally, we describe our vision for future growth.

Objective To systematically review the evidence of pre-operative exercise, known as 'prehabilitation', on peri-and postoperative outcomes in adult surgical populations. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PEDro were searched from 1950 to 2011. Methods Two reviewers independently examined relevant, English-language articles that examined the effects of pre-operative total-body exercise with peri-and postoperative outcome analysis. Given the nascence of this field, controlled and uncontrolled trials were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool. Only data on length of stay were considered eligible for meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of measures and methodologies for assessing other outcomes. Results In total, 4597 citations were identified b y t he s earch s trategy, o f w hich 2 1 s tudies w ere i ncluded. Trials w ere g enerally small (median = 54 participants) and of moderate to poor methodological quality. Compared with standard care, the majority of studies found that total-body prehabilitation improved postoperative pain, length of stay and physical function, but it was not consistently effective in improving health-related quality of life or aerobic fitness in the studies that examined these outcomes. The meta-analysis indicated that prehabilitation reduced postoperative length of stay with a small to moderate effect size (Hedges' g = −0.39, P = 0.033). Intervention-related adverse events were reported in two of 669 exercising participants. Conclusion The literature provides early evidence that prehabilitation may reduce length of stay and possibly provide postoperative physical benefits. Cautious interpretation of these findings is warranted given modest methodological quality and significant risk of bias.

Guidelines promote high quality cancer care. Rehabilitation recommendations in oncology guidelines have not been characterized and may provide insight to improve integration of rehabilitation into oncology care. This report was developed as a part of the World Health Organization (WHO) Rehabilitation 2030 initiative to identify rehabilitation-specific recommendations in guidelines for oncology care. A systematic review of guidelines was conducted. Only guidelines published in English, for adults with cancer, providing recommendations for rehabilitation referral and assessment or interventions between 2009 and 2019 were included. 13840 articles were identified. After duplicates and applied filters, 4897 articles were screened. 69 guidelines were identified with rehabilitation-specific recommendations. Thirtyseven of the 69 guidelines endorsed referral to rehabilitation services but provided no specific recommendations regarding assessment or interventions. Thirty-two of the 69 guidelines met the full inclusion criteria and were assessed using the AGREE II tool. Twenty-one of these guidelines achieved an AGREE II quality score of ≥ 45 and were fully extracted. Guidelines exclusive to pharmacologic interventions and complementary and alternative interventions were excluded. Findings identify guidelines that recommend rehabilitation services across many cancer types and for various consequences of cancer treatment signifying that rehabilitation is a recognized component of oncology care. However, these findings are at odds with clinical reports of low rehabilitation utilization rates suggesting that guideline recommendations may be overlooked. Considering that functional morbidity negatively affects a majority of cancer survivors, improving guideline concordant rehabilitative care could have substantial impact on function and quality of life among cancer survivors. CA Cancer

BackgroundExisting evidence demonstrates that 1:1 personal training (PT) improves many adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether less resource-intensive exercise delivery models are as effective remains to be established. We determined the feasibility of conducting a multi-center non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing PT with supervised group (GROUP) and home-based (HOME) exercise programs, and obtained preliminary efficacy estimates for GROUP and HOME compared to PT on quality of life (QOL) and physical fitness.MethodsMen with prostate cancer on ADT were recruited from one of two experienced Canadian centres and randomized 1:1:1 to PT, GROUP, or HOME. Randomization was stratified by length of ADT use and site. Participants completed moderate intensity aerobic and resistance exercises 4–5 days per week for 6 months with a target 150 min per week of exercise. Exercise prescriptions were individualized and progressed throughout the trial. Feasibility endpoints included recruitment, retention, adherence, and participant satisfaction. The efficacy endpoints QOL, fatigue, and fitness (VO2 peak, grip strength, and timed chair stands) in GROUP and HOME were compared for non-inferiority to PT. Descriptive analyses were used for feasibility endpoints. Between-group differences for efficacy endpoints were examined using Bayesian linear mixed effects models.ResultsFifty-nine participants (mean age 69.9 years) were enrolled. The recruitment rate was 25.4% and recruitment was slower than projected. Retention was 71.2%. Exercise adherence as measured through attendance was high for supervised sessions but under 50% by self-report and accelerometry. Satisfaction was high and there was no difference in this measure between all three groups. Between-group differences (comparing both GROUP and HOME to PT) were smaller than the minimum clinically important difference on most measures of QOL, fatigue, and fitness. However, two of six outcomes for GROUP and four of six outcomes for HOME had a > 20% probability of being inferior for GROUP.ConclusionsFeasibility endpoints were generally met. Both GROUP and HOME interventions in men with PC on ADT appeared to be similar to PT for multiple efficacy outcomes, although conclusions are limited by a small sample size and cost considerations have not been incorporated. Efforts need to be targeted to improving recruitment and adherence. A larger trial is warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02046837. Date of registration: January 20, 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-5189-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Breast cancer surgery results in numerous acute and long-term adverse outcomes; the degree to which these can be mitigated or prevented through prehabilitation is unknown. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal, single-arm, mixed-methods study to examine the feasibility of prehabilitation in 22 women undergoing breast cancer surgery. All participants received an individualized exercise prescription including upper quadrantspecific resistance and mobility training and aerobic exercise for the duration of their surgical wait time. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, adherence, attrition, and intervention-related adverse event rates. An exploratory investigation of intervention efficacy was conducted via a 6-min walk test, upper-quadrant strength and range of motion, volumetric chances associated with lymphedema, and participant-reported quality of life, fatigue, pain, and disability. Outcome assessments were conducted at baseline, prior to surgery, and at six and 12 weeks after surgery. Semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants (n = 5) and health-care providers (H; n = 2) were conducted to provide further insights about intervention feasibility. Qualitative data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic analysis approach. Results: Recruitment and attrition rates were 62 and 36%, respectively. Average prehabilitation duration was 31 days (range = 7-69 days). Seventy six percent of participants complied with at least 70% of their prehabilitation prescription. There was a clinically significant increase in the 6-min walk distance from baseline to the preoperative assessment (57 m, 95% CI = −7.52, 121.7). The interviews revealed that the intervention was favorably received by participants and HCPs and included suggestions that prehabilitation (i) should be offered to all surgical candidates, (ii) is an avenue to regain control in the preoperative period, (iii) is a facilitator of postoperative recovery, and (iv) is an opportunity to provide education regarding postoperative rehabilitation protocols. A preference for multimodal prehabilitation (including dietetic and psychological counseling) was also highlighted.

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) has side effects that significantly impair health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Exercise ameliorates many side effects of ADT, but different modalities, particularly in the home-based setting, have not been well studied. In this study the authors randomly assigned 66 PCa survivors receiving ADT to 6 mo of home-based aerobic or resistance training. Psychosocial well-being and physical fitness were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 mo, and then 6 mo postintervention. Intention-to-treat analyses showed that fatigue and HRQOL were not significantly different between groups; however, in a per-protocol analysis the resistance-exercise training group demonstrated clinically significant improvements in HRQOL. Differential within-group effects on physical fitness were also observed at various time points. At all time points, the aerobic-training group engaged in significantly more physical activity than the resistance-training group, a finding that should be further examined given evidence-based guidelines for activity volume in cancer survivors.

These findings highlight the positive effects of a trimodal prehabilitation program on patients' physical activity levels and functional walking capacity and demonstrate that modifying exercise behaviors and improving physical function within the 4-week preoperative period are an achievable goal.

Recent guidelines concerning exercise for people with cancer provide evidence-based direction for exercise assessment and prescription for clinicians and their patients. Although the guidelines promote exercise integration into clinical care for people with cancer, they do not support strategies for bridging the guidelines with related resources or programs. Exercise program accessibility remains a challenge in implementing the guidelines, but that challenge might be mitigated with conceptual frameworks ("pathways") that connect patients with exercise-related resources. In the present paper, we describe a pathway model and related resources that were developed by an expert panel of practitioners and researchers in the field of exercise and rehabilitation in oncology and that support the transition from health care practitioner to exercise programs or services for people with cancer. The model acknowledges the nuanced distinctions between research and exercise programming, as well as physical activity promotion, that, depending on the available programming in the local community or region, might influence practitioner use. Furthermore, the pathway identifies and provides examples of processes for referral, screening, medical clearance, and programming for people after a cancer diagnosis. The pathway supports the implementation of exercise guidelines and should serve as a model of enhanced care delivery to increase the health and well-being of people with cancer.