Cancer Rehabilitation

Cheville, Andrea L.; Mustian, Karen M.; Winters-Stone, Kerri M.; Zucker, David S.; Gamble, Gail L.; Alfano, Catherine M.

doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2016.08.001

Cited by 118 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The complexities of the health status, clinical history, and functional abilities of the individual being treated for cancer introduce a spectrum of considerations that further challenge exercise recommendations [4]. Models of care that provide access to exercise and rehabilitation professionals have been developed but are not used broadly and the workforce supporting them is still developing [9]. As a result, exercise prescription frequently is overlooked in cancer care planning [10,11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Exercise Systematic Reviews in the Cancer Literature (2005‐2017)

Stout

Baima

Swisher

et al. 2017

PM&R

309

247

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence supports the benefits of exercise for cancer patients, however, specific guidance for clinical decision making regarding exercise timing, frequency, duration and intensity is lacking. Efforts are needed to optimize clinical recommendations for exercise in the cancer population. Objectives To aggregate information regarding the benefit of exercise through a systematic review of existing systematic reviews in the cancer exercise literature. Data Sources PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE. Study Eligibility Criteria Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the impact of movement-based exercise on the adult cancer population. Methods Two author teams reviewed 302 abstracts for inclusion with 93 selected for full text review. 53 studies were analyzed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR©) was used as a quality measure of the reviews. Information was extracted using the PICO format (participants, intervention, comparison, outcomes). Descriptive findings are reported. Results Mean AMSTAR© score = 7.66 / 11 (±2.04) suggests moderate quality of the systematic reviews. Exercise is beneficial before, during, and after cancer treatment, across all cancer types, and for a variety of cancer-related impairments. Moderate to vigorous exercise is the best level of exercise intensity to improve physical function and mitigate cancer-related impairments. Therapeutic exercises are beneficial to manage treatment side effects, may enhance tolerance to cancer treatments, and improve functional outcomes. Supervised exercise yielded superior benefits versus unsupervised. Serious adverse events were not common. Limitations Movement-based exercise intervention outcomes are reported. No analysis of pooled effects was calculated across reviews due to significant heterogeneity within the systematic reviews. Findings do not consider exercise in advanced cancers or pediatric populations. Conclusions Exercise promotes significant improvements in clinical, functional, and in some populations, survival outcomes and can be recommended regardless of the type of cancer. Although generally safe, patients should be screened and appropriate precautions taken. Efforts to strengthen uniformity in clinical trial reporting, develop clinical practice guidelines, and integrate exercise and rehabilitation services into the cancer delivery system are needed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Exercise Systematic Reviews in the Cancer Literature (2005‐2017)

Stout

Baima

Swisher

et al. 2017

PM&R

309

247

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, both patients and health care providers are often not aware of other possible rehabilitation strategies and their potential benefits in the management of pain during and after cancer treatment [5,7]. Cancer rehabilitation includes a multidisciplinary and biopsychosocial approach which aims to optimize functioning, well-being and participation of cancer survivors in general, as well as pain relief specifically [7,8]. An important role in the multidisciplinary team is reserved for the physical therapist, at all levels of cancer care (inpatient versus outpatient) and across the whole continuum of complexity of a patient’s pain complaint [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best-Evidence Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain Part 2: Pain during and after Cancer Treatment

Groef

Penen

Dams

et al. 2019

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pain during, and especially after, cancer remains underestimated and undertreated. Moreover, both patients and health care providers are not aware of potential benefits of rehabilitation strategies for the management of pain during and following cancer treatment. In this paper, we firstly provided a state-of-the-art overview of the best evidence rehabilitation modalities for patients having (persistent) pain during and following cancer treatment, including educational interventions, specific exercise therapies, manual therapies, general exercise therapies and mind-body exercise therapies. Secondly, the findings were summarized from a clinical perspective and discussed from a scientific perspective. In conclusion, best evidence suggests that general exercise therapy has small pain-relieving effects. Supporting evidence for mind-body exercise therapy is available only in breast cancer patients. At this moment, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the use of specific exercises and manual therapy at the affected region for pain relief during and after cancer treatment. No clinically relevant results were found in favor of educational interventions restricted to a biomedical approach of pain. To increase available evidence these rehabilitation modalities should be applied according to, and within, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial pain management approach. Larger, well-designed clinical trials tailored to the origin of pain and with proper evaluation of pain-related functioning and the patient’s pain experience are needed.

show abstract

“…Como factor concomitante significativo, es importante tener en cuenta que el 92% de los pacientes oncológicos tiene al menos una comorbilidad, y al menos el 91% requiere fisioterapia 28 . En este sentido, se ha enfatizado que el tratamiento del cáncer es multidisciplinario, entendiendo que el acercamiento a este paciente no debe ser solo desde la oncología clínica, sino que se soporta en otras disciplinas que incluyen expertos en manejo del dolor y en cuidado paliativo, soporte nutricional, rehabilitación, psicología y psiquiatría, todos ellos deben estar presentes durante el proceso 11,29 .…”

Section: Declaración De Conflicto De Interesesunclassified

Calidad de vida en pacientes con linfedema por cáncer de seno en la ciudad de Medellín

Legarda

Muñetón

Arenas

2020

MedUPB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objetivo: Evaluar la calidad de vida en un grupo de pacientes con linfedema por cáncer de seno en la ciudad de Medellín. Metodología: Se realizó un estudio cuantitativo de tipo descriptivo correlacional, en el que se analizó la relación de la calidad de vida con la sintomatología, tratamientos médicos recibidos y perímetros del brazo en 11 mujeres con linfedema. Se valoró el dolor, perímetros de ambos brazos y se utilizó el cuestionario de calidad de vida FACT B+4. Resultados: A partir de las correlaciones de Spearman se identificó que, para la calidad de vida y los perímetros del brazo afectado, hubo una correlación inversa y no significativa, lo que indica que no existe una percepción negativa frente a la calidad de vida pese al linfedema. Hubo una correlación inversa y significativa entre el número de tratamientos y la calidad de vida (a más número de tratamientos recibidos, menor calidad de vida según la percepción de las participantes). Así mismo, la percepción de calidad de vida se correlacionó de modo inverso con el dolor. Conclusión: La calidad de vida se ve influenciada por la cantidad de tratamientos oncológicos recibidos, dichos tratamientos tienen efectos colaterales e impactan el bienestar. El dolor es una complicación que influye negativamente en la calidad de vida, más aún si se trata no se trata oportunamente.

show abstract

Cancer Rehabilitation

Cited by 118 publications

References 79 publications

A Systematic Review of Exercise Systematic Reviews in the Cancer Literature (2005‐2017)

A Systematic Review of Exercise Systematic Reviews in the Cancer Literature (2005‐2017)

Best-Evidence Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain Part 2: Pain during and after Cancer Treatment

Calidad de vida en pacientes con linfedema por cáncer de seno en la ciudad de Medellín

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About