Exercise training undertaken by people within 12 months of lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer

Cavalheri, Vinícius; Burtin, Chris; Formico, Vittoria R; Nonoyama, Mika; Jenkins, Sue; Spruit, Martijn A.; Hill, Kylie

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009955.pub3

Cited by 75 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Seven systematic reviews (eight references as one systematic review was published in duplicate) were included in this overview. Six of the seven reviews included meta-analyses (Cavalheri et al, 2019;Cavalheri & Granger, 2017;Cavalheri et al, 2013a;Li et al, 2017;Mainini et al, 2016;Rosero et al, 2019;Sommer et al, 2018). One review (Cavalheri et al, 2019) is an updated version of the old one (Cavalheri et al, 2013a).…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The average age of participants ranged from 54 to 72.5 years. Five reviews (Cavalheri et al, 2019;Cavalheri & Granger, 2017;Cavalheri et al, 2013a;Mainini et al, 2016;Rosero et al, 2019) only included patients diagnosed with NSCLC, while two reviews (Li et al, 2017;Sommer et al, 2018) included participants with any type of lung cancer. None of the reviews had restrictions on the type of surgery.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous systematic reviews address postoperative health problems and examine the effects of preoperative and/or postoperative exercise interventions on lung cancer patients following surgery (Cavalheri & Granger, 2017;Cavalheri et al, 2013aCavalheri et al, , 2013bCavalheri et al, , 2019Crandall et al, 2014;Mainini et al, 2016;Ni et al, 2017;Pouwels et al, 2015;Rodriguez-Larrad et al, 2014;Rosero et al, 2019;Sebio Garcia et al, 2016;Sommer et al, 2018;Steffens et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these reviews vary in inclusion criteria and methodological quality, and this leads to inconsistent findings. Some reviews report inconsistent findings about the effect of exercise interventions on specific outcomes, for example, pulmonary function (Cavalheri & Granger, 2017;Rosero et al, 2019;Sebio Garcia et al, 2016) and exercise capacity (Cavalheri et al, 2019;Li et al, 2017). The varied methodology and inconsistent findings make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the evidence and establish best practices in the clinical settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of perioperative exercise interventions on lung cancer patients: An overview of systematic reviews

Zhou

Woo

Larson

2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and Objectives: To identify, appraise and summarise systematic reviews of exercise interventions for surgical lung cancer patients. Background: Low exercise capacity, reduced pulmonary function, impaired healthrelated quality of life and postoperative pulmonary complications are common in surgical lung cancer patients. Numerous systematic reviews address these health problems and examine the effects of exercise intervention. However, differences in the quality and scope of the systematic reviews and discordant findings from the reviews make it difficult for decisions-makers to interpret the evidence and establish best practices in the clinical settings. Design: Overview of systematic reviews. Methods: This overview was conducted following the PRISMA guideline. A literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus and PEDro was conducted (October 2019). Peer-reviewed systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials focusing on the effects of exercise interventions for lung cancer patients who underwent surgery were included. The methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2. The results of reviews with meta-analysis were synthesised and presented by each health outcome. Results: Seven systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2019 were included. High/moderate-quality evidence showed that postoperative exercise interventions could increase the exercise capacity and muscle strength, and low/very-low-quality evidence showed that postoperative exercise interventions may increase the physical component of health-related quality of life and decease dyspnoea. Low-quality evidence showed that preoperative exercise interventions may increase exercise capacity and pulmonary function, decrease the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications and reduce the length of hospital stay. Conclusions: Postoperative and preoperative exercises have the potential to improve health outcomes in surgical lung cancer patients. Further research is needed to evaluate the effects of different types of exercise and varying amounts of exercise. Relevance to clinical practice: This study provides evidence to support the implementation of exercise interventions for surgical lung cancer patients. | 4483 ZHOU et al.

show abstract

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of perioperative exercise interventions on lung cancer patients: An overview of systematic reviews

Zhou

Woo

Larson

2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Systematic reviews of exercise interventions in people undergoing surgical resection +/-chemotherapy for lung cancer report safety, and data show short-term improvements in exercise capacity, quadriceps muscle strength, dyspnoea, HRQoL (physical component) and cancer-related fatigue, with few adverse events. 41 Early postoperative supervised exercise is reported to be safe and feasible and resulted in significant improvement in exercise capacity and muscle strength in adherent participants. 42 Exercise commenced earlier rather than later postoperatively is associated with greater reductions in cancer-related fatigue.…”

Section: Perioperatively and Postoperativelymentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical activity for people with lung cancer

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wearable Device–Based Intervention for Promoting Patient Physical Activity After Lung Cancer Surgery

Lee,

Kong,

Shin

et al. 2024

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceEmerging evidence suggests that wearable devices are feasible for monitoring physical activity among patients with lung cancer. However, the association between wearable devices and improvement in patient recovery after surgery remains underexplored.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of a wearable device intervention on the recovery of physical activity, cardiopulmonary function, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after lung cancer surgery.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis nonrandomized clinical trial with a historical control was conducted at a single tertiary cancer center (Samsung Comprehensive Cancer Center) in Seoul, South Korea, between October 18, 2018, and May 24, 2019. Patients were included if they had suspected or confirmed non–small cell lung cancer scheduled for curative surgery more extensive than lobectomy and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0 or 1. Patients were compared with historical control participants from data collected between September 20, 2017, and September 10, 2018, as part of the Coordinated Approach to Cancer Patients’ Health for Lung Cancer (CATCH-LUNG) prospective cohort study. Data analysis was performed between June 21 and July 16, 2020.InterventionA personalized exercise regimen monitored via a wearable device was administered to intervention patients at home in 3 stages: preoperative (from diagnosis to surgery), immediate (from discharge to 2 months after surgery), and later postoperative (from 2 to 6 months after surgery). Control patients received usual care.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was cardiopulmonary function, and the co–primary outcome was physical activity at 6 months after surgery, measured with 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) and number of daily steps, using a linear regression model. Secondary outcomes were changes in cardiopulmonary function, physical activity, and HRQOL, including function and symptoms from baseline to 2 weeks and 6 months after surgery. Additionally, cardiopulmonary function and physical activity (number of daily steps and time spent on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA]) at 2 weeks after surgery, physical activity (time spent on MVPA) at 6 months after surgery, and HRQOL, including function and symptoms at 2 weeks and 6 months after surgery, were assessed as secondary outcomes.ResultsThis trial included 74 patients in the intervention group (mean [SD] age, 60.4 [8.7] years; 31 [41.9%] men and 43 [58.1%] women) and 120 in the control group (mean [SD] age, 60.2 [8.7] years; 65 [54.2%] men and 55 [45.8%] women). Daily steps, MVPA, and 6MWD decreased initially at 2 weeks after surgery but increased thereafter. The control group had a larger decrease in the number of daily steps from baseline compared with the intervention group (−4877 [95% CI, −5861 to −3893] steps vs −1753 [95% CI, −2968 to −539] steps) at 2 weeks after surgery. By 6 months after surgery, the intervention group increased their daily steps by 2220 (95% CI, 1006 to 3435) from baseline, whereas the control group did not return to their baseline number of steps. The intervention group had significantly more daily steps (12 321 [95% CI, 8749-15 761] vs 10 118 [95% CI, 7341-13 420]; P = .007) and had greater vigorous physical activity (33.6 [95% CI, 13.5 to 59.8] vs 18.5 [5.7 to 40.8] minutes; P = .003) at 6 months after surgery compared with the control group. No difference in 6MWD was found. However, the intervention group had better patient-reported physical function (mean [SD] score, 82.2 [17.3] vs 76.9 [17.5]; P = .04), less dyspnea (mean [SD] score, 24.8 [27.1] vs 34.5 [31.6]; P = .03), and less pain (mean [SD] score, 21.4 [20.2] vs 30.1 [26.8]; P = .01) at 2 weeks after surgery and less dyspnea (mean [SD] score, 5.4[12.4] vs 12[23.3]; P = .01) at 6 months after surgery compared with the control group.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this nonrandomized clinical trial, integration of perioperative exercise interventions using wearable devices improved physical activity (especially MVPA) and dyspnea at 6 months after lung cancer surgery compared with usual care. This finding suggests a promising role for wearable devices in personalizing perioperative rehabilitation strategies.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03215537

show abstract

Exercise training undertaken by people within 12 months of lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer

Cited by 75 publications

References 82 publications

Effects of perioperative exercise interventions on lung cancer patients: An overview of systematic reviews

Effects of perioperative exercise interventions on lung cancer patients: An overview of systematic reviews

Physical activity for people with lung cancer

Wearable Device–Based Intervention for Promoting Patient Physical Activity After Lung Cancer Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About