Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense, Denmark.
Odense Patient Data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Phys Ther. 2020 Mar 10;100(3):564-574. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzz180.
It is recommended that people with gliomas engage in rehabilitation, but high-quality evidence to support this recommendation is lacking.
This study assesses the effectiveness of a physical therapy- and occupational therapy-based rehabilitation intervention compared with usual rehabilitation care for quality of life (QoL) during active anticancer treatment.
This study was a randomized controlled trial.
The study took place in Odense University Hospital, Denmark.
The trial included people with gliomas who were functionally independent.
The participants were randomly assigned to a supervised rehabilitation intervention or usual rehabilitation care during the active anticancer period. The supervised rehabilitation included physical therapy and occupational therapy-based interventions.
The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the overall QoL from baseline to the 6-week follow-up. It was self-rated with the global health status (GHS)/QoL domains from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire. Eighty-eight participants per group were required to find a 10% between-group difference from baseline to the 6-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the health-related QoL domains, symptomatology, and functional performance.
A total of 64 participants were included (32 in the intervention group and 32 in the control group). At follow-up, the intervention group self-rated a nonsignificantly better score for GHS/QoL than the control group (adjusted mean difference = 8.7% [95% confidence interval = -4.36 to 21.79]). Compared with the control group, the intervention group had consistently better results on self-rated secondary outcomes, including cognitive functioning (β = 16.2) and fatigue (β = -13.4), and objectively measured aerobic power (β = 2.6).
The number of participants and duration of follow-up were inadequate to determine if the intervention was superior to the current usual rehabilitation care.
The physical therapy- and occupational therapy-based rehabilitation intervention did not affect GHS/QoL. However, the trial found promising significant effects on both objective and self-reported secondary outcomes, making rehabilitation efforts during active anticancer treatment promising.
建议脑肿瘤患者进行康复治疗，但缺乏支持这一建议的高质量证据。
本研究评估了基于物理治疗和职业治疗的康复干预与常规康复护理相比，在癌症治疗活跃期对生活质量（QoL）的影响。
这是一项随机对照试验。
丹麦欧登塞大学医院。
本试验纳入了功能独立的脑肿瘤患者。
参与者在癌症治疗活跃期随机分配至接受监督的康复干预或常规康复护理。监督下的康复包括基于物理治疗和职业治疗的干预。
主要结局是从基线到 6 周随访时两组间总体 QoL 的差异。使用欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织问卷的全球健康状况（GHS）/QoL 域进行自我评估。每组需要 88 名参与者，才能在基线到 6 周随访时发现组间 10%的差异。次要结局为健康相关 QoL 域、症状和功能表现。
共纳入 64 名参与者（干预组 32 名，对照组 32 名）。随访时，干预组自我评估的 GHS/QoL 评分显著优于对照组（调整平均差异=8.7%[95%置信区间：-4.36 至 21.79]）。与对照组相比，干预组在自我报告的次要结局（包括认知功能[β=16.2]和疲劳[β=-13.4]）和客观测量的有氧能力（β=2.6）方面均表现出持续更好的结果。
参与者数量和随访时间不足，无法确定干预是否优于当前的常规康复护理。
基于物理治疗和职业治疗的康复干预并未影响 GHS/QoL。然而，该试验发现了对客观和自我报告的次要结局均有显著积极影响的有希望的结果，这使得在癌症治疗活跃期进行康复治疗具有潜力。
