The Impact of Prehabilitation on Patient Outcomes in Oesophagogastric Cancer Surgery: Combined Data from Four Prospective Clinical Trials Performed Across the UK and Ireland.

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation is increasingly being used in patients undergoing multimodality treatment for oesophagogastric cancer (OGC). Most studies to date have been small, single-centre trials. This collaborative study sought to assess the overall impact of prehabilitation on patient outcomes following OGC surgery.

METHODS

Data came from four prospective prehabilitation trials conducted in the UK or Ireland in patients undergoing multimodality treatment for OGC. The studies included three randomised and one non-randomised clinical trial, each comparing a prehabilitation intervention group to controls. The prehabilitation interventions included aerobic training delivered by exercise physiologists alongside dietetic input throughout the treatment pathway. The primary outcome was survival (all-cause and disease-specific mortality). Secondary outcomes were differences in complications, cardio-respiratory fitness (changes in VO and anaerobic threshold (AT)), chemotherapy completion rates, hospital length of stay, changes in body mass index, tumour regression and complication rates of anastomotic leak and pneumonia. Cox and logistic regression analysis provided hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR), respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for confounders.

RESULTS

Among 165 patients included, 88 patients were in the prehabilitation group and 77 patients were in the control group. All-cause and disease-specific mortality were not improved by prehabilitation (HR 0.67 95% CI 0.21-2.12 and HR 0.82 95% CI 0.42-1.57, respectively). The prehabilitation group experienced fewer major complications (20% vs. 36%, = 0.034; adjusted OR of 0.54; 95%CI 0.26-1.13). There was a mitigated decline in VO following neo-adjuvant therapy (delta prehabilitation -1.07 mL/kg/min vs. control -2.74 mL/kg/min; = 0.035) and chemotherapy completion rates were significantly higher following prehabilitation (90% vs. 73%; = 0.016). Hospital length of stay (10 vs. 12 days, = 0.402) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy response (Mandard 1-3 41% vs. 35%; = 0.494) favoured prehabilitation, albeit not statistically significantly.

CONCLUSION

Despite some limitations in terms of heterogeneity of study methodology, this study suggests a number of meaningful clinical benefits from prehabilitation before surgery for OGC patients. Current initiatives to agree on national standards for delivering prehabilitation and the results of ongoing trials will help to further refine this important intervention and expand the evidence base to support the widespread adoption and implementation of prehabilitation programs.