Analysing 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 multi-modality treatment for oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer. Most studies to date have been small, single centre trials lacking statistical power. The results of larger randomised trials are still awaited. There remain considerable uncertainties regarding the outcome measures that may benefit from prehabilitation, the exact nature of the intervention and the mechanisms behind any observed benefit. This collaborative study sought to combine data from four prospective clinical prehabilitation trials performed in the UK and Ireland to determine the overall impact of the intervention on patient outcomes following oesophagogastric cancer surgery. Methods Anonymised data from four prospective prehabilitation trials conducted in the UK and Ireland (Southampton, Guildford, Dublin, and St Thomas’, London) in patients undergoing multi-modality treatment for oesophagogastric cancer was combined. The studies included two randomized and two non-randomized clinical trials. The primary outcome measures were differences in complications and length of stay. Secondary outcomes were changes in BMI, fitness (VO2 max), chemotherapy completion rates and tumour regression. In total, 180 patients were included from four studies, with 93 patients in the prehabilitation group and 87 patients in the control group. Results Severe complications (Clavien Dindo >=3) were observed less frequently in the prehabilitation group (19% vs 34%; p=0.038). Hospital length of stay also favoured prehabilitation (10 vs 11 days) albeit not statistically significant. Chemotherapy completion rates were significantly higher following prehabilitation (96% vs 63%; p<0.001). There were non-significant improvements in VO2 max change following neo-adjuvant therapy (delta 1.35 vs 2.39; p=0.25), anaerobic threshold change (delta 1.20 vs 2.20; p=0.11) and chemotherapy response (Mandard 1-3 57% vs 44%; p=0.178). Conclusions Despite some limitations in terms of heterogeneity of study methodology and prehabilitation interventions, this study has highlighted a willingness of individual units to collaborate and tangible clinical benefits across a range of outcome measures in a larger OG patient population. Current initiatives to agree national standards for delivering prehabilitation and the results of on-going trials will help to further refine this important intervention and expand the evidence base to support the widespread adoption and implementation of prehabilitation programs.