4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exercise versus usual care after non-reconstructive breast cancer surgery (UK PROSPER): multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

      research-article
      1 , , 2 , 1 , 3 , 4 , 1 , 1 , 5 , 6 , 1 , 1 , 7 , 8 Prevention of Shoulder Problems Trial (PROSPER) Study Group, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
      The BMJ
      BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To evaluate whether a structured exercise programme improved functional and health related quality of life outcomes compared with usual care for women at high risk of upper limb disability after breast cancer surgery.

          Design

          Multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

          Setting

          17 UK National Health Service cancer centres.

          Participants

          392 women undergoing breast cancer surgery, at risk of postoperative upper limb morbidity, randomised (1:1) to usual care with structured exercise (n=196) or usual care alone (n=196).

          Interventions

          Usual care (information leaflets) only or usual care plus a physiotherapy led exercise programme, incorporating stretching, strengthening, physical activity, and behavioural change techniques to support adherence to exercise, introduced at 7-10 days postoperatively, with two further appointments at one and three months.

          Main outcome measures

          Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included DASH subscales, pain, complications, health related quality of life, and resource use, from a health and personal social services perspective.

          Results

          Between 26 January 2016 and 31 July 2017, 951 patients were screened and 392 (mean age 58.1 years) were randomly allocated, with 382 (97%) eligible for intention to treat analysis. 181 (95%) of 191 participants allocated to exercise attended at least one appointment. Upper limb function improved after exercise compared with usual care (mean DASH 16.3 (SD 17.6) for exercise (n=132); 23.7 (22.9) usual care (n=138); adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval 3.17 to 12.44; P=0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured exercise over usual care, with lower pain intensity at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on numerical rating scale −0.68, −1.23 to −0.12; P=0.02) and fewer arm disability symptoms at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast+4 (FACT-B+4) −2.02, −3.11 to −0.93; P=0.001). No increase in complications, lymphoedema, or adverse events was noted in participants allocated to exercise. Exercise accrued lower costs per patient (on average −£387 (€457; $533) (95% confidence interval −£2491 to £1718; 2015 pricing) and was cost effective compared with usual care.

          Conclusions

          The PROSPER exercise programme was clinically effective and cost effective and reduced upper limb disability one year after breast cancer treatment in patients at risk of treatment related postoperative complications.

          Trial registration

          ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN35358984.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets.

          A five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) descriptive system (EQ-5D-5L) has been developed, but value sets based on preferences directly elicited from representative general population samples are not yet available. The objective of this study was to develop values sets for the EQ-5D-5L by means of a mapping ("crosswalk") approach to the currently available three-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) values sets. The EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems were coadministered to respondents with conditions of varying severity to ensure a broad range of levels of health across EQ-5D questionnaire dimensions. We explored four models to generate value sets for the EQ-5D-5L: linear regression, nonparametric statistics, ordered logistic regression, and item-response theory. Criteria for the preferred model included theoretical background, statistical fit, predictive power, and parsimony. A total of 3691 respondents were included. All models had similar fit statistics. Predictive power was slightly better for the nonparametric and ordered logistic regression models. In considering all criteria, the nonparametric model was selected as most suitable for generating values for the EQ-5D-5L. The nonparametric model was preferred for its simplicity while performing similarly to the other models. Being independent of the value set that is used, it can be applied to transform any EQ-5D-3L value set into EQ-5D-5L index values. Strengths of this approach include compatibility with three-level value sets. A limitation of any crosswalk is that the range of index values is restricted to the range of the EQ-5D-3L value sets. Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG)

            This paper describes the development of an evaluative outcome measure for patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal conditions. The goal is to produce a brief, self-administered measure of symptoms and functional status, with a focus on physical function, to be used by clinicians in daily practice and as a research tool. This is a joint initiative of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), the Council of Musculoskeletal Specialty Societies (COMSS), and the Institute for Work and Health (Toronto, Ontario). Our approach is consistent with previously described strategies for scale development. In Stage 1, Item Generation, a group of methodologists and clinical experts reviewed 13 outcome measurement scales currently in use and generated a list of 821 items. In Stage 2a, Initial Item Reduction, these 821 items were reduced to 78 items using various strategies including removal of items which were generic, repetitive, not reflective of disability, or not relevant to the upper extremity or to one of the targeted concepts of symptoms and functional status. Items not highly endorsed in a survey of content experts were also eliminated. Stage 2b, Further Item Reduction, will be based on results of field testing in which patients complete the 78-item questionnaire. This field testing, which is currently underway in 20 centers in the United States, Canada, and Australia, will generate the final format and content of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Future work includes plans for validity and reliability testing.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors.

              Cancer survivors are often highly motivated to seek information about food choices, physical activity, and dietary supplements to improve their treatment outcomes, quality of life, and overall survival. To address these concerns, the American Cancer Society (ACS) convened a group of experts in nutrition, physical activity, and cancer survivorship to evaluate the scientific evidence and best clinical practices related to optimal nutrition and physical activity after the diagnosis of cancer. This report summarizes their findings and is intended to present health care providers with the best possible information with which to help cancer survivors and their families make informed choices related to nutrition and physical activity. The report discusses nutrition and physical activity guidelines during the continuum of cancer care, briefly highlighting important issues during cancer treatment and for patients with advanced cancer, but focusing largely on the needs of the population of individuals who are disease free or who have stable disease following their recovery from treatment. It also discusses select nutrition and physical activity issues such as body weight, food choices, food safety, and dietary supplements; issues related to selected cancer sites; and common questions about diet, physical activity, and cancer survivorship. Copyright © 2012 American Cancer Society, Inc.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: professor of clinical trials
                Role: research fellow
                Role: health economist
                Role: statistician
                Role: ARC senior research fellow
                Role: statistician
                Role: professor of clinical trials
                Role: professor of health economics
                Role: associate dean for research
                Role: senior research fellow
                Role: senior project manager
                Role: consultant oncoplastic breast surgeon
                Role: professor of surgery
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2021
                11 November 2021
                : 375
                : e066542
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
                [2 ]Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
                [3 ]Institute of Statistical Research and Training (ISRT), University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
                [4 ]Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [5 ]Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [6 ]Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
                [7 ]Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
                [8 ]Department of Surgery, Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: J Bruce julie.bruce@ 123456warwick.ac.uk (or @jxbruce on Twitter)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8462-7999
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1566-9551
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4270-6808
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1708-9940
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0638-0406
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0351-3090
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1737-2866
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3121-6050
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4349-7195
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4399-2049
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4832-9609
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6129-2444
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0604-7267
                Article
                BMJ-2021-066542.R1 bruj066542
                10.1136/bmj-2021-066542
                8579424
                34759002
                257861c5-c048-4252-a786-db73cd4f6654
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 October 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000664, Health Technology Assessment Programme;
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content54

                Cited by13

                Most referenced authors542