Kasparov , B., Kovlen , D., Semiglazova , T., Kondrateva, K., Ponomarenko , G., Klyuge , V., Frolov, O., Kudryashova, T., Donskikh , R., Semiglazov , V., Nosov , A., & Belyaev, A. (2023). Assessment Results of Personalized Rehabilitation Efficacy in Prostate Cancer Patients. Voprosy Onkologii, 69(4), 732–738. https://doi.org/10.37469/0507-3758-2023-69-4-732-738

Abstract

Aim. To conduct a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of personalized rehabilitation programs in patients with prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods. A combined cohort controlled clinical trial was conducted with the inclusion of 140 primary operable patients with prostate cancer (PC) who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Patients were divided into two groups without randomization: one group received rehabilitation based on standard methods (control group), while the other received rehabilitation programs that incorporated technologies selected through a scientometric analysis (intervention group). The comprehensive analysis of effectiveness included the determination of indicators and determinants of effectiveness, as well as factor analysis and comparative analysis of alternative selection strategies.

Results. The concept of personalized rehabilitation for prostate cancer patients, incorporating evidence-based strategies in the use of rehabilitation technologies, improved the overall effectiveness of technology application (by 14 % compared to standard programs) and increased the proportion of highly effective rehabilitation program implementation (by 17 %).

The key determinants influencing the therapeutic effect after the rehabilitation programs, tailored to recommended technologies, were found to be the patient's anamnestic (age, disease stage) and anthropometric (BMI) parameters. On the other hand, therapeutic effects were achieved through the correction of urodynamic and clinical parameters, as well as the improvement of physical tolerance and increasing activity level when applying personalized rehabilitation programs.

Conclusion. Personalized rehabilitation for patients with PC, which involves the assessment of anamnestic, anthropometric, clinical, functional, and psychophysiological parameters, allows for the identification of determinants of the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs.

https://doi.org/10.37469/0507-3758-2023-69-4-732-738

pdf (Русский)

References

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021;71(3):209-49. doi:10.3322/caac.21660.

World Health Organization (WHO). Global Health Estimates 2020: Deaths by Cause, Age, Sex, by Country and by Region, 2000-2019. WHO; 2020 [accessed 2020 Dec 11]. Available from: who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-leading-causes-of-death.

Matthew A, Lutzky-Cohen N, Jamnicky L, et al. The prostate cancer rehabilitation clinic: a biopsychosocial clinic for sexual dysfunction after radical prostatectomy. Curr Oncol. 2018;25(6):393-402. doi:10.3747/co.25.4111.

Simmons MN, Berglund RK, Jones JS. A practical guide to prostate cancer diagnosis and management. Cleve Clin J Med. 2011;78:321-31. doi:10.3949/ccjm.78a.10104.

Physical and rehabilitation medicine: national leadership. Ponomorenko GN, ed. M: GEOTAR-Media; 2016;688.

Semiglazova TYu, Klyuge VA, Kasparov BS, et al. International rehabilitation model for oncological patients. Medical Council. 2018;(10):108-16. doi:10.21518/2079-701x-2018-10-108-116.

Katz A. Quality of life for men with prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2007;30:302-8. doi:10.1097/01.NCC.0000281726.87490.f2.

Aboyan IA, Orlov YuN, Pokus SM, et al. Optimization of functional results of radical prostatectomy. Rehabilitation programs for patients. Experimental & Clinical Urology. 2018;(3):20-26.

Pavlov VN, Zagitov AR, Kazikhinurov AA, et al. Rehabilitation of patients after radical prostatectomy. Cancer Urology. 2009;(1):53-55.

Kasparov BS, Semiglazova TYu, Kovlen DV, et al. Physical rehabilitation methods in patients with prostate cancer: a scientometric analysis of evidence-based studies. P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2020;9(6):18-26. doi:10.17116/onkolog2020906118.

Kasparov BS, Kovlen DV, Semiglazova TYu, et al. Study on the effectiveness of personalised rehabilitation of patients with operable prostate cancer. Voprosy Onkologii. 2023;69(3):422-428. doi:10.37469/0507-3758-2023-69-3-422-428.

Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Clinical recommendations «Prostate cancer», 2021.

Smets EM, Garssen B, Bonke B, et al. The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J Psychosom Res. 1995;39(3):315-25. doi:10.1016/0022-3999(94)00125-o.

Haas GP, Delongchamps N, Brawley OW, et al. The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol. 2008;15(1):3866-71.

Chen RC, Clark JA, Talcott JA. Individualizing quality-of-life outcomes reporting: how localized prostate cancer treatments affect patients with different levels of baseline urinary, bowel, and sexual function. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(24):3916-22. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.18.6486.

Kluge VA, Semiglazova TYu, Krivorotko PV, et al. Biopsychosocial approach in the rehabilitation of patients with operable breast cancer. Medical Council. 2020;(9):196-204.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.