ArticleBJGP open2018
Fit for Cancer Treatment: a prospective feasibility study of primary care initiated prehabilitation for patients with suspected cancer.
Article in BJGP open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The care of older cancer patients in the United Kingdom.Ecancermedicalscience · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk profile assessment and corrective interventions using optimisation of health status and prehabilitation represent an important strategy in the management of patients with a suspected cancer diagnosis.
aimTo determine the feasibility of pre-treatment optimisation and prehabilitation commenced at index primary care consultation, to improve patients' preparation for treatment by maximising the time available. DESIGN &
settingBetween January 2015 and May 2016, 195 patients presenting to 12 GP practices were deemed eligible to enter the study, of which 189 (96.9%, median age 60 [21-91] years and 65 months; 124 female) were recruited and consented to the prehabilitation bundle.
methodAll patients were simultaneously referred to secondary care using urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathways. The primary outcome measures were definitive diagnosis and treatment plan.
resultsFifteen patients (7.9%) were diagnosed with cancer (three breast, three colon, two lung, two skin [one melanoma, one sarcoma], one tonsil, one vocal cord, one pancreas, one prostate, one ependymoma) and 62 were diagnosed with other significant medical conditions (47 gastrointestinal, 13 sepsis, two respiratory) requiring secondary care assessment and treatment. Of the 15 patients with cancer, 11 (73.3%) underwent potentially curative treatment, and four (26.7%) palliative treatment. Of the total study cohort, 84 (44%) required a form of optimisation in primary care, and patients with cancer were more likely to require optimisation than others (
conclusionOne in 12 primary care USC patients had cancer (5.6% receiving potentially curative treatment), one in three had other systemic health issues, and overall two in five benefited from healthcare intervention. Primary care optimisation was feasible and associated with important allied health benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.