ArticleBMJ supportive & palliative care2026
Prehabilitation in older adults with cancer: scoping review of surgical outcomes.
Article in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdults aged ≥65 years constitute a growing proportion of surgical oncology patients and often experience frailty, multimorbidity and reduced physiological reserve, increasing their risk of postoperative complications and functional decline. Multimodal prehabilitation has emerged as a strategy to improve surgical resilience; however, evidence specific to older cancer patients' remains fragmented. This study aimed to map the existing evidence on prehabilitation for older adult patients undergoing cancer surgery, characterise intervention components, summarise functional and surgical outcomes and identify research gaps.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines and a protocol registered with the Open Science Framework, searches were conducted in PubMed, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar up to November 2025. Eligible studies included older adults undergoing cancer-related surgery who received any form of prehabilitation. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Due to heterogeneity, findings were synthesised narratively.
resultsThirteen studies were included, comprised of six randomised controlled trials (RCT), three cohort studies, two quasi-experimental studies, one feasibility study and one RCT protocol. Most interventions were multimodal and delivered over 1 to 6 weeks. Improvements in preoperative functional capacity-particularly 6 min walk distance, aerobic endurance, muscle strength and respiratory function-were consistently reported. High-intensity or supervised programmes were reduced severity of postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay, while low-intensity or minimally supervised interventions showed limited postoperative benefit. Nutritional optimisation improved preoperative nutritional status and supported functional gains. Feasibility and acceptable adherence were reported even among frail and very elderly patients. Evidence gaps included variable intervention dosage, inconsistent adherence reporting, heterogeneous outcome measures and limited long-term follow-up.
conclusionMultimodal prehabilitation is feasible, safe and beneficial for older adults undergoing cancer surgery, improving preoperative function and, when sufficiently intensive, reducing postoperative morbidity and hospital stay. Further research should standardise outcomes, define optimal intervention parameters and evaluate long-term recovery using geriatric-focused models.
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.