Skip to main content
Download PDF

The effect of a pre- and post-operative exercise programme versus standard care on physical fitness of patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer undergoing neoadjuvant treatment prior to surgery (The PERIOP-OG Trial): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Trials volume 21, Article number: 638 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Advances in peri-operative oncological treatment, surgery and peri-operative care have improved survival for patients with oesophagogastric cancers. Neoadjuvant cancer treatment (NCT) reduces physical fitness, which may reduce both compliance and tolerance of NCT as well as compromising post-operative outcomes. This is particularly detrimental in a patient group where malnutrition is common and surgery is demanding. The aim of this trial is to assess the effect on physical fitness and clinical outcomes of a comprehensive exercise training programme in patients undergoing NCT and surgical resection for oesophagogastric malignancies.

Methods

The PERIOP-OG trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial comparing a peri-operative exercise programme with standard care in patients with oesophagogastric cancers treated with NCT and surgery. The intervention group undergo a formal exercise training programme and the usual care group receive standard clinical care (no formal exercise advice). The training programme is initiated at cancer diagnosis, continued during NCT, between NCT and surgery, and resumes after surgery. All participants undergo assessments at baseline, post-NCT, pre-surgery and at 4 and 10 weeks after surgery. The primary endpoint is cardiorespiratory fitness measured by demonstration of a 15% difference in the 6-min walk test assessed at the pre-surgery timepoint. Secondary endpoints include measures of physical health (upper and lower body strength tests), body mass index, frailty, activity behaviour, psychological and health-related quality of life outcomes. Exploratory endpoints include a health economics analysis, assessment of clinical health by post-operative morbidity scores, hospital length of stay, nutritional status, immune and inflammatory markers, and response to NCT. Rates of NCT toxicity, tolerance and compliance will also be assessed.

Discussion

The PERIOP-OG trial will determine whether, when compared to usual care, exercise training initiated at diagnosis and continued during NCT, between NCT and surgery and then during recovery, can maintain or improve cardiorespiratory fitness and other physical, psychological and clinical health outcomes. This trial will inform both the prescription of exercise regimes as well as the design of a larger prehabilitation and rehabilitation trial to investigate whether exercise in combination with nutritional and psychological interventions elicit greater benefits.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03807518. Registered on 1 January 2019

Peer Review reports

Background

Recent advances in peri-operative oncological treatments have led to survival benefits for patients with locally advanced oesophagogastric cancers [1,2,3]. In spite of the benefits, neoadjuvant cancer therapy (NCT), due to its inherent toxicity, can significantly impact on patients’ fitness for subsequent surgical resection [4,5,6]. Reduced physical fitness is associated with poor tolerance of peri-operative oncological treatment, increased toxicity and compromised peri-operative outcomes [4,5,6]. Evidence exists that reduced physical fitness in the pre-operative period is also a negative predictor of long-term survival in oesophagogastric cancer [7].

Peri-operative prehabilitation and rehabilitation have been shown to be effective in cardiothoracics, orthopaedics and abdominal cancers [8,9,10]. The widespread use of neoadjuvant therapy in oesophagogastric cancers offers a distinct window during which prehabilitation can be undertaken. This cancer group does however present unique challenges, as patients tend to be older, have pre-existing co-morbidity and often present with nutritional compromise. Importantly, any exercise prescription should not negatively impact upon the physiological reserve of patients undergoing NCT followed by resectional oesophagogastric surgery.

Despite improvements in surgical techniques for oesophagogastric cancer, peri-operative morbidity remains significant [11,12,13,14,15]. Post-operative complications result in increased utilisation of critical care, prolonged hospital stay and long-term adverse events [13, 16]. Peri-operative morbidity is now also increasingly recognised to be associated with reduced overall and cancer-specific survival [17]. Patients who are less physically fit at the time of operation have a higher incidence of post-operative morbidity and mortality [18] and hence any strategy which can reduce physical decline or improve physical conditioning between cancer diagnosis and surgery is worthy of investigation.

Following oesophagogastric cancer surgery rehabilitation efforts appear to improve cardiorespiratory fitness and quality of life without compromising nutritional status [19]. How pre-operative programmes impact on patient outcomes is less defined. Evidence that inspiratory muscle, aerobic and resistance training may reduce peri-operative morbidity is limited [20], and both prehabilitation and rehabilitation may improve functional outcomes [20]. The optimal peri-operative exercise strategy remains ill-defined, and what form exercise interventions should take is unclear. Whether programmes should be supervised, home-based or a combination of both is also unclear, and measures of compliance are not established [20]. Whilst some evidence exists that health-related quality of life (HRQoL) may be improved by post-operative exercise programmes [19], data on HRQoL measures from pre-operative interventions have yet to demonstrate significant improvements. A number of small trials and cohort studies are underway which may help to bridge the gap in knowledge [21,22,23,24,25,26,27].

The primary aim of the PERIOP-OG trial is to investigate the effect of a community-based exercise training programme, delivered throughout NCT and prior to surgery compared to usual care. The secondary aim is to investigate the effect of a 6 week post-operative exercise programme in the same cohort. The trial will comprehensively study the effects of exercise on physical, psychological and clinical health outcomes in patients with locally advanced oesophagogastric cancer undergoing neoadjuvant treatment followed by curative surgery.

Methods/Design

The PERIOP-OG trial is a prospective and pragmatic randomised controlled multi-centre superiority trial that compares a programme of peri-operative exercise with standard care in patients with oesophagogastric cancer undergoing NCT followed by surgery. Three university teaching hospitals in Ireland (Beaumont Hospital, Dublin; The Mercy University Hospital, Cork; and Galway University Hospital, Galway) are recruiting to the trial with the exercise training programme delivered in seven exercise centres nationwide. The exercise training is delivered through ExWell Medical, a chronic illness exercise and rehabilitation service, and its exercise partners nationwide.

Lead exercise personnel perform assessments after receiving standardised training by lead study coordinators (LL and RT).

An algorithm of the clinical pathway and the timepoints for assessments are shown in Fig. 1. Ethical approval for this study has been received in each participating site prior to study commencement, and the trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT: NCT0380751).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The PERIOP-OG trial algorithm

Full size image

Study objectives

The primary objective of the PERIOP-OG trial is to demonstrate that a structured community-based exercise programme will result in a clinically significant increase in cardiorespiratory fitness pre-surgery when compared to a standard care control group. Cardiorespiratory fitness is assessed using a 6-min walk test (6MWT) at five timepoints in the trial:baseline, post-NCT, pre-surgery, and 4 weeks and 10 weeks after surgery.

Secondary aims include assessing whether exercise training improves other physical health outcomes: upper and lower body strength tests, activity behaviour monitoring, body mass index and frailty. Psychological health is assessed using a series of questionnaires: EQ-5D-5 L Health Questionnaire, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-E), General Self Efficacy (GSE), Pearlin Mastery Scale (PMS), Surgical Fear Questionnaire (SFQ) and general optimism using the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) tool as well as semi-structured interviews.

Exploratory end-points include assessment of post-operative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification and as agreed upon by the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) [28], the Comprehensive Complication Index, hospital length of stay, nutritional status (serum albumin, sarcopenia score and Foodbook-24), inflammatory markers, cancer staging and response to NCT and a medico-economics analysis of cost effectiveness of the exercise intervention on reducing health care costs and burden. Additionally, rates of NCT toxicity, tolerance and compliance will be measured.

Participants

Eligibility criteria include the following: age ≥ 18 years, multidisciplinary team (MDT) referral for neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy prior to oesophagectomy or gastrectomy; confirmed adenocarcinoma or squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus, oesophago-gastric junction or stomach; and if oesophageal cancer, then the tumours must be more than 5 cm below the crico-pharyngeus muscle.

Exclusion criteria include the following: inability to give informed consent, inability to participate in the exercise training (unable to perform 6MWT), patients undergoing primary surgery, distant metastatic disease, or previous or concomitant malignancy that would interfere with this treatment protocol and pregnancy.

Recruitment and randomisation

The PERIOP-OG trial is currently recruiting (start date 1 March 2019, proposed end date July 2020). All potentially eligible patients are identified in each centre’s MDT and are approached for inclusion at diagnosis before NCT has started. Eligible patients are given an information leaflet and then are contacted 72 h later to confirm participation. A baseline assessment visit is then scheduled whereby informed consent is taken, and the randomisation group revealed. Participants are randomised using central data management to generate a random allocation sequence (1:1). Due to the nature of the study, blinding of patients, data collectors and physiological assessors is not possible but the treating surgeons and their teams are blinded to randomisation, as is the primary analyst.

Nutrition

Malnutrition is common in patients diagnosed with oesophagogastric cancers. All participants enrolled in the PERIOP-OG trial follow a standardised nutritional pathway of care. All three participating centres have specialist dieticians who are highly trained and dedicated to the care of oesophagogastric cancer patients. All patients have a dietician assessment at the time of diagnosis and an individualised dietary plan with appropriate supplementation structured to ensure sufficient calorie and protein supplementation. Peri-operative feeding adjuncts (percutaneous enteral feeding or total parenteral nutrition) will be recorded on an individual basis.

Usual care control group

The usual care control group (no formal exercise training) receive routine care throughout their cancer pathway. No specific advice about exercise training is offered. Activity monitors are worn for a period of 7 days to measure activity behaviours in both groups at each timepoint.

Exercise intervention group

The exercise-training programme starts before NCT (if time allows), continues throughout NCT, and following completion of NCT up to the point of surgery and resumes for 6 weeks after surgery once patients are deemed clinically fit. The exercise-training programme is based on experience gained from a previous feasibility study performed by our own team.

Participants in the exercise group are offered an option to participate in either a centre-based exercise programme (CBEP) or a home-based exercise programme (HBEP). This is to cater for all patients as the time-dense schedules of NCT regimens and the long distances some patients have to travel to their treating hospitals often pose a challenge in exercise prescribing. All participants in the exercise group are provided with an exercise programme pack which includes a manual exercise handbook, a Fitbit, a rate of percieved exertion (RPE) scale and a physical activity diary. They are also given a link to an online motivational video developed specifically for the PERIOP-OG trial.

The HBEP is offered for patients where access to an exercise centre is difficult due to remote or rural living. An individualised exercise prescription is provided initially at the baseline assessment and is reviewed at subsequent assessments. The HBEP involves undertaking exercise independently, however following the baseline assessment participants are educated in aerobic and resistance exercises, and they complete a 10-min exercise session on the cycle ergometer under the supervision of their personal trainer. This provides an understanding of what exercise intensity level they should aim to achieve during aerobic exercise at home, which is guided by the use of the RPE scale. Additionally, participants are instructed on resistance exercises (i.e., weight selection, technique, breathing and rest periods). HBEP participants receive a weekly telephone call, using a structured proforma, to assess adherence to the programme and to amend the programme if necessary. Participants feedback their daily step count and physical activities undertaken each week. All conversations and the duration of each phone call are documented in the participant case report forms. HBEP compliance is self-reported by the participant using a log diary which is returned to the lead researcher at the end of the trial.

The CBEP takes place in seven exercises centres nationwide. Compliance with the CBEP is recorded by number of sessions attended.

Exercise training protocol

The delivery of the CBEP and HBEP is described using the FITT principle (frequency, intensity, time and type of exercise training) [29].

Frequency

Participants are asked to undertake two to three structured exercise training sessions per week during NCT and three exercise training sessions per week thereafter.

Intensity

Exercise sessions may include interval or continuous training (based on individual ability). Interval training involves a series of exercises repeated at moderate and high intensities and continuous training involves moderate intensity exercise for the entire duration of the exercise period.

Interval training of moderate and high intensities is prescribed using the RPE scale (13: somewhat hard to 15: hard) and continuous exercise training programme is prescribed using the RPE scale (13: somewhat hard).

Time

The first interval (moderate to high intensity) exercise session is 30 min: 5-min warm-up followed by four repeated bouts of moderate intensity (3 min) to high intensity (2 min) intervals and 5-min cool down. The first continuous exercise session is also of 30 min duration: 5 min warm-up, 20 min of continuous moderate intensity exercise and 5 min cool down.

The second and subsequent sessions are 40 min long and include a 5-min warm-up, followed by six bouts of moderate intensity (3 min) to high intensity (2 min) intervals and a 5-min cool down. The second continuous exercise session is made up of a 5-min warm-up, 30 min of continuous moderate intensity and a 5-min cool down. Post-operatively, participants resume exercising initially for 20-min sessions and increase the duration of exercise by 10 min per week until the pre-operative timings are achieved.

Type

CBEP or HBEP participants with access to gym equipment may include the use of any of the following equipment: upright cycle ergometer, recumbent cycle ergometer, treadmill, elliptical ergometer, and rowing ergometer, depending on patient preference. HBEP participants without gym access may use a combination of walking, jogging or cycling.

Resistance training involves a circuit of six to ten stations for alternating upper and lower body exercises as outlined in the home-based exercise manual handbook.

Progression

During NCT, no progression occurs in the exercise intensity. In the time window between completing NCT and surgery, exercise intensity is progressed every five sessions (if the participant is tolerating the exercise sessions well). Post-operatively, exercise is progressed by time (as previously outlined) and also by intensity at 8 weeks following surgery.

Outcome measurements

Table 1 shows the timepoints of assessments of the outcome measures as part of the PERIOP-OG trial: baseline, post NCT, pre-surgery, 4 weeks post-surgery and 6 weeks later.

Table 1 Timeline of assessments in the PERIOP-OG trial
Full size table

Primary outcome

Cardiorespiratory fitness

The primary outcome is measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness using the 6MWT assessed at the pre-surgery timepoint. The 6MWT is performed with participants walking up and down a 20 m course marked by cones for 6 min under instruction to cover as much ground as possible. The number of laps completed is recorded. A standard set of instructions is used as per the European Respiratory Society guidelines. The 6MWT is a validated assessment of cardiorespiratory function in clinical populations [30, 31]. A systematic review in 2016 demonstrated that field tests may be able to predict post-operative outcome; however, further validation work is merited [32].

Secondary outcomes

Physical health

Strength

  1. i)

    The sit to stand test. Participants sit on a chair (height 43–45 cm) with arms crossed across their chest, feet flat on the floor, parallel to each other, and approximately one shoulder width apart. Participants then stand up and sit down 10 times as quickly as possible and must fully extend their legs on each stand. The time taken to perform 10 repetitions is timed. Participants perform two trials, and the best trial is recorded [33].

  2. ii)

    The handgrip test. This is measured using a hand dynamometer (Takei 5401 Hand Grip Dynamometer (digital)). The test is conducted in a standing position with the upper (dominant) arm tight against the participant’s trunk and the forearm at a right angle to the upper arm. The gripping handle is set to a comfortable width to ensure the participant can rest the fat pads of the phalanx of the four fingers on the handle. The participant is instructed to squeeze the handle with maximum force for 3 sec. The participant are asked to complete three trials with sufficient rest between each effort and an average is recorded [34].

Activity behaviour

Activity behaviour is assessed using a 7-day ActivPAL3 triaxial accelerometer. Participants in both groups are instructed to wear this device on the midpoint of the anterior aspect of the right thigh continuously for 7 days. The accelerometers do not provide participants with any feedback: data can only be analysed centrally by the lead researchers. Total activity counts per day as well as time in sedentary behaviour are recorded for both groups.

Body composition

Body mass index (BMI) is calculated in the standard manner.

Frailty

Frailty is assessed by the Risk Analysis Index. It has been reported as a valid tool for measuring frailty in surgical populations [35]. It provides a prospective pre-operative assessment of frailty in clinical practice and provides a score between 0 and 81, taking into account demographic, clinical and independence information.

Psychological health

This is assessed using a number of validated questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.

  1. i.

    The Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) questionnaire assesses optimism and consists of ten items assessing expectancy of positive versus negative outcomes. Higher scores represent higher levels of optimism [36].

  2. ii.

    The EQ-5D-5 L health questionnaire is a standardised measure of health status developed by the EuroQoL Group to provide a simple, generic measure of health for clinical and economic appraisal [37].

  3. iii.

    Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal (FACT-E) questionnaire is a health-related quality of life instrument validated in patients with oesophageal cancer. It is composed of a general component (FACT-G) and an Esophageal Cancer Subscale (ECS) [38].

  4. iv.

    The Surgical Fear Questionnaire (SFQ) assesses participants fear of surgery and is a validated and reliable eight-item index of surgical fear consisting of two subscales: fear of the short-term consequences of surgery and fear of the long-term consequences of surgery [39].

  5. v.

    The General Self Efficacy (GSE) and Pearlin Mastery Scale are highly reliable and validated measurements of self efficacy. GSE is a 10 item psychometric scale designed to assess optimistic self beliefs to cope with a variety of difficult demands in life and PMS consists of seven items designed to assess psychological coping resources (Mastery) [40].

  6. vi.

    Semi-structured interviews explore patients’ perceptions of the surgical pathway.

Exploratory outcomes

Nutritional Status is assessed using the following tools:

  1. i.

    The Glasgow Prognostic Score provides cancer prognosis based on serum biomarkers CRP and albumin [41].

  2. ii.

    Foodbook-24, a web-based dietary tool consisting of a 24-h dietary recall and food frequency questionnaire [42].

  3. iii.

    Standard care for all patients is to undergo a staging CT scan at the time of diagnosis and then a restaging CT scan after NCT. Sarcopenia is measured at these two time points using SliceOmatic software (Tomovision, Magog, Canada). At the L3 level, total skeletal muscle, subcutaneous fat and visceral fat will be measured. Skeletal muscle mass will be calculated as skeletal muscle / height (m)2 and will be recorded by two individuals, both of whom will be external to the trial group.

Post-operative morbidity outcomes

  1. i.

    Post-operative Morbidity Score (POMS) is an 18-item tool that addresses morbidity relevant to the post-surgical patient [43].

  2. ii.

    The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications consists of seven grades that rank post-operative complication severity [44].

  3. iii.

    The Comprehensive Complication Index [45] integrates all post-operative complications with their respective severities on a scale ranging from 0 (no burden from complications) to 100 (death).

  4. iv.

    Patients undergoing oesophagectomy will have post-operative morbidity recorded as per the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group [28], with mortality being assessed at 30 days and 90 days.

Blood markers of inflammation

C- reactive protein and white cell count will be measured.

Health economic outcomes

An exploratory analysis will be made of the cost of the exercise intervention, and the net monetary benefit on health care costs and health care interactions that arise during the study will be calculated.

NCT toxicity

Rates of NCT toxicity, tolerance and compliance will be collected.

Patient and public involvement (PPI)

Patient and public volunteers are members of the trial steering committee, and their experience and input were used to help shape the study design. Volunteers attend quarterly trial steering meetings and receive monthly newsletters and trial management meeting minutes. They will assist with trial delivery and conduct as well as trial reporting. Additionally, they will guide our dissemination plan using social media, presentation at conferences, dissemination to patient advocacy groups and journal articles.

Safety

Adverse events are recorded in the relevant case report form by the lead site researcher. Fatal or life-threatening serious adverse events are reported within 24 h of the research team becoming aware of the event. The serious adverse events form documents the nature of the event, date of onset, severity, corrective therapies given, outcome and causality (i.e., unrelated, unlikely, possibly, probably or definitely). Any queries relating to adverse event reporting will be directed to the principal investigator.

Data analysis

Sample size calculation

The sample size calculation was based on results from a recent publication by Minnella et al. [46] who identified a pre-operative increase in 6MWT of 60 m from a baseline score of 450 m, which is an improvement of approximately 13%. Assuming a similar baseline score, a 15% difference can be detected with a p value of 0.05 and power of 80% with a sample of 26 participants with full data in the two groups. With an anticipated 20% drop out, recruitment of 62 participants is anticipated.

Statistical analysis

The analysis will be performed as an intention-to-treat analysis. No interim analysis will be conducted. Data validity will be conducted prior to analysis and corrected as appropriate.

The study population will be described separately for the two randomised groups using variables obtained at baseline. The variables will be described as mean (SD) and numbers (%) as appropriate.

The primary analysis of the primary outcome will be conducted using t-tests of independent group mean differences in 6MWT. The mean difference and 95% confidence interval will be reported and illustrated graphically. Individual change in 6MWT will be calculated from baseline and compared at different time points using t-tests.

The secondary analysis of the primary outcome will use mixed-level analysis with intervention group, time point and interaction of intervention and time points. This analysis will include baseline score for the outcome measure as a covariate. The estimated parameter for the interaction variables will be interpreted as the difference-in-difference between the two groups over time. A separate analysis will explore potential differences in the intervention group between participants who received the intervention at a training centre and those who trained at home. This analysis will be expanded to include descriptive baseline variables such as sex and age. The secondary analysis will use mixed-level analysis and include baseline score and baseline characteristics as covariates.

The cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from a societal perspective over the duration of the trial period. No extrapolation of long-term economic outcomes is planned. The EQ-5D-5 L data reported at each time point will be used to estimate quality-adjusted life years using time-weighted utility scores. The utility scores will be calculated for each individual at each data point using the Irish scoring algorithm for EQ-5D-5 L [47]. The area under the curve denotes the QALY, and incremental QALY is determined as the mean group difference.

The cost of the intervention and subsequent health care resource use will be calculated for each individual using average cost per participant for the intervention programme and self-reported data on healthcare utilisation. Unit costs will be obtained from national sources and assigned to the resource utilisation and aggregated over the whole trial period for each individual. Net monetary benefit (NMB) will be estimated as the cost minus the QALY gain multiplied by an assumed threshold value per QALY.

Missing data

Participants with missing data either because of early drop-out, loss to follow-up or missed participation in the data collection can bias the results. By design, no data will be missing at baseline because only participants with complete baseline data will be randomised.

Missing variables in outcome measures will be handled according to instrument developers’ guidelines. As a general rule, if more than 20% of the items of an instrument are missing, the summary score will be assigned as missing. Missing data will be reported as part of the summary presentation of the raw data. Logistic regression will be used to explore whether participants with missing data have different characteristics than the completers or whether missing data can be assumed missing by random.

Procedures for data checking and entering

Data will be double data entered, and data validation will take place according to the procedures set out in the data management plan and data validation plan. Prior to any statistical analysis, all variables will be checked for the number of missing values, impossible values and improbable values. Impossible and improbable values will be defined by clinical opinion. Improbable values will also include values that are outside three standard deviations of the mean value. Any questions regarding the data will go back to the data manager. Descriptive statistics will be calculated for all variables, and distributional assumptions will be checked.

The Standard Protocol Items-Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) table provides an overview of the study conduct, review, reporting and interpretation and is presented in Table 2. The final report will follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), as well as the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR).

Table 2 The Standard Protocol Items-Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)
Full size table

Discussion

Exercise programmes can impact the outcomes of patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy and surgery for oesphagogastric cancers in a variety of ways. They appear to improve patient functional status, HRQoL and, possibly, peri-operative morbidity [20]. Functional capacity may significantly improve during NCT when a prehabilitation programme is instituted [46, 48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. The use of exercise interventions and their timelines are inconsistently reported in the published literature as are the associated outcome measures that have included maximal inspiratory pressure [48,49,50], 6MWT [46, 52], gait speed [53], FEV1/FVC [51], VO2max and hand grip strength [49, 50]. The heterogeneity in the reported outcomes clearly makes it difficult to compare outcomes between studies. The PERIOP-OG trial aims to address this heterogeneity by including a number of outcome measures to examine cardiorespiratory fitness as well as physical strength. This will provide simple, easily reproducible measures of physical fitness that require minimal specialist equipment and can be widely reproduced in future comparable studies.

Within this trial, patient outcomes are comprehensively recorded during NCT, hospitalisation for resectional surgery and during post-operative recovery. Although the trial is not powered to investigate morbidity as a primary outcome, it may yield some insights as to the effect of the prescribed PERIOP-OG exercise programme on patient morbidity before, during and after surgery.

Quality of life and psychological outcomes are central to improving patient tolerance of NCT and oesophagogastric resection. Both also are recognised to be of increasing importance in survivorship. To date, there has been limited focus on whether exercise prescription can impact these outcomes. Most of the available data in this area are derived from post-operative rehabilitation interventions, which includes patients who may be a number of years from their surgery [19, 55, 56]. The PERIOP-OG trial includes multiple validated measures of patient outcomes, including the LOT-R, EQ-5D-5, FACT-E, GSE, PMS, SFQ, in addition to semi-structured interviews exploring patients’ experience of their peri-operative and surgical pathway. This will provide a comprehensive overview of the influence of this exercise intervention on psychosocial outcomes both before surgery and then after surgery as patients enter recovery and survivorship.

Importantly, any exercise interventions must not impact nutritional status. Specialised multidisciplinary input is available in all participating centres, with dedicated dieticians being involved in each patient’s care and with frequent measures being taken of BMI and nutritional status.

Ideally, all patients would attend supervised training exercise sessions. This is not feasible given the multi-centre nature of this trial, and the geographical distribution of patients. In an effort to maximise gym utilisation and the CBEP, providers will be trained in delivering the PERIOP-OG programme at multiple sites nationwide. This will reduce patients’ commute times and will improve compliance with interventions. For those unable to attend routinely for training, a HBEP is provided. This is a pragmatic approach to the delivery of an exercise programme for all patients, including those who live rurally or remotely from exercise centres. The use of patient activity trackers, frequent patient contact, exercise logbooks and motivational reviews will aim to maximise patient compliance. Although heterogeneity exists including home-based and centre-based exercise programmes, this could be a sustainable model for prehabilitation of surgical-oncology patients in the future.

PERIOP-OG provides a comprehensive programme to examine a strategy of peri-operative exercise in oesophagogastric cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment followed by curative surgery. This trial will be the first to examine the outcomes of peri-operative exercise training in this patient cohort. The interventions studied are easily reproducible and may provide a standardised framework for the prescription of exercise in oesophagogastric cancer patients.

Trial status

The trial registration number is ClinicalTrials.govNCT03807518. Protocol Version 2 31 Oct 2019. The PERIOP-OG trial began recruitment on 1 March 2019. The anticipated end date is May 2020. To date 29 participants have been recruited.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

NCT:

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

MDT:

Multi-disciplinary team

6 MWT:

6-minute walk test

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

LOT-R:

Life Orientation Test-Revised

FACT-E:

Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal

GSE:

General self-efficacy

PMS:

Pearlin Mastery Scale

BMI:

Body mass index

POMS:

Post-Operative Morbidity Score

CD:

Clavien-Dindo Classification

WCC:

White cell count

CRP:

C-reactive protein

QALY:

Quality-adjusted life year

NMB:

Net monetary benefit

SPIRIT:

Standard Protocol Items-Recommendations for Interventional Trials

CBEP:

Centre-based exercise programme

HBEP:

Home-based exercise programme

REP:

Rate of perceived exertion

References

  1. Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, Goetze TO, Meiler J, Kasper S, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1948–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, Thompson JN, Van de Velde CJ, Nicolson M, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(1):11–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof M, van Hagen P, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BPL, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(9):1090–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Horowitz M, Neeman E, Sharon E, Ben-Eliyahu S. Exploiting the critical perioperative period to improve long-term cancer outcomes. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12(4):213–26.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Jack S, West MA, Raw D, Marwood S, Ambler G, Cope TM, et al. The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on physical fitness and survival in patients undergoing oesophagogastric cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(10):1313–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sinclair R, Navidi M, Griffin SM, Sumpter K. The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on cardiopulmonary physical fitness in gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2016;98(6):396–400.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Whibley J, Peters CJ, Halliday LJ, Chaudry AM, Allum WH. Poor performance in incremental shuttle walk and cardiopulmonary exercise testing predicts poor overall survival for patients undergoing esophago-gastric resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(5):594–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hijazi Y, Gondal U, Aziz O. A systematic review of prehabilitation programs in abdominal cancer surgery. Int J Surg. 2017;39:156–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoogeboom TJ, Oosting E, Vriezekolk JE, Veenhof C, Siemonsma PC, de Bie RA, et al. Therapeutic validity and effectiveness of preoperative exercise on functional recovery after joint replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e38031.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hulzebos EH, Smit Y, Helders PP, van Meeteren NL. Preoperative physical therapy for elective cardiac surgery patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD010118.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Avendano CE, Flume PA, Silvestri GA, King LB, Reed CE. Pulmonary complications after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73(3):922–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fagevik Olsen M, Wennberg E, Johnsson E, Josefson K, Lonroth H, Lundell L. Randomized clinical study of the prevention of pulmonary complications after thoracoabdominal resection by two different breathing techniques. Br J Surg. 2002;89(10):1228–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Feeney C, Hussey J, Carey M, Reynolds JV. Assessment of physical fitness for esophageal surgery, and targeting interventions to optimize outcomes. Dis Esophagus. 2010;23(7):529–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Valkenet K, Trappenburg JC, Gosselink R, Sosef MN, Willms J, Rosman C, et al. Preoperative inspiratory muscle training to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing esophageal resection (PREPARE study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:144.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lyden K, Kozey Keadle SL, Staudenmayer JW, Freedson PS. Validity of two wearable monitors to estimate breaks from sedentary time. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(11):2243–52.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferguson MK, Celauro AD, Prachand V. Prediction of major pulmonary complications after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91(5):1494–500 discussion 500-1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Correa-Gallego C, Gonen M, Fischer M, Grant F, Kemeny NE, Arslan-Carlon V, et al. Perioperative complications influence recurrence and survival after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(8):2477–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jack S, West M, Grocott MP. Perioperative exercise training in elderly subjects. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2011;25(3):461–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. O'Neill LM, Guinan E, Doyle SL, Bennett AE, Murphy C, Elliott JA, et al. The RESTORE randomized controlled trial: impact of a multidisciplinary rehabilitative program on cardiorespiratory fitness in esophagogastric cancer survivorship. Ann Surg. 2018;268(5):747–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bolger JC, Loughney L, Tully R, Cunningham M, Keogh S, McCaffrey N, et al. Perioperative prehabilitation and rehabilitation in esophagogastric malignancies: a systematic review. Dis Esophagus. 2019;32(9):doz058.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gilles Caty EP. Prehabilitation in patients with esophageal or gastric cancers. Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT02850172. Accessed 12 May 20.

  22. Roy BL. Effect of Prehabilitation in Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: Study Protocol of a Multicentric, Randomised Control Trial (PREHAB). Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT02780921. Accessed 12 May 20.

  23. Trotter SM. HOPE - A study to evaluate the effect of a prehabilitation program on gi cancer patients planning to undergo surgery (HOPE) Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT03642093. Accessed 12 May 20.

  24. Sophie Allen JS. Does prehabilitation improve exercise performance and insulin resistance after surgery for oesophago-gastric cancer? Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT02950324. Accessed 12 May 20.

  25. Shim YM. Impact of perioperative physical activity on postoperative pulmonary complications and quality of life among esophageal cancer patients. Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT03231462. Accessed 12 May 20.

  26. Chen CC-H. Effects of a "Walk, Eat, & Breathe" nursing intervention for patients with esophageal cancer. Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT02850172. Accessed 12 May 20.

  27. Andrew Davies JZ. Prehabilitation of patients with oesophageal malignancy undergoing peri-operative treatment (Pre-EMPT). Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT03626610. Accessed 12 May 20.

  28. Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling GE, D'Journo XB, et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):286–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, Franklin BA, Lamonte MJ, Lee IM, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1334–59.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Singh SJ, Puhan MA, Andrianopoulos V, Hernandes NA, Mitchell KE, Hill CJ, et al. An official systematic review of the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society: measurement properties of field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(6):1447–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pecorelli N, Fiore JF Jr, Gillis C, Awasthi R, Mappin-Kasirer B, Niculiseanu P, et al. The six-minute walk test as a measure of postoperative recovery after colorectal resection: further examination of its measurement properties. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(6):2199–206.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moran J, Wilson F, Guinan E, McCormick P, Hussey J, Moriarty J. The preoperative use of field tests of exercise tolerance to predict postoperative outcome in intra-abdominal surgery: a systematic review. J Clin Anesth. 2016;35:446–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Netz Y, Ayalon M, Dunsky A, Alexander N. 'The multiple-sit-to-stand' field test for older adults: what does it measure? Gerontology. 2004;50(3):121–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yu R, Ong S, Cheung O, Leung J, Woo J. Reference values of grip strength, prevalence of low grip strength, and factors affecting grip strength values in chinese adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(6):551 e9-.e16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hall DE, Arya S, Schmid KK, Blaser C, Carlson MA, Bailey TL, et al. Development and initial validation of the risk analysis index for measuring frailty in surgical populations. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(2):175–82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67(6):1063–78.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Darling G, Eton DT, Sulman J, Casson AG, Celia D. Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy esophageal cancer subscale. Cancer. 2006;107(4):854–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Theunissen M, Peters ML, Schouten EG, Fiddelers AA, Willemsen MG, Pinto PR, et al. Validation of the surgical fear questionnaire in adult patients waiting for elective surgery. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e100225.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Pearlin LI, Schooler C. The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav. 1978;19(1):2–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. McMillan DC. The systemic inflammation-based Glasgow Prognostic Score: a decade of experience in patients with cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39(5):534–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Timon CM, van den Barg R, Blain RJ, Kehoe L, Evans K, Walton J, et al. A review of the design and validation of web- and computer-based 24-h dietary recall tools. Nutr Res Rev. 2016;29(2):268–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Grocott MP, Browne JP, Van der Meulen J, Matejowsky C, Mutch M, Hamilton MA, et al. The Postoperative Morbidity Survey was validated and used to describe morbidity after major surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(9):919–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Slankamenac K, Nederlof N, Pessaux P, de Jonge J, Wijnhoven BPL, Breitenstein S, et al. The comprehensive complication index: a novel and more sensitive endpoint for assessing outcome and reducing sample size in randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2014;260(5):757–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Minnella EM, Awasthi R, Loiselle SE, Agnihotram RV, Ferri LE, Carli F. Effect of exercise and nutrition prehabilitation on functional capacity in esophagogastric cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(12):1081–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Hobbins A, Barry L, Kelleher D, Shah K, Devlin N, Goni JMR, et al. Utility values for health states in Ireland: a value set for the EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(11):1345–53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Dettling DS, van der Schaaf M, Blom RL, Nollet F, Busch OR, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Feasibility and effectiveness of pre-operative inspiratory muscle training in patients undergoing oesophagectomy: a pilot study. Physiother Res Int. 2013;18(1):16–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Valkenet K, Trappenburg JC, Schippers CC, Wanders L, Lemmens L, Backx FJ, et al. Feasibility of exercise training in cancer patients scheduled for elective gastrointestinal surgery. Dig Surg. 2016;33(5):439–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Valkenet K, Trappenburg JCA, Ruurda JP, Guinan EM, Reynolds JV, Nafteux P, et al. Multicentre randomized clinical trial of inspiratory muscle training versus usual care before surgery for oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105(5):502–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. van Adrichem EJ, Meulenbroek RL, Plukker JT, Groen H, van Weert E. Comparison of two preoperative inspiratory muscle training programs to prevent pulmonary complications in patients undergoing esophagectomy: a randomized controlled pilot study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(7):2353–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Xu YJ, Cheng JC, Lee JM, Huang PM, Huang GH, Chen CC. A walk-and-eat intervention improves outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Oncologist. 2015;20(10):1216–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Yamamoto K, Nagatsuma Y, Fukuda Y, Hirao M, Nishikawa K, Miyamoto A, et al. Effectiveness of a preoperative exercise and nutritional support program for elderly sarcopenic patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20(5):913–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Christensen JF, Simonsen C, Banck-Petersen A, Thorsen-Streit S, Herrstedt A, Djurhuus SS, et al. Safety and feasibility of preoperative exercise training during neoadjuvant treatment before surgery for adenocarcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction. BJS Open. 2019;3(1):74–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Chasen MR, Bhargava R. A rehabilitation program for patients with gastroesophageal cancer--a pilot study. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(Suppl 2):S35–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. O'Neill LGE, Doyle SL, Elliott JA, O'Sullivan J, Reynolds JV, Hussey J. Rehabilitation strategies following esophageal cancer (the ReStOre trial): a feasibility study. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(5):1–8.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the contributions of Wendy Hickey1, Claire Coleman1, Louise Buckley5, Eileen Lombard5, Noel McCaffrey3, Pamela Gallagher6, Claire Timon7, Patricia Kearney8, Aoife Quinn4, Emma Houlihan9, DJ O’Dwyer10, Catherine Woods11, Raymond O’Connor11, Sinead Kelly11, Brona Kehoe12, Mark McManus13 and Austin Twomey13

1. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

2. The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, St Stephens Green, Dublin, Ireland

3. ExWell Medical, Santry Sports Link, Dublin, Ireland

4. Department of Upper GI Surgery, University Hospital, Galway, Ireland

5. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland

6. Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Ireland

7. Centre for Applied Research in Connected Health G45 Nexus, University College Dublin, Ireland

8. School of Public Health, University College Cork, Ireland

9. Cancer Care West, Galway, Ireland

10. HeartWise Clonmel, Co Tipperary, Ireland

11. Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, Ireland

12. Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland

13. Cork Leisure World, Cork, Ireland

Funding

Some assistance for this project has been granted from the Beaumont Hospital Foundation Trust to cover the cost of exercise sessions in participating centres.

Additionally, the Oesophageal Cancer Fund (the Irish National charity for oesophageal cancer in Ireland) and the Royal College of Surgeons have also provided the study with some funding. The Beaumont Cancer Foundation Trust and the Oesophageal Cancer Fund had no role in the design of the study or in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

    Roisin Tully, Jarlath Bolger, Mayilone Arumugasamy & William B. Robb

  2. The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, St. Stephens Green, Dublin, Ireland

    Roisin Tully, Lisa Loughney, Jan Sorensen, Mayilone Arumugasamy & William B. Robb

  3. ExWell Medical, Santry Sports Link, Dublin, Ireland

    Lisa Loughney

  4. Department of Upper GI Surgery, University Hospital, Galway, Ireland

    Oliver McAnena, Chris G. Collins & Paul A. Carroll

  5. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland

    Tomas J. Murphy

Authors
  1. Roisin Tully
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Loughney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jarlath Bolger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan Sorensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Oliver McAnena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chris G. Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paul A. Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mayilone Arumugasamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tomas J. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. William B. Robb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the PERIOP OG Working Group

  • Wendy Hickey
  • , Claire Coleman
  • , Louise Buckley
  • , Eileen Lombard
  • , Noel McCaffrey
  • , Pamela Gallagher
  • , Claire Timon
  • , Patricia Kearney
  • , Aoife Quinn
  • , Emma Houlihan
  • , D. J. O’Dwyer
  • , Catherine Woods
  • , Raymond O’Connor
  • , Sinead Kelly
  • , Brona Kehoe
  • , Mark McManus
  •  & Austin Twomey

Contributions

WBR and LL conceived the study. WBR, LL, RT, JB, CC, OM, PAC, PG, CT, TM, NMcC, MA and JS contributed to the study design. The drafted manuscript underwent revision by all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William B. Robb.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Beaumont Hospital Ethics (Medical Research) Committee REC Ref: 18/58.

Dublin City University Research Ethics Committee Ref: DCUREC/2018/255.

University Hospital Galway Clinical Research Ethics Committee Ref: C. A 2160.

Mercy Hospital Cork CREC Review Reference Number: ECM 4 (mm) 19/04/19.

Waterford Institute of Technology REF:WIT2019REC0011.

Informed consent to participate will be obtained from all study participants.

Ethical approval has been sought at both central and local levels. No recruitment took place until ethical approval was granted.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tully, R., Loughney, L., Bolger, J. et al. The effect of a pre- and post-operative exercise programme versus standard care on physical fitness of patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer undergoing neoadjuvant treatment prior to surgery (The PERIOP-OG Trial): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 21, 638 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04311-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04311-4

Keywords

Trials

ISSN: 1745-6215