Gerber, Lynn H.

Background and Aims: Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease management guidelines have been published worldwide; we aimed to summarize, categorize, and compare their lifestyle intervention recommendations. Approach and Results: We searched metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease/NAFLD management guidelines published between January 1, 2013, and June 31, 2024, through databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and CINAHL. In total, 35 qualifying guidelines were included in the final analysis. Guideline recommendations were categorized into 5 domains (ie, weight reduction goals, physical activity, nutrition, alcohol, and tobacco smoking) and were ranked based on how frequently they appeared. A recommendation was defined as widely adopted if recommended in ≥24 (≥66.6%) of the guidelines. These included increasing physical activity; reducing body weight by 7%–10% to improve steatohepatitis and/or fibrosis; restricting caloric intake; undertaking 150–300 or 75–150 minutes/week of moderate or vigorous-intensity physical activity, respectively; and decreasing consumption of commercially produced fructose. The least mentioned topics, in ≤9 of the guidelines, evaluated environmental determinants of health, mental health, referring patients for psychological or cognitive behavioral therapy, using digital health interventions, and assessing patients’ social determinants of health. Conclusions: Most guidelines recommend weight reduction through physical activity and improving nutrition, as these have proven positive effects on health outcomes when sustained. However, gaps regarding mental health and the social and environmental determinants of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease were found. To optimize behavioral modifications and treatment, we recommend carrying out studies that will provide further evidence on social support, environmental factors, and mental health, as well as further exploring digital health interventions.

Abstract Purpose Breast cancer patients are at risk of losing function during and after treatment. Unfortunately, little is known about the individual and additive effects of specific treatment, disease-related, and demographic factors that may contribute to functional decline. This manuscript reports the results of a multi-center study to evaluate the effects of these factors on function. Methods In this cross-sectional study, women with a history of breast cancer referred to cancer rehabilitation clinics were administered the PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile to evaluate function in the domains of physical function, fatigue, and social participation. Clinical and demographic information, including treatment history and disease status, was recorded by clinicians. Patients were analyzed in two groups: those with active disease on antineoplastic treatment, and those with no evidence of disease (NED). A multivariable model was constructed to detect associations between clinical and demographic factors. Results In patients with NED, the presence of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) was strongly associated with reduced function in all three domains. In those with active disease, having brain metastases was significantly associated with reduced function in all domains and CIPN with reduced physical function. Radiation was associated with improved function in both cohorts. Conclusions Among women seeking rehabilitative care, CIPN and the presence of brain metastases were most strongly associated with a decline in function. The effects of radiation on function were unexpected and may be partially explained by the treatment’s role in symptom management. Clinicians who treat breast cancer should consider a patient’s functional status when providing supportive care.

BackgroundMeasuring function with valid and responsive tools in patients with cancer is essential for driving clinical decision‐making and for the end points of clinical trials. Current patient‐reported outcome measurements of function fall short for many reasons. This study evaluates the responsiveness of the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile, a novel measure of function across multiple domains.MethodsTwo hundred nine participants across five geographically distinct tertiary care centers completed the assessment and pain rating at two outpatient cancer rehabilitation clinic visits. Patients and providers completed a global rating of change measure at the second visit to indicate whether the patient was improving or worsening in function. Multiple response indices and linear models measured whether the measure was responsive to self‐reported and clinician‐rated changes over time. Correlations between changes in function and changes in anchors (pain rating and performance status) were also calculated.ResultsFunction as measured by the PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile changed appropriately as both patients and clinicians rated change. Small to moderate effect sizes supported the tool's responsiveness. Function was moderately correlated with pain and more strongly correlated with performance status, and changes in function corresponded with changes in anchor variables. No floor/ceiling effect was found.ConclusionsThe PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile is sensitive to changes over time in patients with cancer. The measure may be useful in clinical practice and as an end point in clinical trials.Lay summary We gave patients a questionnaire by which they told their physicians how well they were functioning, including how fatigued they were. This study tested that questionnaire to see whether the scores would change if patients got better or worse.

AbstractIn 2018, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) reconvened an international, multi‐disciplinary group of professionals to review pertinent published literature on exercise for people with cancer. The 2018 roundtable resulted in the publication of three articles in 2019. The three articles serve as an important update to the original ACSM Roundtable on Cancer, which convened in 2010. Although the focus of the three 2019 articles is on exercise, which is only one part of comprehensive cancer rehabilitation, the evidence presented in the 2019 ACSM articles has direct implications for physiatrists and other rehabilitation professionals who care for people with cancer. As such, the narrative review presented here has two primary objectives. First, we summarize the evidence within the three ACSM articles and interpret it within a familiar rehabilitation framework, namely the Dietz model of Cancer Rehabilitation, in order to facilitate implementation broadly within rehabilitation practice. Second, via expert consensus, we have tabulated relevant exercise recommendations for specific cancer populations at different points in the cancer care continuum and translated them into text, tables, and figures for ease of reference. Notably, the authors of this article are members of the Cancer Rehabilitation Physician Consortium (CRPC), a group of physicians who subspecialize in cancer rehabilitation medicine (CRM).

Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence‐based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health‐related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home‐based or community‐based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.