Alkhatib, Khalid Y.

Objectives To comprehensively review the available literature on prehabilitation and rehabilitation exercise, nutrition, and psychological support interventions for patients with kidney cancer (KC), to summarise the clinically relevant efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of interventions, to expose key knowledge gaps, and to inform future investigations and initiatives. Methods This review was performed according to the per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews Guidelines. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing programmes of prehabilitation or rehabilitation, exercise, psychological support, or nutrition components in patients with KC or KC caregivers from January 2004 to March 2022. Statistically significant positive (SS+) and negative (SS−) results were summarised. Results The systematic search yielded 10 968 records including 18 RCTs, involving 2774 unique subjects, 706 of whom were KC patients/survivors. None included caregivers or assessed cost‐effectiveness. Two interventions were implemented before surgery, one was implemented prior to initiation of systemic therapy, eight were implemented during systemic or radiation therapy, three were implemented after treatment, while implementation time was not specified for four interventions. Conclusion Most (14/18) RCTs involving exercise, nutrition, psychological support, or prehabilitative or rehabilitative programmes for KC performed to date demonstrated SS+ results. The evidence was most robust regarding previously evaluated psychological support, especially mindfulness‐based interventions (9/10 studies demonstrating SS+ improvement in primary outcomes), followed by therapeutically valid exercise with/without psychological support (5/8 RCTs demonstrated efficacy), then nutrition or pharmacological interventions (2/5 demonstrated efficacy). Level 1 evidence supports counselling patients and referral to mindfulness‐based psychological therapy along with physical therapy or physical medicine and rehabilitation, as well as consideration of preoperative carbohydrate drinks. No studies have examined impact on caregivers, or cost‐effectiveness, which are both critical areas for future study.

PURPOSE: Testing for pathogenic variants can aid in oncologic risk stratification and identification of targeted therapies. Despite known disparities in access to prostate cancer (PCa) care, little has been written about access to germline genetic testing (GGT) for Black men and other historically marginalized populations. This systematic review sought to delineate racial/ethnic disparities in GGT for PCa. METHODS: This systematic review identified articles published from January 1996 through May 2021 in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. We included studies that reported rates of GGT in men with PCa in the United States by race/ethnicity as reflective of routine clinical care or research. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Of 4,309 unique records, 91 studies examining 50 unique study populations met inclusion criteria. Of these, four populations included men who received GGT through routine clinical care, accounting for 4,415 men (72.6% White and 7.2% Black). The other 46 populations included men who received GGT as part of a research study, accounting for 30,824 men (64.3% White and 21.6% Black). Of these 46 research populations, 19 used targeted methods to increase recruitment from a specific demographic. CONCLUSION: Most studies that report GGT rates by race/ethnicity are in research settings. Many of these studies used targeted recruitment methods and subsequently have a greater proportion of Black men than clinical and US population–based studies. Other historically marginalized populations are not well represented. There remains a knowledge gap regarding the extent of racial disparities in the use of GGT, particularly in the clinical setting.