Page 128 - HHR-HNR 2.0

ergometer training. The authors give specific recommendations for interval training based on the test results, and these appear to give good results (De Backer, Schep et al. 2007).\u000DMuscle strength is assessed using the estimated 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) in specific muscle groups, handgrip dynametry with the JAMAR\u00AE and/or 30s chair stands (Kilgour, Vigano et al. 2010).\u000D5.5.3.2 Physiotherapy in case of reduced physical exercise capacity, activity and/or fatigue\u000DIn patients who, after head and neck cancer treatment, have a care need caused or mediated by insufficient exercise tolerance and/or fatigue, an exercise/training programme is required.\u000DAlthough extensive literature reviews are available on the positive effects of exercise interventions in the rehabilitation of cancer patients (Knols, Aaronson et al. 2005, Cramp and Daniel 2008, Mishra, Scherer et al. 2012), hardly any studies are available on the head and neck cancer population. There are, however, no biological or methodological reasons to assume that the physical outcome results cannot be applied to this population as well. This may also be the case with quality of life and fatigue. In a randomised study (n=41) it could indeed be shown that patients who, after radiotherapy treatment for a head and neck tumour, were given 12 weeks of strength training, with an average frequency of 5 sessions per 2 weeks, experienced an increase in muscle strength, muscle mass, and functional capacity, as well as an improvement in quality of life. In the intervention in this study, supervision was limited (2-3 sessions and incidental additional instruction during the course of the programme).\u000DAlthough the efficacy of physical training during treatment is still unclear, patients in the head and neck rehabilitation programme are offered the opportunity to enrol in the FT6 module during chemoradiation, should they want to. Studies in other cancer populations have shown that physical training during oncological treatment with curative intent can contribute towards maintaining quality of life (Stevinson, Lawlor et al. 2004, Courneya, Jones et al. 2008), reducing fatigue (Cramp and Daniel 2008, Segal, Reid et al. 2009), limiting the loss of physical functions and the ability to complete the medical treatment (Courneya, Jones et al. 2008, Van Waart, Stuiver et al. 2010). These effects have rarely been studied for the head and neck cancer population. A randomised feasibility study (n=15) on resistance training (2 sessions a week, 6 weeks under supervision, 6 weeks independently with telephone counselling) showed medium effect sizes (0.6) on fatigue, quality of life and functional movement (chair-rise time)(Rogers, Anton et al. 2013). The sample size of the study, due to its feasibility design, was too small to find statistically significant results, but they are considered clinically significant. Another randomised study (n=43) investigated the effect of a home-based training programme consisting of brisk walking and a moderately intensive progressive resistance training programme, 5 days a week (Samuel, Maiya et al. 2013). In this study an effect size of 0.46 was found in favour of the intervention group. The mental and physical component scores of quality of life, measured with the SF36, showed a decline in quality of life in the control group, as compared to stable scores for the intervention group. Furthermore, a clinically significant increase in functional capacity (6MWT) was seen in the intervention group.\u000DIn conclusion, part of the patient population will be offered an exercise intervention consisting of tailored advice for a home-based exercise programme, possibly accompanied by a short period of supervision and/or follow-up counselling. When increase of muscle mass is deemed important, which will often be the case in the head and neck cancer population, this \u0027home-based programme\u0027 will at some point have to take place at a gym, so as to guarantee the correct load. Such a programme will\u000D127\u000D