Simple Summary Rehabilitation might play a crucial role in malignant pleural mesothelioma
(MPM), but its role is still debated in MPM patients. The intervention comprised multidisciplinary
educational sessions, physical rehabilitation, and respiratory physiotherapy. Feasibility
was evaluated based on dropout rates, adherence to the rehabilitation program, safety,
and patient-reported outcomes. In light of the current evidence, we have conducted
a pilot study to assess the feasibility of tailored pulmonary rehabilitation in terms
of physical and respiratory function in MPM. Twelve patients were initially enrolled,
with seven completing the study. High adherence to physical (T1: 93.43%, T2: 82.56%)
and respiratory (T1: 96.2%, T2: 92.5%) rehabilitation was observed, with minimal adverse
events reported. Patient satisfaction remained high throughout the study (GPE scores
at T1: 1.83 +/- 1.17; T2: 2.0 +/- 1.15), with improvements noted in physical function,
pain management, and health-related quality of life. Despite its promising outcomes,
further research with larger samples is warranted to validate its efficacy and integrate
rehabilitation as a component into the multidisciplinary management of MPM.Abstract
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) represents a significant health burden, with
limited treatment options and poor prognosis. Despite advances in pharmacological
and surgical interventions, the role of rehabilitation in MPM management remains underexplored.
This study aims to assess the feasibility of a tailored pulmonary rehabilitation intervention
addressing physical and respiratory function in MPM patients. A prospective pilot
study was conducted on surgically treated MPM patients referred to a cardiopulmonary
rehabilitation service. The intervention comprised multidisciplinary educational sessions,
physical rehabilitation, and respiratory physiotherapy. Feasibility was evaluated
based on dropout rates, adherence to the rehabilitation program, safety, and patient-reported
outcomes. Twelve patients were initially enrolled, with seven completing the study.
High adherence to physical (T1: 93.43%, T2: 82.56%) and respiratory (T1: 96.2%, T2:
92.5%) rehabilitation was observed, with minimal adverse events reported. Patient
satisfaction remained high throughout the study (GPE scores at T1: 1.83 +/- 1.17;
T2: 2.0 +/- 1.15), with improvements noted in physical function, pain management,
and health-related quality of life. However, some issues, such as time constraints
and lack of continuous supervision, were reported by participants. This pilot study
demonstrates the feasibility and potential benefits of a tailored pulmonary rehabilitation
intervention in MPM patients. Despite its promising outcomes, further research with
larger samples is warranted to validate its efficacy and integrate rehabilitation
as a component into the multidisciplinary management of MPM.
