Clinical characteristics and predictive factors of survival of 761 cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: A prospective, cohort study

[Home parenteral nutrition in patients with malignant bowel obstruction. Ethical considerations]

Introduction

Background: patients with cancer are one of the main group of patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Patients with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) represent a challenging group when considering HPN. At the Ethics Working Group of SENPE ethical considerations on this subject were reviewed and a guidelines proposal was made. Methods: a literature search was done and a full set of questions arose: When, if ever, is HPN indicated for patients with MBO? How should the training program be? When withdrawal of HPN should be considered? Other questions should be also taken into consideration. May any Oncologist send home a patient with HPN? The educational program could be shortened? When considering to withdraw parenteral nutrition? Results: HPN in MBO has better outcomes when patients have a good functional status (Karnofsky ≥ 50 or ECOG ≤ 2), expected survival > 2-3 months, and low inflammatory markers. Very few data have been reported on quality of life, but HPN allows a valuable time at home albeit with a considerable burden for both patients and their families. Proposal: once a patient is considered for HPN, there is a need for a deep talk on the benefits, complications and risks. In this initial talk, when HNP should be stopped needs to be included. The palliative care team with the help of the nutrition support team should follow the patient, whose clinical status must be assessed regularly. HPN should be withdrawn when no additional benefits are achieved. Conclusion: HPN may be considered an option in patients with MBO when they have a fair or good functional status and a desire to spend their last days at home.

Ready-to-Use Multichamber Bags in Home Parenteral Nutrition for Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Single-Center Prospective Study

Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is increasingly prescribed for patients with advanced cancer. This therapy improves free-fat mass, quality of life and survival, but it is not free from complications, especially catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). The use of commercial multichamber bags in HPN has not been extensively explored in oncologic patients and their association with complications is not well known. In this prospective cohort study, we included 130 patients with advanced cancer and HPN. We compared the effects of individual compounded bags (n = 87) vs. commercial multichamber bags (n = 43) on complications. There were no differences in any complication, including thrombosis (p > 0.05). There were 0.28 episodes of CRBSI per 1000 catheter days in the individual compounded bag group and 0.21 in the multichamber bag group (p > 0.05). A total of 34 patients were weaned off HPN, 22 with individual bags and 12 with multichamber bags (p = 0.749). Regarding survival when on HPN, the group with individual bags showed a median of 98 days (95% CI of 49-147), whereas those with multichamber bags showed a median of 88 days (95% CI of 43-133 (p = 0.913)). In conclusion, commercial multichamber bags for HPN in patients with advanced cancer are non-inferior when compared to individual compounded bags in terms of complications.

High-protein home parenteral nutrition in malnourished oncology patients: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Up to 83% of oncology patients are affected by cancer-related malnutrition, depending on tumour location and patient age. Parenteral nutrition can be used to manage malnutrition, but there is no clear consensus as to the optimal protein dosage. The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to identify studies on malnourished oncology patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN) where protein or amino acid delivery was reported in g/kg bodyweight/day, and to compare outcomes between patients receiving low (< 1 g/kg bodyweight/day), standard (1-1.5 g/kg/day), and high-protein doses (> 1.5 g/kg/day).

METHODS

Literature searches were performed on 5th October 2021 in Embase, MEDLINE, and five Cochrane Library and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Searches were complemented by hand-searching of conference proceedings, a clinical trial registry, and bibliographic reference lists of included studies and relevant SLRs/meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Nineteen publications were included; sixteen investigated standard protein, two reported low protein, and one included both, but none assessed high-protein doses. Only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) was identified; all other studies were observational studies. The only study to compare two protein doses reported significantly greater weight gain in patients receiving 1.15 g/kg/day than those receiving 0.77 g/kg/day.

CONCLUSION

At present, there is insufficient evidence to determine the optimal protein dosage for malnourished oncology patients receiving HPN. Data from non-HPN studies and critically ill patients indicate that high-protein interventions are associated with increased overall survival and quality of life; further studies are needed to establish whether the same applies in malnourished oncology patients.

Associations between body mass index and all-cause mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Fasting insulin and c-reactive protein confound the association between mortality and body mass index. An increase in fat mass may mediate the associations between hyperinsulinemia, hyperinflammation, and mortality. The objective of this study was to describe the "average" associations between body mass index and the risk of mortality and to explore how adjusting for fasting insulin and markers of inflammation might modify the association of BMI with mortality. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies published in 2020. Studies with adult participants where BMI and vital status was assessed were included. BMI was required to be categorized into groups or parametrized as non-first order polynomials or splines. All-cause mortality was regressed against mean BMI squared within seven broad clinical populations. Study was modeled as a random intercept. β coefficients and 95% confidence intervals are reported along with estimates of mortality risk by BMIs of 20, 30, and 40 kg/m2 . Bubble plots with regression lines are drawn, showing the associations between mortality and BMI. Splines results were summarized. There were 154 included studies with 6,685,979 participants. Only five (3.2%) studies adjusted for a marker of inflammation, and no studies adjusted for fasting insulin. There were significant associations between higher BMIs and lower mortality risk in cardiovascular (unadjusted β -0.829 [95% CI -1.313, -0.345] and adjusted β -0.746 [95% CI -1.471, -0.021]), Covid-19 (unadjusted β -0.333 [95% CI -0.650, -0.015]), critically ill (adjusted β -0.550 [95% CI -1.091, -0.010]), and surgical (unadjusted β -0.415 [95% CI -0.824, -0.006]) populations. The associations for general, cancer, and non-communicable disease populations were not significant. Heterogeneity was very large (I2  ≥ 97%). The role of obesity as a driver of excess mortality should be critically re-examined, in parallel with increased efforts to determine the harms of hyperinsulinemia and chronic inflammation.

Energy Guidance Using Indirect Calorimetry for Intestinal Failure Patients with Home Parenteral Nutrition: The Right Bag Right at the Start

Intestinal failure is defined as the inability to absorb the minimum of macro and micronutrients, minerals and vitamins due to a reduction in gut function. In a subpopulation of patients with a dysfunctional gastrointestinal system, treatment with total or supplemental parenteral nutrition is required. The golden standard for the determination of energy expenditure is indirect calorimetry. This method enables an individualized nutritional treatment based on measurements instead of equations or body weight calculations. The possible use and advantages of this technology in a home PN setting need critical evaluation. For this narrative review, a bibliographic search is performed in PubMed and Web of Science using the following terms: 'indirect calorimetry', 'home parenteral nutrition', 'intestinal failure', 'parenteral nutrition', 'resting energy expenditure', 'energy expenditure' and 'science implementation'. The use of IC is widely embedded in the hospital setting but more research is necessary to investigate the role of IC in a home setting and especially in IF patients. It is important that scientific output is generated in order to improve patients' outcome and develop nutritional care paths.

Supplemental parenteral nutrition in cancer care: why, who, when

Malnutrition is an often-overlooked challenge for patients with cancer. It is associated with muscle mass reduction, poor compliance and response to cancer treatments, decreased quality of life, and reduced survival time. The nutritional assessment and intervention should be a vital part of any comprehensive cancer treatment plan. However, data on artificial nutrition supplied based on caloric needs during cancer care are scarce. In this review, we discuss the recommendations of the European and American societies for clinical nutrition on the use of nutritional interventions in malnourished patients with cancer in the context of current clinical practice. In particular, when enteral nutrition (oral or tube feeding) is not feasible or fails to meet the complete nutritional needs, supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) can bridge the gap. We report the available evidence on SPN in cancer patients and identify the perceived barriers to the wider application of this intervention. Finally, we suggest a ‘permissive’ role of SPN in cancer care but highlight the need for rigorous clinical studies to further evaluate the use of SPN in different populations of cancer patients.

Nutritional Support Indications in Gastroesophageal Cancer Patients: From Perioperative to Palliative Systemic Therapy. A Comprehensive Review of the Last Decade

Gastric cancer treatments are rapidly evolving, leading to significant survival benefit. Recent evidence provided by clinical trials strongly encouraged the use of perioperative chemotherapy as standard treatment for the localized disease, whereas in the advanced disease setting, molecular characterization has improved patients’ selection for tailored therapeutic approaches, including molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The role of nutritional therapy is widely recognized, with oncologic treatment’s tolerance and response being better in well-nourished patients. In this review, literature data on strategies or nutritional interventions will be critically examined, with particular regard to different treatment phases (perioperative, metastatic, and palliative settings), with the aim to draw practical indications for an adequate nutritional support of gastric cancer patients and provide an insight on future directions in nutritional strategies. We extensively analyzed the last 10 years of literature, in order to provide evidence that may fit current clinical practice both in terms of nutritional interventions and oncological treatment. Overall, 137 works were selected: 34 Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs), 12 meta-analysis, 9 reviews, and the most relevant prospective, retrospective and cross-sectional studies in this setting. Eleven ongoing trials have been selected from clinicaltrial.gov as representative of current research. One limitation of our work lies in the heterogeneity of the described studies, in terms of sample size, study procedures, and both nutritional and clinical outcomes. Indeed, to date, there are no specific evidence-based guidelines in this fields, therefore we proposed a clinical algorithm with the aim to indicate an appropriate nutritional strategy for gastric cancer patients.

In Reply: Randomized Studies Are Needed to Improve Knowledge of Nutritional Interventions for Advanced Cancer Patients

This letter to the editor continues a discussion about parenteral nutrition for patients with advanced cancer and calls for future randomized studies assessing both enteral and parenteral nutrition.

The Role of Nutritional Support for Cancer Patients in Palliative Care

The role of nutritional support for cancer patients in palliative care is still a controversial topic, in part because there is no consensus on the definition of a palliative care patient because of ambiguity in the common medical use of the adjective palliative. Nonetheless, guidelines recommend assessing nutritional deficiencies in all such patients because, regardless of whether they are still on anticancer treatments or not, malnutrition leads to low performance status, impaired quality of life (QoL), unplanned hospitalizations, and reduced survival. Because nutritional interventions tailored to individual needs may be beneficial, guidelines recommend that if oral food intake remains inadequate despite counseling and oral nutritional supplements, home enteral nutrition or, if this is not sufficient or feasible, home parenteral nutrition (supplemental or total) should be considered in suitable patients. The purpose of this narrative review is to identify in these cancer patients the area of overlapping between the two therapeutic approaches consisting of nutritional support and palliative care in light of the variables that determine its identification (guidelines, evidence, ethics, and law). However, nutritional support for cancer patients in palliative care may be more likely to contribute to improving their QoL when part of a comprehensive early palliative care approach.

Monitoring Response to Home Parenteral Nutrition in Adult Cancer Patients

Current guidelines recommend home parenteral nutrition (HPN) for cancer patients with chronic deficiencies of dietary intake or absorption when enteral nutrition is not adequate or feasible in suitable patients. HPN has been shown to slow down progressive weight loss and improve nutritional status, but limited information is available on the monitoring practice of cancer patients on HPN. Clinical management of these patients based only on nutritional status is incomplete. Moreover, some commonly used clinical parameters to monitor patients (weight loss, body weight, body mass index, and oral food intake) do not accurately reflect patient’s body composition, while bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a validated tool to properly assess nutritional status on a regular basis. Therefore, patient’s monitoring should rely on other affordable indicators such as Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) to also assess patient’s functional status and prognosis. Finally, catheter-related complications and quality of life represent crucial issues to be monitored over time. The purpose of this narrative review is to describe the role and relevance of monitoring cancer patients on HPN, regardless of whether they are receiving anticancer treatments. These practical tips may be clinically useful to better guide healthcare providers in the nutritional care of these patients.

Clinical characteristics and predictive factors of survival of 761 cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: A prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robust data reporting the survival of cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are lacking. The aim of this prospective, cohort study was to investigate clinical characteristics, predictive factors, and overall survival (OS) of adult-malnourished cancer patients eligible for HPN according to the European guideline recommendations.

METHODS

During the study period, 1658 cancer patients were consecutively evaluated in a tertiary university hospital. Of these, 761 who received HPN were grouped into four cohorts according to the provision of supplemental PN (SPN) or total (TPN) and whether they received chemotherapy (CT⁺ or CT^- ): SPN/CT⁺ (n = 376), TPN/CT⁺ (n = 99), SPN/CT^- (n = 191), and TPN/CT^- (n = 95). Patient demographics, nutritional status, cancer-related characteristics, and prognostic scores assessed at HPN start. The primary outcome was OS.

RESULTS

Median OS was 8.9, 4.3, 5.7, and 2.2 months for the SPN/CT⁺ , TPN/CT⁺ , SPN/CT^- , and TPN/CT^- cohorts, respectively. In multivariable analysis, predictors showing significant association with decreased survival were patient cohorts, modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (1 and 2 scores), weight loss (>15%) in the 3 months before HPN start, and TNM IV stage while protective factors of survival were Karnofsky Performance Status (>50), albumin level (>3.5 g/dL), oral protein intake, BMI (>20.5), and weight at HPN start.

CONCLUSION

For the first time, in four different cohorts of cancer patients on HPN, clinical characteristics and survival were compared. This large study showed that survival is significantly correlated with patient characteristics at HPN start and that the presence of favorable factors may determine even a fourfold increase in survival. These data are expected to assist physicians in the appropriate prescription of HPN.