Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine Monotherapy vs. Gemcitabine with an EPA-Enriched Oral Supplement in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Nutritional interventions in randomised clinical trials for people with incurable solid cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Malnutrition is highly prevalent in those with cancer and more so in those with incurable cancer. In incurable cancer, it is widely agreed that optimal nutritional care has the potential to positively impact patient and caregiver distress and oncological outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the diversity and frequency of nutritional interventions, whether given in isolation or as part of a multimodal intervention in those with incurable cancer, in randomised controlled trials. The secondary aims were to describe adherence and their efficacy.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The following databases were searched electronically: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) with the time frame from January 2000 to 7th September 2023. Eligible studies included adult patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with incurable solid cancer with a sample size ≥40. Studies were to be primary research and delivered for at least 14 days to allow for efficacy. They were to include a nutritional intervention encompassing at least one of the following: dietary counselling, oral nutritional supplements (ONS), enteral tube feeding and/or parenteral nutrition (PN), given in isolation or as part of a multi-modal intervention. Studies were excluded if the population contained patients who had completed curative treatment or are being treated with curative intent, haematological cancers, or if they examined the effects of micronutrients, proteins, amino acids or fatty acids given in isolation. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2). A balloon plot was produced to present the results in addition to a table with a narrative summary of the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 7968 studies were identified, of which 18 met the eligibility criteria. This included 2720 study participants. The included studies comprised: multimodal interventions (n = 7), dietary counselling (n = 2), nutritional supplementation with or without dietary counselling (n = 7) and PN (n = 2). Primary outcomes included quality of life (QoL), body composition and nutritional status. For QoL, this was reported in 15 studies, 4 studies showed a significant improvement. Body composition was evaluated in 15 studies, 5 of which showed a significant improvement in body weight and two in fat-free mass (FFM). Nutritional status was reported in 6 studies with one showing a significant difference in Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) score. The risk of bias was deemed 'low' in 6 studies, with 'some concerns' in 10 studies and a 'high risk' in 2 studies. There was heterogeneity between the studies.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has highlighted some positive findings in regard to QoL, body weight and nutritional intake. Optimum nutritional intervention was not identified. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of earlier nutritional interventions at the point of diagnosis, including regular reviews and the impact this has on nutritional outcomes, QoL and overall survival (OS).

Effects of high-protein supplementation during cancer therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Establishing the effectiveness of high-protein supplementation in reducing cancer-related side effects is crucial.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of high-protein supplementation on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing cancer therapy.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted on Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from inception until July 2023. Randomized controlled trials administering supplements with ≥10 g protein/serving, given to 20+ adult patients undergoing cancer therapy were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the effects of high-protein supplementation on the primary outcomes of body weight and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We employed a vote-counting approach based on effect direction for secondary outcomes (that is, body composition, muscle function, hospitalization, response to cancer therapy/toxicity, survival, and systemic inflammation). Risk-of-bias (ROB) was assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies involving 3701 patients with diverse cancer types were included. Patients who received high-protein supplementation lost less body weight than controls (mean difference = 1.45 kg; 95% CI: 0.42, 2.48 kg; P = 0.006; I2 = 80%). No differences in HRQoL were observed; all studies assessing HRQoL were rated as high ROB. A beneficial effect on muscle mass was found in 11 of 13 studies, although most had a high ROB due to assessment techniques. When considering higher quality studies, evidence of a beneficial effect was found in 5 of 5 studies for muscle strength, and 3 of 4 for hospitalization rate. Effects on other secondary outcomes were inconsistent or limited. No serious adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

High-protein supplementation mitigates weight loss, improves muscle strength, and lowers hospitalization rates in patients undergoing cancer therapy. These positive clinical outcomes, along with a favorable safety profile, suggest that high-protein supplementation may be a valuable addition to medical practice. However, given the need for more robust trials and the high ROB observed in the existing studies, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42021237372.

Does the ratio of eicosapentaenoic acid to docosahexaenoic acid matter in cancer treatment? A systematic review of their effects on cachexia-related inflammation

Chronic inflammation is a hallmark of cancer cachexia. Polyunsaturated fatty acids (ω-3 PUFAs): eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are known to contribute to the reduction of inflammation, preservation of lean body mass and total body weight, and reduction of cancer-related symptoms, such as anorexia or neuropathy. This systematic review aimed to assess whether the ratio of EPA to DHA used in supplementation in cancer patients matters in the context of the resolution of inflammation and reduction of the risk of cachexia. The analysis included 20 randomized clinical trials with acceptable quality identified from the Pubmed/MEDLINE database. The significant results concerning the resolution of inflammation or improvement in nutritional status were the highest in the case of a low EPA/DHA ratio, i.e., 67%, and decreased, reaching 50% and 36% for the moderate and high ratios, respectively. Most results concerning body weight from high and moderate EPA/DHA ratios showed no benefit or were insignificant. A significant benefit in reducing any reported inflammatory markers was seen in the low EPA/DHA ratio subgroup at 63%, in the moderate at 29%, and in the high ratio subgroup at 11%. The greatest benefit in CRP reduction was obtained by patients during chemotherapy. The review questions the anticachectic and anti-inflammatory effect of ω-3 PUFAs supplementation with doses of EPA higher than DHA. A population that particularly benefits from ω-3 PUFAs supplementation are patients undergoing chemotherapy for advanced cancer.

Dietary Supplements in People with Metastatic Cancer Who Are Experiencing Malnutrition, Cachexia, Sarcopenia, and Frailty: A Scoping Review

Cancer-associated malnutrition, or cachexia, stemming from cancer or its treatments, is particularly prevalent in metastatic cancers, and is often interrelated with sarcopenia and frailty. Evidence suggests that dietary supplements play a role in managing these conditions. As metastatic cancer cells are associated with notable genomic and phenotypic alterations, response to dietary supplements may differ between metastatic and non-metastatic cancers. However, research in this area is lacking. This scoping review aims to identify the dietary supplements that have been studied in patients with metastatic cancers and malnutrition-related conditions, along with their proposed effects, mechanisms, outcome measures, and tools used. A systematic search was conducted across databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and clinical trial registries. Of the initial 6535 records screened, a total of 48 studies were included, covering a range of dietary supplements-vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, proteins, amino acids, fatty acids, fiber, and others. While the types of dietary supplements included varied across cancer types, omega-3 and carnitine were investigated most often. Proposed relevant attributes of dietary supplements included their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, and immunomodulatory properties. Overall, there was a paucity of interventional studies, and more randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Effects of perioperative eicosapentaenoic acid‑enriched oral nutritional supplement on the long‑term oncological outcomes after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Basic and clinical reports have suggested that eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) exhibits anti-tumor activity. The present study evaluated whether perioperative EPA could improve the survival of patients with localized gastric cancer as a key secondary endpoint of a randomized clinical study. The present study was designed as multicenter, open-label, superiority, randomized trial to confirm the preventive effect of EPA on body weight loss after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Eligible patients were randomized to either the standard-diet group (EPA-off group) or EPA-on group by a centralized dynamic method. An EPA-enriched supplement (ProSure^®) was given to the EPA-on group in addition to their standard diet. This supplement included 600 kcal with 2.2 g/day of EPA. Among the 126 patients who were randomized, 123 patients (EPA-off group, n=60; EPA-on group, n=63) were examined in the survival analyses. All background factors were well balanced between the two groups. The 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates were 74.6 and 67.8%, respectively, in the EPA-off group, and 77.8 and 76.2% in the EPA-on group. There was no significant difference between the EPA-off and EPA-on groups (hazard ratio, 0.77; P=0.424). In the subgroup analysis, the hazard ratio was 0.39 in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 0.57 in patients with nodal metastasis. In conclusion, a clear survival benefit of perioperative EPA was not observed in localized gastric cancer. The value of EPA should be further tested in a future study in patients with unfavorable advanced gastric cancer. Clinical trial number: UMIN000006380; date of registration, September 21, 2011.