Parenteral nutrition in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: effects on toxicity and nutritional status

Changes in serum prealbumin as a marker for nitrogen balance in surgical oncology patients

BACKGROUND

Serum prealbumin has long been used as a marker of nutritional status. However, prealbumin is a negative acute phase reactant influenced by several non-nutritional-related factors including surgery, infection, and cancer. An increasing prealbumin has been correlated with a positive nitrogen balance in general surgery patients receiving parenteral nutrition (PN) with 88% specificity and 70% sensitivity. To date, no trial has evaluated the effect of concurrent cancer and surgery on the value of prealbumin in predicting nitrogen balance.

METHODS

This study is a concurrent retrospective design of post-operative patients (≥ 19 years of age) identified by the nutrition support service who received PN for ≥ 5 days, had a baseline and follow-up serum prealbumin and C-reactive Protein (CRP) measured, as well as a 24-h urinary urea nitrogen (UUN) performed between days 5-10 of PN. Exclusion criteria include anuric renal failure, Child-Pugh Class C liver failure, pregnancy, and corticosteroid use. Prealbumin was correlated to nitrogen balance, measuring sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values. Information was collected regarding patient demographics and presence or absence of metastatic cancer.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were identified and evaluated for this study from December 1st, 2010 to July 15th, 2011. Patients included in the study had a mean age of 57 years old (range 20-82), 53% male, with a mean weight of 84 kg (range 42-140) and body mass index (BMI) of 29 kg/m2 (range 14.9-56.8). The mean daily caloric dose of PN per actual body weight was 21 kcal/kg (range 10-34) and the mean daily protein dose was 1.4 g/kg (range 1-2). Forty seven percent of patients were obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and were prescribed high-protein hypocaloric PN. The most common indication for PN was post-operative ileus (23/30 patients). 24-h urine collection for UUN was performed on average of day 8 after PN initiation (range 5-10 days). Nitrogen balance as calculated from 24-h UUN was positive in 17/30 patients. A positive prealbumin change of greater than 2.8 mg/dL was found to have a statistically significant association with positive nitrogen balance (p = 0.02). At the cut off level of positive 2.8 mg/dL, the likelihood of a positive nitrogen balance had a sensitivity of 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 64-100%); specificity of 62% (95% CI 35-88%); positive predictive value of 74% (95% CI 54-93%); negative predictive value of 73% (95% CI 46-99%). No absolute value for prealbumin level (e.g., > 20  mg/dL) was found to be a significant predictor of positive nitrogen balance. CRP levels at initiation of PN were significantly elevated with a mean level of 147 mg/dL.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate a positive change in serum prealbumin (> 2.8 mg/dL) has sufficient sensitivity (82%) to predict positive changes in nitrogen balance in the surgical oncology population. However, the low specificity (62%) makes it less useful in predicting a negative nitrogen balance. Absolute prealbumin levels were greatly affected by inflammation, as evidenced by CRP levels, and single values were not useful in predicting positive nitrogen balance.

CLINICAL RELEVANCY

Positive changes in serum prealbumin levels have previously been associated with a positive nitrogen balance (NB) in surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition (PN); however, it is unclear if this is true in oncologic surgery patients. This study highlights how changing levels of serum prealbumin and C-reactive protein correlates to NB for cancer patients in the post-operative period requiring PN. Changes in prealbumin levels from baseline showed sufficient sensitivity, but not specificity to utilize routinely for predicting NB in this population.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of supplemental parenteral nutrition in oncology

Background

Clinical guidelines recommend that parenteral nutrition (PN) is added to enteral nutrition (EN; supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN)) in order to meet energy and protein needs in patients with cancer when EN alone is insufficient. However, although cancer-related malnutrition is common, there is poor awareness of the value of nutritional care, resulting in SPN being chronically underused.

Methods

We performed a targeted literature review and exploratory cost-utility analysis to gather evidence on the clinical effectiveness of SPN, and to estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of SPN versus EN alone in an example cancer setting.

Results

The literature review identified studies linking SPN with malnutrition markers, and studies linking malnutrition markers with clinical outcomes. SPN was linked to improvements in body mass index (BMI), fat-free mass, phase angle (PhA) and prealbumin. Of these markers, BMI and PhA were strong predictors of survival. By combining published data, we generated indirect estimates of the overall survival HR associated with SPN; these ranged from 0.80 to 0.99 (mode 0.87). In patients with Stage IV inoperable pancreatic cancer, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio versus EN alone was estimated to be £41 350 or £91 501 depending on whether nursing and home delivery costs for EN and SPN were combined or provided separately.

Conclusion

Despite a lack of direct evidence, the results of the literature review demonstrate that SPN may provide important clinical and quality of life benefits to patients with cancer. The potential for any improvement in outcomes in the modelled patient population is very limited, so cost-effectiveness may be greater in patients with less severe disease and other types of cancer.

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

Nutrition in Patients with Gastric Cancer: An Update

BACKGROUND

Nutritional management of patients with gastric cancer (GC) represents a challenge.

SUMMARY

This review provides an overview of the present evidence on nutritional support in patients with GC undergoing surgery as well as in those with advanced disease.

KEY MESSAGE

For patients undergoing surgery, the preoperative nutritional condition directly affects postoperative prognosis, overall survival and disease-specific survival. Perioperative nutritional support enriched with immune-stimulating nutrients reduces overall complications and hospital stay but not mortality after major elective gastrointestinal surgery. Early enteral nutrition after surgery improves early and long-term postoperative nutritional status and reduces the length of hospitalization as well. Vitamin B12 and iron deficiency are common metabolic sequelae after gastrectomy and warrant appropriate replacement. In malnourished patients with advanced GC, short-term home complementary parenteral nutrition improves the quality of life, nutritional status and functional status. Total home parenteral nutrition represents the only modality of caloric intake for patients with advanced GC who are unable to take oral or enteral nutrition.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Early evaluations of nutritional status and nutritional support represent key aspects in the management of GC patients with both operable and advanced disease.

Nutrition care in patients with cancer: A retrospective multicenter analysis of current practice - Indications for further studies?

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Weight loss and malnutrition are frequent problems in oncology patients. The aim of this study was to get a perspective of the current practice of parenteral nutrition (PN) care in an outpatient setting and to improve patient-centered nutritional care.

METHODS

Fifty-three outpatient oncology centers participated in this observational study performed between July 2010 and March 2011. All participating centers entered data online into a web-based documentation form, containing a number of oncology patients, diagnoses, and detailed data about oncology patients receiving PN.

RESULTS

Two cohorts were analyzed. First cohort consisted of all oncology patients in quarter 04/2010. Second cohort consisted of patients with PN during the whole studying period. In the first cohort 2.46% (n = 626) of 25,424 oncology patients received PN. Most frequent diagnoses of patients receiving PN were gastric cancer (n = 119) and colorectal cancer (n = 104), however most stated diagnosis was "other" (n = 163). In the second cohort (n = 1137), a common indication for PN was impaired gastrointestinal passage (n = 177), although here again most stated reason was "other" (n = 924). In the course of the PN treatment, patients (n = 1137) showed a stable or slowly increasing body mass index (from 21.6 ± 3.8 kg/m(2) to 21.8 ± 3.5 kg/m(2)).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study outlining the characteristics of oncology patients in the context of PN in German ambulatory centers. They confirm the important role of PN in the care of gastrointestinal cancer. Further studies have to be performed to identify if other indications than those mentioned in relevant guidelines can trigger initiation of PN.

Is the intravenous supplementation of amino acid to cancer patients adequate? A critical appraisal of literature

BACKGROUND & AIMS

International guidelines are quite vague regarding the optimal doses of amino acid to administer to cancer patients and standard practice appears not to be supported by specific investigations. The purpose of this study is to determine from the literature whether there are some correlates among amino acid infusions and nutritional-metabolic or clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Through the help of PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and the use of a personal database we analysed papers reporting details of infused amino acid and metabolic-nutritional or clinical effects.

RESULTS

Five short-term metabolic studies using isotopes showed that infusion of about 2 g amino acid/kg/day (including high doses of branched chain amino acid) positively affects protein metabolism of severely malnourished cancer patients. In eight studies in less malnourished patients receiving longer periods of parenteral nutrition, to allow the administration of oncologic therapy or to compensate for a decline in oral alimentation, the intravenous addition of 1.5 g amino acid/kg/day to the oral diet achieved positive results. These findings are concordant with recent metabolic results achieved in cancer patients receiving amino acid orally.

CONCLUSION

We think that a higher quantity of parenteral amino acids than that usually administered might be useful to cancer patients and further studies on this issue are warranted.

Non-surgical oncology - Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition, Chapter 19

Reduced nutritional state is associated with unfavourable outcomes and a lower quality of life in patients with malignancies. Patients with active tumour disease frequently have insufficient food intake. The resting energy expenditure in cancer patients can be increased, decreased, or remain unchanged compared to predicted values. Tumours may result in varying degrees of systemic pro-inflammatory processes with secondary effects on all significant metabolic pathways. Therapeutic objectives are to stabilise nutritional state with oral/enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition (PN) and thus to prevent or reduce progressive weight loss. The maintenance or improvement of quality of life, and the increase in the effectiveness and a reduction in the side-effects of antitumor therapy are further objectives. Indications for PN in tumour patients are essentially identical to those in patients with benign illnesses, with preference given to oral or enteral nutrition when feasible. A combined nutritional concept is preferred if oral or enteral nutrition are possible but not sufficient. There are generally no accepted standards for ideal energy and nutrient intakes in oncological patients, particularly when exclusive artificial nutrition is administered. The use of PN as a general accompaniment to radiotherapy or chemotherapy is not indicated, but PN is indicated in chronic severe radiogenic enteritis or after allogenic transplantation with pronounced mucositis or GvH-related gastrointestinal damage for prolonged periods, with particular attention to increased risk of bleeding and infection. No PN is necessary in the terminal phase.

Nutritional Assessment of Children With Cancer

Regardless of which parts of the world they live in, most children will develop and grow at a similar rate if proper nutrition is ensured. Children from developing countries are at risk for primary malnutrition. Children undergoing anticancer therapy are at higher risk for secondary malnutrition, including obesity and growth retardation. Periodic nutritional assessments are important for planning effective dietary interventions for such children. In this review, we describe malnutrition as it occurs in children with cancer and various ways of assessing the nutritional status of these children, depending on the availability of resources in their local hospitals. Objective and subjective data should be used to complete the nutritional assessment. We discuss screening methods, including the use of subjective global assessment. Different parts of nutritional assessment include medical history; physical examination; biochemical and hematological data, such as visceral proteins, blood glucose levels, and lipid profiles, hemoglobin and hematocrit, and the lymphocyte count; anthropometric measurements; and food and nutrition history. We review medical tests and procedures to determine nutritional status, including nitrogen balance, delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity, prognostic nutritional index, creatinine height index, maldigestion and malabsorption tests, indirect calorimetry, and dual energy X ray absorptiometry (DXA scan). Evaluation and interpretation of data and estimation of nutritional risk are discussed, including proper techniques and use of anthropometric measures, selection and use of growth charts, calculation of caloric and protein needs, and the percentage of calories ingested. These methods will enable local health care providers to accurately assess the nutritional status of children with cancer, identify children at risk, and plan adequate nutritional interventions.

Nutrition Society Symposium on ‘End points in clinical nutrition trials’ Death, morbidity and economics are the only end points for trials

In order to determine whether surrogate markers predict clinical outcome, randomized controlled trials (RCT) of nutrition supportv. no nutrition support that have reported at least one clinical outcome (mortality, infections, total complications, or duration of hospitalization) and at least one nutritional outcome (energy or protein intake, weight gain, N balance, albumin, prealbumin, transferrin, three anthropometric measures, skin testing, lymphocyte count) were assessed for concordance. If changes in nutritional markers predict clinical outcome, changes in both outcomes should go in the same direction. Concordance is defined as both outcomes changing in the same direction or both outcomes showing no difference. Discordance is defined as one outcome changing and the other not (partial) or both outcomes changing in opposite directions (complete). Ninety-nine RCT were identified, of which most were underpowered to see statistically significant changes, especially in clinical outcomes. Thus, the results were analysed only in relation to the direction of the respective changes in outcomes. Forty-eight comparisons (4×12) were made. The rates of concordance were ≤50% in forty-one of forty-eight comparisons; the rate was never >75%. A complete discordance rate of ≥25% was present in forty-three (≥50% in thirteen) of the forty-eight comparisons. The discordance was usually a result of the nutritional outcome being better than the clinical outcome. Changes in nutritional markers do not predict clinical outcomes. Before adopting any surrogate marker as an end point for a clinical trial, it has to be known that improving it will result in patient benefit.

Impact of nutrition support on treatment outcome in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy: A secondary analysis of RTOG trial 90-03

BACKGROUND

The aim was to evaluate the relationship between nutrition support (NS) on host toxicity and cancer outcome in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) undergoing definitive radiotherapy (XRT).

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 90-03, a prospective randomized trial evaluating four definitive XRT fractionation schedules in patients with locally advanced HNSCC, which prospectively collected data on NS delivered before treatment (BNS), during treatment (TNS), and after definitive XRT. NS data and pretreatment characteristics of the 1073 evaluable patients were analyzed against therapy toxicity and outcome.

RESULTS

Patients receiving BNS experienced significantly less weight loss by the end of treatment and less grade 3 to 4 mucositis than patients not receiving BNS. However, patients receiving BNS had a poorer 5-year actuarial locoregional control rate than patients receiving TNS or no NS (29%, 55%, and 57%, respectively, p < .0001) and a poorer 5-year overall survival rate (16%, 36%, and 49%, respectively, p < .0001). Patients receiving BNS were significantly more likely to have a higher T classification, N status, and overall American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage and initial presentation with greater pretreatment weight loss, and a poorer Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) than patients not receiving BNS. After adjusting for the impact of these prognostic factors through a recursive partition analysis, a multivariate analysis with a stratified Cox model found that BNS was still a highly significant independent prognostic factor for increased locoregional failure (hazards ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.79; p < .0001) and death (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.19-1.67; p < .0001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the largest prospective evaluation of nutrition data in treated patients with cancer, BNS was associated with inferior treatment outcome in the patients with HNSCC undergoing XRT. These results should be considered hypothesis generating and encourage prospective clinical research and identification of the mechanisms underlying this finding.

Surrogate nutrition markers, malnutrition, and adequacy of nutrition support

Surrogate nutrition markers are used to assess adequacy of nourishment and to define malnutrition despite evidence that fails to link nourishment, surrogate markers, and outcomes. Markers such as serum levels of albumin, prealbumin, transferrin, and IGF-1 and delayed hypersensitivity and total lymphocyte count may be valid to help stratify risk. However, it is not appropriate to consider these as markers of adequacy of nourishment in the sick patient.

Low caloric intake is associated with nosocomial bloodstream infections in patients in the medical intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether caloric intake is associated with risk of nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill medical patients.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Urban, academic medical intensive care unit.

PATIENTS

Patients were 138 adult patients who did not take food by mouth for > or =96 hrs after medical intensive care unit admission.

MEASUREMENTS

Daily caloric intake was recorded for each patient. Participants subsequently were grouped into one of four categories of caloric intake: <25%, 25-49%, 50-74%, and > or =75% of average daily recommended calories based on the American College of Chest Physicians guidelines. Simplified Acute Physiology Score II and serum albumin were measured on medical intensive care unit admission. Serum glucose (average value and maximum value each day) and route of feeding (enteral, parenteral, or both) were collected daily. Nosocomial bloodstream infections were identified by infection control surveillance methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The overall mean (+/-sd) daily caloric intake for all study participants was 49.4 +/- 29.3% of American College of Chest Physicians guidelines. Nosocomial bloodstream infection occurred in 31 (22.4%) participants. Bivariate Cox analysis revealed that receiving > or =25% of recommended calories compared with <25% was associated with significantly lower risk of bloodstream infection (relative hazard, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.60). Simplified Acute Physiology Score II also was associated with risk of nosocomial bloodstream infection (relative hazard, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.60). Average daily serum glucose, admission serum albumin, time to initiating nutritional support, and route of nutrition did not affect risk of bloodstream infection. After adjustment for Simplified Acute Physiology Score II in a multivariable analysis, receiving > or =25% of recommended calories was associated with a significantly lower risk of bloodstream infection (relative hazard, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of reducing risk of nosocomial bloodstream infections, failing to provide > or =25% of the recommended calories may be harmful. Higher caloric goals may be necessary to achieve other clinically important outcomes.

Total parenteral nutrition vs oral diet in autologous hematopoietic cell transplant recipients

Autologous HCT patients often have poor oral intake for 2-4 weeks post transplant. To compare outcomes between patients provided prophylactic total parenteral nutrition (TPN) or an oral diet (OD), 55 well nourished breast cancer/ hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) patients were randomized to TPN (n=27), beginning day -1, or OD (n=28). Parameters studied include length of stay (LOS), engraftment, infections, survival, weight, anthropometrics, handgrip strength, and quality of life (QOL) In all, 50% of OD patients were given TPN due to poor oral intake for 10 consecutive days. No significant differences were found between the groups for any of the above parameters except weight and anthropometrics, which were better maintained in the TPN group than the OD group. Trends were seen for increased infections, more stable handgrip strength, and improved QOL in the TPN group vs the OD group. Prophylactic TPN did result in a more intact nutritional status and preservation of lean body mass post transplant but did not impact LOS or survival when compared to OD. For this reason, TPN should be reserved for autologous HCT patients with pretransplant nutritional depletion, complications post transplant, or prolonged poor oral intake. These results should not be extrapolated to allogeneic HCT patients but are likely applicable to other well nourished autologous HCT patients.

Supportive therapy of elderly cancer patients

Elderly cancer patients often require supportive care due to the physiologic decline of organs and apparatus linked with the aging process per se, and for the effects of tumor or of anticancer treatments. Pain and nutritional deficits are some clinical aspects requiring supportive care. Lack of studies on these latter topics does not allow an in depth analysis of the problem. The present review deals with literature concerning pain and nutritional problems in the general cancer population with emphasis on aspects typical for elderly cancer subjects. Physiologic and cancer-related changes in body composition, physical function and cognitive capacity of the elderly are presented and, when appropriate, linked with pathogenetic factors of pain and malnutrition, as well as their treatment. Pain demographic data, pain intensity evaluation and currently available techniques to provide pain relief such as etiologic treatment, analgesic pharmacotherapy and invasive analgesic procedures, are extensively discussed. Causes and assessment of malnutrition as well as available nutritional approaches such as oral, enteral and parenteral nutrition are also debated.

AGA technical review on parenteral nutrition

This literature review and the recommendations therein were prepared for the American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice and Practice Economics Committee. The paper was approved by the Committee on September 13, 2001, and by the AGA Governing Board on May 18, 2001.

Management of cancer cachexia

The diagnosis of cancer has traditionally been associated with malnutrition and wasting. Oncology patients are at risk for nutrition-related problems because of the cancer itself, as well as the treatment prescribed. Clinical manifestations of cachexia include anorexia, weight loss, muscle wasting, and fatigue, resulting in poor performance status. Control of symptoms, such as anorexia, nausea and vomiting, and mucositis is imperative in the management of cancer cachexia. Current pharmacologic therapies, as well as complementary and alternative methods, are presented. The nurse plays a key role in ensuring that the nutritional needs of oncology patients are met.

Cancer cachexia

Cachexia is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced cancer. It is characterised by numerous metabolic abnormalities including inefficient substrate utilisation, alterations in the balance of energy intake and expenditure and the acute-phase protein response. These changes seem to be driven by pro-inflammatory cytokines, alterations of the neuro-endocrine axis and tumour-derived catabolic factors. This results in the loss of both fat and lean tissue. Trials of conventional nutritional supplements in patients with cancer cachexia have failed to show any benefit in terms of weight gain or quality of life and this may be because the ongoing metabolic abnormalities prevent the efficient use of additional calories supplied. A variety of pharmacological agents have been studied in an attempt to normalise these metabolic changes with only limited success. However, it is possible that the combination of an agent to normalise the metabolic milieu along with the provision of additional nutritional support may have the potential to reverse cachexia in advanced cancer.

Nutrition support in patients with cancer: what do the data really show?

Although more than 70 prospective randomized controlled trials have evaluated the use of nutrition support in patients with cancer, the indications for nutrition therapy in this patient population remain controversial. We reviewed the published prospective randomized controlled trials that evaluated clinically important endpoints (morbidity, mortality, and duration of hospitalization). Many trials had serious shortcomings in study design that limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions from the data. In general, the data failed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of providing nutrition support to most patients with cancer. Therefore, the indications for using nutrition therapy should be the same as those for patients with benign disease.