Cancer cachexia: A scoping review on non-pharmacological interventions

Objective

Cancer cachexia occurs in 30%-80% of patients, increasing morbidity and mortality and impacting the health-related quality of life also for caregivers. Pharmacological interventions have been studied but have shown inconsistent effects on patients' lives in terms of relative outcomes and poor adherence to pharmacological treatment. We provide an overview of the evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for cancer cachexia.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR). On September 21, 2022, plus an update on January 10, 2024, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Scopus for 2012-2024. We excluded pharmacological interventions defined as "any substance, inorganic or organic, natural or synthetic, that can produce functional modifications, through a chemical, physicochemical or physical action."

Results

The search retrieved 9308 articles, of which 17 were eligible. Non-pharmacological interventions included nutritional counseling, complementary therapies (acupuncture), rehabilitation, and psychoeducational/psychosocial support. The data showed small and heterogeneous samples and different disease localization and stages. Thirty-nine percent were multimodal interventions and aimed at patients, not families. The common primary outcomes were body weight and composition, biomarkers, quality of life, psychological suffering, and muscular strength. Only three studies focus on the patient-caregiver dyad.

Conclusions

Interventions on cancer cachexia should be multimodal and multiprofessional, proposed early, and aimed at quality of life outcomes. The caregiver's involvement is essential. Nurses can play an active role in managing cancer cachexia. More well-designed studies are needed to understand the efficacy and contents of non-pharmacological interventions.

Systematic review registration

The review protocol has been registered in the OSF registry (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H4A29).

Exercise-based interventions for cancer cachexia: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials

Objective

Cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome characterised by involuntary weight loss and functional limitation. There is a strong theoretical rationale for the use of exercise in the management of cachexia, and evidence of benefit from exercise in general cancer patients. However, clinical studies of exercise interventions in cancer cachexia are limited. We aimed to synthesise current evidence on the delivery, acceptability, safety and outcomes of exercise interventions for adults with cancer cachexia.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review. Four databases were searched up to February 2023 for randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised (NRCTs) controlled studies. Eligibility and quality were independently assessed by two authors. Data on intervention components and structure, participant flow and adherence were tabulated. Clinical outcome data on body stature and composition, muscle strength, functional performance, and health-related quality of life were synthesised using effect direction plots.

Results

Twelve studies (9 RCTs, 3 NRCTs) involving a total of 898 patients (study range 20-374) as part of a multicomponent approach. Median programme completion was 75% (range 43%-100%) and adherence was generally high. Five adverse events were considered possibly related to an intervention, including muscle or joint pain, breathlessness on exertion. Overall, 12/16 (75%) outcomes demonstrated a positive direction of effect on body stature and composition, 8/10 (80%) on muscle strength, 14/22 (64%) on functional performance, and 3/8 (38%) on health-related quality of life. Multicomponent interventions showed more consistent effects on body stature, and resistance training interventions on muscle strength.

Conclusions

Exercise interventions appear to be safe and acceptable to people with cancer cachexia. Positive effects from exercise are more consistently observed for body stature or composition and muscle strength outcomes, than in functional capacity and health-related quality of life. The synergistic effects of exercise with other cachexia interventions, including drugs, should be examined in future robust studies.

Exercise in People With Cancer: A Spotlight on Energy Regulation and Cachexia

Exercise is increasingly becoming a standard of cancer care, with well-documented benefits for patients including improved mental wellbeing and reduced treatment-related side effects. However, important gaps in knowledge remain about how to optimise exercise prescription for people with cancer. Importantly, it remains unclear how exercise affects the progression of cancer cachexia (a wasting disease stemming from energy imbalance, and a common manifestation of advanced malignant disease), particularly once the condition has already developed. It was recently suggested that the anti-tumour effect of exercise might come from improved energetic capacity. Here, we highlight the possible effect of exercise on energetic capacity and energy regulation in the context of cancer, and how this might affect the progression of cancer cachexia. We suggest that due to the additional energy demand caused by the tumour and associated systemic inflammation, overreaching may occur more easily in people with cancer. Importantly, this could result in impaired anti-tumour immunity and/or the exacerbation of cancer cachexia. This highlights the importance of individualised exercise programs for people with cancer, with special consideration for the regulation of energy balance, ongoing monitoring and possible nutritional supplementation to support the increased energy demand caused by exercise.

Exercise for cancer cachexia in adults

BACKGROUND

Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome characterised by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass, with or without a loss of fat mass, leading to progressive functional impairment. Physical exercise may attenuate cancer cachexia and its impact on patient function. This is the first update of an original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2014, which found no studies to include.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of exercise, compared with usual care, no treatment or active control, for cancer cachexia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases to March 2020. We searched for ongoing studies in trial registries, checked reference lists and contacted experts to seek relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials in adults with cancer cachexia, that compared a programme of exercise alone or in combination with another intervention, with usual care, no treatment or an active control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for relevance and extracted data on study design, participants, interventions and outcomes from potentially relevant articles. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was lean body mass and secondary outcomes were adherence to exercise programme, adverse events, muscle strength and endurance, exercise capacity, fatigue and health-related quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and included two Summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies in this update which overall randomised 178 adults with a mean age of 58 (standard deviation (SD) 8.2) years. Study sample size ranged from 20 to 60 participants and in three studies the proportion of men ranged from 52% to 82% (the fourth study was only available in abstract form). Three studies were from Europe: one in the UK and Norway; one in Belgium and one in Germany. The remaining study was in Canada. The types of primary cancer were head and neck (two studies), lung and pancreas (one study), and mixed (one study). We found two comparisons: exercise alone (strength-based exercise) compared to usual care (one study; 20 participants); and exercise (strength-based exercise/endurance exercise) as a component of a multimodal intervention (pharmacological, nutritional or educational (or a combination) interventions) compared with usual care (three studies, 158 participants). Studies had unclear and high risk of bias for most domains. Exercise plus usual care compared with usual care We found one study (20 participants). There was no clear evidence of a difference for lean body mass (8 weeks: MD 6.40 kg, 95% CI -2.30 to 15.10; very low-certainty evidence). For our secondary outcomes, all participants adhered to the exercise programme and no participant reported any adverse event during the study. There were no data for muscle strength and endurance, or maximal and submaximal exercise capacity. There was no clear evidence of a difference for either fatigue (4 to 20 scale, lower score was better) (8 weeks: MD -0.10, 95% CI -4.00 to 3.80; very low-certainty evidence) or health-related quality of life (0 to 104 scale, higher score was better) (8 weeks: MD 4.90, 95% CI -15.10 to 24.90; very low-certainty evidence). Multimodal intervention (exercise plus other interventions) plus usual care compared with usual care We found three studies but outcome data were only available for two studies. There was no clear evidence of a difference for lean body mass (6 weeks: MD 7.89 kg, 95% CI -9.57 to 25.35; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 weeks: MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.00 to 4.00; one study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For our secondary outcomes, there were no data reported on adherence to the exercise programme, endurance, or maximal exercise capacity. In one study (44 participants) there was no clear evidence of a difference for adverse events (patient episode report) (6 weeks: risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.07; very low-certainty evidence). Another study assessed adverse events but reported no data and the third study did not assess this outcome. There was no clear evidence of a difference in muscle strength (6 weeks: MD 3.80 kg, 95% CI -2.87 to 10.47; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 weeks MD -5.00 kg, 95% CI -14.00 to 4.00; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence), submaximal exercise capacity (6 weeks: MD -16.10 m walked, 95% CI -76.53 to 44.33; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 weeks: MD -62.60 m walked, 95% CI -145.87 to 20.67; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence), fatigue (0 to 10 scale, lower score better) (6 weeks: MD 0.12, 95% CI -1.00 to 1.24; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or health-related quality of life (0 to 104 scale, higher score better) (12 weeks: MD -2.20, 95% CI -13.99 to 9.59; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The previous review identified no studies. For this update, our conclusions have changed with the inclusion of four studies. However, we are uncertain of the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of exercise for adults with cancer cachexia. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are still required to test exercise alone or as part of a multimodal intervention to improve people's well-being throughout all phases of cancer care. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence as very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. We have very little confidence in the results and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from these. The findings of at least three more studies (one awaiting classification and two ongoing) are expected in the next review update.