An investigation into the current peri-operative nutritional management of oesophageal carcinoma patients in major carcinoma centres in England

Incidence, Diagnosis and Management of Malabsorption Following Oesophagectomy: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Survival following oesophagectomy for cancer is improving, resulting in increased focus on quality of life and survivorship. Malabsorption syndrome is multifactorial and includes exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI), small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) and bile acid malabsorption (BAM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the reported incidence and management of malabsorption syndromes post-oesophagectomy.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library evaluating incidence, diagnosis and management of malabsorption was performed for studies published until December 2021.

RESULTS

Of 464 identified studies, eight studies (n = 7 non-randomised longitudinal studies) were included where patients were identified with malnutrition following oesophagectomy. Studies included a combined sample of 328 (range 7-63) patients. Malabsorption syndromes including EPI, SIBO and BAM occurred in 15.9-100%, 37.8-100% and 3.33-100% over 21 days-60 months, 1-24 months and 1-24 months respectively. There was no consensus definition for EPI, SIBO or BAM, and there was variation in diagnostic methods. Diagnostic criteria varied from clinical (gastrointestinal symptoms or weight loss), or biochemical (faecal elastase, hydrogen breath test and Selenium-75-labelled synthetic bile acid measurements). Treatment modalities using pancreatic enzyme replacement, rifaximin or colesevelam showed improvement in symptoms and weight in all studies, where investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

Malabsorption syndromes following oesophagectomy are under-recognised, and thus under-reported. The resultant gastrointestinal symptoms may have a negative effect on post-operative quality of life. Current literature suggests benefit with outlined therapies; however, greater understanding of these conditions, their diagnosis and management is required to further understand which patients will benefit from treatment.

Awareness and perceptions of nutrition support in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery: A national survey of multidisciplinary clinicians

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing surgery for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer are at high risk of malnutrition, and a multidisciplinary approach to management is recommended. This study aimed to determine practices, awareness and perceptions of multi-disciplinary clinicians with regards to malnutrition screening and provision of nutrition support.

METHODS

A national survey of dietitians, surgeons, oncologists and nurses was conducted using a 30-item online REDCap survey, including questions regarding self-reported malnutrition screening/nutrition support practices, awareness and perceptions, and barriers and enablers. The survey was distributed via professional organisations/networks between 1st September and 30th November 2020. Results are presented as counts and percentages.

RESULTS

There were 130 participants (56% dietitians, 25% surgeons, 11% nurses, 8% oncologists). The majority reported that dietitians and nurses performed malnutrition screening, and dietitians and surgeons prescribed nutrition support. Most participants reported that their health service had dietetics support available overall (98%), however only 41% reported having an outpatient service. Participants (>90%) demonstrated very high awareness of the significance of malnutrition and the importance of early nutrition support. Participants mostly perceived dietitians, nurses and surgeons to be responsible for malnutrition screening, whilst responsibility of prescription of nutrition support was mostly dietitians and surgeons. There were a higher number of barriers for the outpatient setting (48%) than the inpatient setting (38%).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants identified a high awareness of the importance of identification and treatment of malnutrition in UGI cancer surgery. However reported practices varied and appear to be lacking in the outpatient setting, with significant barriers identified to providing optimal nutrition care.

Preoperative Nutrition Intervention in Patients Undergoing Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: Results from the Multi-Centre NOURISH Point Prevalence Study

Background: Preoperative nutrition intervention is recommended prior to upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer resection; however, there is limited understanding of interventions received in current clinical practice. This study investigated type and frequency of preoperative dietetics intervention and nutrition support received and clinical and demographic factors associated with receipt of intervention. Associations between intervention and preoperative weight loss, surgical length of stay (LOS), and complications were also investigated. Methods: The NOURISH Point Prevalence Study was conducted between September 2019 and May 2020 across 27 Australian tertiary centres. Subjective global assessment and weight were performed within 7 days of admission. Patients reported on preoperative dietetics and nutrition intervention, and surgical LOS and complications were recorded. Results: Two-hundred patients participated (59% male, mean (standard deviation) age 67 (10)). Sixty percent had seen a dietitian preoperatively, whilst 50% were receiving nutrition support (92% oral nutrition support (ONS)). Patients undergoing pancreatic surgery were less likely to receive dietetics intervention and nutrition support than oesophageal or gastric surgeries (p < 0.001 and p = 0.029, respectively). Neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.003) and malnutrition (p = 0.046) remained independently associated with receiving dietetics intervention; however, 31.3% of malnourished patients had not seen a dietitian. Patients who received ≥3 dietetics appointments had lower mean (SD) percentage weight loss at the 1-month preoperative timeframe compared with patients who received 0–2 appointments (1.2 (2.0) vs. 3.1 (3.3), p = 0.001). Patients who received ONS for >2 weeks had lower mean (SD) percentage weight loss than those who did not (1.2 (1.8) vs. 2.9 (3.4), p = 0.001). In malnourished patients, total dietetics appointments ≥3 was independently associated with reduced surgical complications (odds ratio 0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1, 0.9, p = 0.04), and ONS >2 weeks was associated with reduced LOS (regression coefficient −7.3, 95% CI −14.3, −0.3, p = 0.04). Conclusions: Despite recommendations, there are low rates of preoperative dietetics consultation and nutrition support in this population, which are associated with increased preoperative weight loss and risk of increased LOS and complications in malnourished patients. The results of this study provide insights into evidence–practice gaps for improvement and data to support further research regarding optimal methods of preoperative nutrition support.

Role of dietitian support in improving weight loss and nutrition impact symptoms after oesophageal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer is frequently accompanied with malnutrition. We aimed to evaluate if early support from dietitians and patient's level of satisfaction with the support from dietitians are associated with better outcomes for weight loss and nutrition impact symptoms (NIS).

METHODS

A nationwide and prospective cohort study on patients operated for oesophageal cancer in Sweden from 2013 onwards, included one year after surgery. Study exposures were (1) preoperative dietitian support (yes vs no) and, (2) patient reported satisfaction with dietitian support (high vs low) and outcomes were postoperative (1) percentage weight loss and (2) NIS score (range 0-24); one year after surgery. An ANCOVA model adjusted for predefined confounders was used and presented as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Among 245 patients, as many as 57% had received preoperative dietitian support. Preoperative dietitian support was not associated with statistically significant differences in mean postoperative weight loss (MD 0.2 [95% CI -2.6 to 2.9]) and mean NIS score (MD 0.1 [95% CI: -0.8 to 1.0]). Likewise, satisfaction with the dietitian support was not associated with significant differences in mean postoperative weight loss (MD 1.4 [95% CI: -1.5 to 4.3]) and NIS score (MD -0.1 [95% CI: -1 to 0.8]).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term postoperative weight loss and NIS were not influenced based on whether dietitian support was initiated preoperatively or not and patient's satisfaction level with dietitian support. Similarity in results may reflect effective screening of malnutrition and dietitian support in centres treating oesophageal cancer in Sweden.

Is the placement of jejunostomy tubes in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy associated with increased inpatient healthcare utilization? An analysis of the National Readmissions Database

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing esophagectomy often receive jejunostomy tubes (j-tubes) for nutritional supplementation. We hypothesized that j-tubes are associated with increased post-esophagectomy readmissions.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified esophagectomies for malignancy with (EWJ) or without (EWOJ) j-tubes using the 2010-2015 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Outcomes include readmission, inpatient mortality, and complications. Outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Of 22,429 patients undergoing esophagectomy, 16,829 (75.0%) received j-tubes. Patients were similar in age and gender but EWJ were more likely to receive chemotherapy (24.2% vs. 15.1%, p < 0.01). EWJ was associated with decreased 180-day inpatient mortality (HR 0.72 [0.52-0.99]) but not with higher readmissions at 30- (15.2% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.16; HR 0.9 [0.77-1.05]) or 180 days (25.2% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.37; HR 0.94 [0.79-1.10]) or increased complications (p = 0.37). These results were confirmed in the PSM cohort.

CONCLUSION

J-tubes placed in the setting of esophagectomy do not increase inpatient readmissions or mortality.

A process and mechanism of action evaluation of the effect of early and intensive nutrition care, delivered via telephone or mobile application, on quality of life in people with upper gastrointestinal cancer: a study protocol

Background

Cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract commonly result in malnutrition, which increases morbidity and mortality. Current nutrition best practice lacks a mechanism to provide early and intensive nutrition support to these patients. A 3-arm parallel randomised controlled trial is testing the provision of a tailored, nutritional counselling intervention delivered using a synchronous, telephone-based approach or an asynchronous, mobile application-based approach to address this problem. This protocol outlines the design and methods that will be used to undertake an evaluation of the implementation process, which is imperative for successful replication and dissemination.

Methods

A concurrent triangulation mixed methods comparative analysis will be undertaken. The nutrition intervention will be provided using best practice behaviour change techniques and communicated either via telephone or via mHealth. The implementation outcomes that will be measured are: fidelity to the nutrition intervention protocol and to the delivery approach; engagement; acceptability and contextual factors. Qualitative data from recorded telephone consultations and written messages will be analysed through a coding matrix against the behaviour change techniques outlined in the standard operating procedure, and also thematically to determine barriers and enablers. Negative binomial regression will be used to test for predictive relationships between intervention components with health-related quality of life and nutrition outcomes. Post-intervention interviews with participants and health professionals will be thematically analysed to determine the acceptability of delivery approaches. NVivo 11 Pro software will be used to code for thematic analysis. STATA version 15 will be used to perform quantitative analysis.

Discussion

The findings of this process evaluation will provide evidence of the core active ingredients that enable the implementation of best practice nutrition intervention for people with upper gastrointestinal cancer. Elucidation of the causal pathways of successful implementation and the important relationship to contextual delivery are anticipated. With this information, a strategy for sustained implementation across broader settings will be developed which impact the quality of life and nutritional status of individuals with upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Trial registration

27th January 2017 Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12617000152325).

Six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus standard care after esophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Each year approximately 3000 patients in the United Kingdom undergo surgery for esophagogastric cancer. Jejunostomy feeding tubes, placed at the time of surgery for early postoperative nutrition, have been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcomes in the short term. Whether feeding out of hospital is of benefit is unknown. Local experience has identified that between 15 and 20% of patients required 'rescue' jejunostomy feeding for nutritional problems and weight loss while at home. This weight loss and poor nutrition may contribute to the detrimental effect on the overall quality of life (QoL) reported in these patients.

METHODS/DESIGN

This randomized pilot and feasibility study will provide preliminary information on the routine use of jejunostomy feeding after hospital discharge in terms of clinical benefits and QoL. Sixty participants undergoing esophagectomy or total gastrectomy will be randomized to receive either a planned program of six weeks of home jejunostomy feeding after discharge from hospital (intervention) or treatment-as-usual (control). The intention of this study is to inform a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome measures will be recruitment and retention rates at six weeks and six months. Secondary outcome measures will include disease specific and general QoL measures, nutritional parameters, total and oral nutritional intake, hospital readmission rates, and estimates of healthcare costs. Up to 20 participants will also be enrolled in a qualitative sub-study that will explore participants' and carers' experiences of home tube feeding.The results will be disseminated by presentation at surgical, gastroenterological and dietetic meetings and publication in appropriate peer review journals. A patient-friendly lay summary will be made available on the University of Leicester and the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust websites. The study has full ethical and institutional approval and started recruitment in July 2012.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UKClinical Research Network ID #12447 (Main study); UKCRN ID#13361 (Qualitative sub study); ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01870817 (First registered 28 May 2013).

Nutrition therapy issues in esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer has traditionally been a disease with poor long term outcomes in terms of both survival and quality of life. In combination with surgical and pharmacologic therapy, nutrition support has been demonstrated to improve patient tolerance of treatment, quality of life, and longterm outcomes. An aggressive multi-disciplinary approach is warranted with nutrition support remaining a cornerstone in management. Historically, nutrition support has focused on adequate caloric provision to prevent weight loss and allow for tolerance of treatment regimens. Alterations in metabolism occur in these patients making their use of available calories inefficient and the future of nutritional support may lie in the ability to alter this deranged metabolism. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature surrounding the etiology, treatment, and role of nutrition support in improving outcomes in esophageal cancer.

Determinants of outcome after colorectal resection within an enhanced recovery programme

BACKGROUND

Postoperative outcomes were studied in relation to adverse nutritional risk (body mass index (BMI) below 20 kg/m(2)), advanced age (80 years or more) and co-morbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade III-IV) in patients undergoing colorectal resection within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme.

METHODS

Outcomes were audited prospectively in 1035 patients. Morbidity and mortality were compared with those predicted using the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity, and a multivariable model was used to determine independent predictors of outcome.

RESULTS

Postoperative morbidity was lower than predicted (observed to expected 0.68; P < 0.001). Independent predictors of delayed mobilization were ASA III-IV (P < 0.001) and advanced age (P = 0.025). Prolonged hospital stay was related to advanced age (P = 0.002), ASA III-IV (P < 0.001), male sex (P = 0.037) and rectal surgery (P < 0.001). Morbidity was related to ASA III-IV (P = 0.004), male sex (P = 0.023) and rectal surgery (P = 0.002). None of the factors predicted 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Age and nutritional status were not independent determinants of morbidity or mortality. Pre-existing co-morbidity was an independent predictor of several outcomes.