Home parenteral nutrition for people with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction

Outcomes of parenteral nutrition in patients with advanced cancer and malignant bowel obstruction

Background

Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) affects 3-15% of all cancer patients. In patients with advanced cancer and inoperable MBO, the average survival varies between four to nine weeks. Parenteral nutrition (PN) may improve survival in specific patient populations with malignant bowel obstruction.

Aims

This retrospective, single-center cohort study aimed to review individual patient outcomes on PN in the setting of advanced cancer with a diagnosis of MBO and identify clinical and laboratory markers predictive of short- and long-term survival to further highlight patients that would benefit from PN in the setting of an inoperable MBO.

Results

In a retrospective analysis of 68 patients receiving PN for inoperable MBO, the median survival was 142 (IQR: 63.3-239.5) days. Patients experienced a median number of two hospital readmissions (range: 0-10) and spent a median of 29 days (range: 0-105) in the hospital after starting PN. Eighteen (26.5%) patients developed a catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). A diagnosis of appendiceal cancer was identified as a predictive marker of improved survival (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29-0.92, p = 0.023).

Conclusions

The use of PN in the context of end-of-life cancer care is a practice that necessitates improvement. Recognizing the outcomes and patient experiences of PN utilization is essential to physicians and patients.

Is there a place for nutrition in palliative care?

PURPOSE

Although nutritional interventions are becoming widely used in cancer patients, purposes and results of such treatment are not always well-defined. This is because nutrition is traditionally considered a palliative treatment to be confined to the area of palliative cares, whereas the modern approach includes nutrition as an early supplemental support to improve compliance of patients with the oncologic therapies and total parenteral nutrition may be recommended in patients who would be destined to succumb prior from starvation-malnutrition than from tumour progression. Purpose of this paper if to define the potential as well as the limitations of nutritional interventions on both the survival and the quality of life of the advanced cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Some RCT on the use of oral, enteral and supplemental parenteral nutrition in patients on oncologic therapy show some benefit on compliance with therapy and in some domains of quality of life. Some malnourished (hypo)aphagic incurable cancer patients may survive longer thanks to parenteral nutrition, while few data suggest that quality of life may be maintained for a limited period of time. With a few exceptions, oncology and nutrition have till recently travelled on parallel tracks without talking each other. The oncologist who knows the natural history of the patients should understand which risk of complication and of poor tolerance to the treatment can malnourished patients carry and which is the potential of parenteral nutrition in hypophagic incurable patients.

Home parenteral nutrition for people with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

People with advanced ovarian or gastrointestinal cancer may develop malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). They are able to tolerate limited, if any, oral or enteral (via a tube directly into the gut) nutrition. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is the provision of macronutrients, micronutrients, electrolytes and fluid infused as an intravenous solution and provides a method for these people to receive nutrients. There are clinical and ethical arguments for and against the administration of PN to people receiving palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in improving survival and quality of life in people with inoperable MBO.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), BNI, CINAHL, Web of Science and NHS Economic Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment up to January 2018, ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) and in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/). In addition, we handsearched included studies and used the 'Similar articles' feature on PubMed for included articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included any studies with more than five participants investigating HPN in people over 16 years of age with inoperable MBO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted the data and assessed risk of bias for each study. We entered data into Review Manager 5 and used GRADEpro to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 721 participants in the review. The studies were observational, 12 studies had only one relevant treatment arm and no control and for the one study with a control arm, very few details were given. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes. Due to heterogeneity of data, meta-analysis was not performed and therefore the data were synthesised via a narrative summary.The evidence for benefit derived from PN was very low for survival and quality of life. All the studies measured overall survival and 636 (88%) of participants were deceased at the end of the study. However there were varying definitions of overall survival that yielded median survival intervals between 15 to 155 days (range three to 1278 days). Three studies used validated measures of quality of life. The results from assessment of quality of life were equivocal; one study reported improvements up until three months and two studies reported approximately similar numbers of participants with improvements and deterioration. Different quality of life scales were used in each of the studies and quality of life was measured at different time points. Due to the very low certainty of the evidence, we are very uncertain about the adverse events related to PN use. Adverse events were measured by nine studies and data for individual participants could be extracted from eight studies. This revealed that 32 of 260 (12%) patients developed a central venous catheter infection or were hospitalised because of complications related to PN.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain whether HPN improves survival or quality of life in people with MBO as the certainty of evidence was very low for both outcomes. As the evidence base is limited and at high risk of bias, further higher-quality prospective studies are required.