Parenteral Nutrition in Advanced Cancer: The Healthcare Providers' Perspective

Parenteral Nutrition in Palliative Cancer Care: Detrimental, Futile, or Beneficial?

Palliative cancer care patients may live for a long time, but malnutrition worsens the prognosis. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is suitable for replenishing a calorie deficit, but its advantages and tolerance late in the cancer trajectory are debated. We examined symptom development in hospitalized patients with and without PN. A total of 21 palliative cancer care patients receiving PN and 155 palliative cancer care patients not receiving PN during hospitalization in a specialized unit were retrospectively compared. We studied symptom intensity at admission, symptom relief during the hospital stay, and survival. The patients had locally advanced or metastatic cancer, a mean age of 70 years, and their median ECOG performance status was III. Symptom burden at admission was similar in the compared groups. Symptom relief during hospitalization was also similar. However, patients already on PN at admission reported more nausea and patients receiving PN during hospitalization reported better nausea relief compared to patients not receiving this intervention. Overall median survival was less than two months and similar in the compared groups. Based on a limited number of observations and a suboptimal study design, we were not able to demonstrate an increased symptom burden for palliative cancer care patients receiving PN late in the disease trajectory.

[Home parenteral nutrition in patients with malignant bowel obstruction. Ethical considerations]

Introduction

Background: patients with cancer are one of the main group of patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Patients with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) represent a challenging group when considering HPN. At the Ethics Working Group of SENPE ethical considerations on this subject were reviewed and a guidelines proposal was made. Methods: a literature search was done and a full set of questions arose: When, if ever, is HPN indicated for patients with MBO? How should the training program be? When withdrawal of HPN should be considered? Other questions should be also taken into consideration. May any Oncologist send home a patient with HPN? The educational program could be shortened? When considering to withdraw parenteral nutrition? Results: HPN in MBO has better outcomes when patients have a good functional status (Karnofsky ≥ 50 or ECOG ≤ 2), expected survival > 2-3 months, and low inflammatory markers. Very few data have been reported on quality of life, but HPN allows a valuable time at home albeit with a considerable burden for both patients and their families. Proposal: once a patient is considered for HPN, there is a need for a deep talk on the benefits, complications and risks. In this initial talk, when HNP should be stopped needs to be included. The palliative care team with the help of the nutrition support team should follow the patient, whose clinical status must be assessed regularly. HPN should be withdrawn when no additional benefits are achieved. Conclusion: HPN may be considered an option in patients with MBO when they have a fair or good functional status and a desire to spend their last days at home.

Routine laboratory parameters to support decision on parenteral nutrition in palliative care

Introduction

Parenteral nutrition (PN) is widely used in palliative care (PC), but there is limited evidence to support its use at the end of life (EOL). This aim of this was to investigate the relationship between routine laboratory parameters and survival in patients receiving PN, and to develop a decision tree model to support clinicians decide whether to start or forgo PN.

Methods

The laboratory parameters of 113 patients with advanced diseases who were admitted to a specialized palliative care unit (PCU) were analyzed at two points in time: T0 = before PN, T1 = two weeks after initiation of PN. Univariate Mann-Whitney U-tests and multivariate linear regression models, as well as a decision tree analysis were computed; all in relation to survival time.

Results

The final regression model was significant with p = 0.001 (adjusted R2 = 0.15) and included two predictors for survival time after PN initiation: the CRP/albumin ratio and urea at T1 (ps = 0.019). Decision tree analysis revealed three important predictors for classification of survival time after PN initiation: CRP, urea, and LDH (all at T0).

Discussion

The decision tree model may help to identify patients likely to benefit from PN, thus supporting the clinical decision whether or not to start PN.

Association between Karnofsky performance status and outcomes in cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The selection of appropriate criteria is essential to accurately identify cancer patients eligible for home parenteral nutrition (HPN). In this study, the association between Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Scale scores and outcomes in cancer patients on HPN was evaluated.

METHODS

Retrospective-observational-longitudinal-analytical study of a database of adult cancer patients on HPN. The variables analyzed were sex, age, cancer diagnosis, cancer location (digestive tract and genitourinary), nutritional status, including initial weight (IW), at the start of HPN), usual weight (UW) and IW/UW ratio, and body mass index (BMI) at the start of HPN. Performance status was assessed with the KPS scale. Type of catheter used, number of days on HPN and clinical progression of cancer patients were also studied.

RESULTS

Data of 41 cancer patients (60.8% female) were evaluated. Mean age at the start of HPN was 60.45 years. Cancer location was digestive tract (n = 36; 87.8%); gynecologic (n = 4; 9.7%), urinary tract (n = 1; 2.4%). Median IW was 55 kg (45; 64) and BMI was 20 (17.58; 22.84). The IW/UW ratio was -15 kg (-20;-10). The catheters used were peripherally inserted central catheter (n = 30; 73.2%), tunneled (n = 9; 22%) and port (n = 2; 4.8%). The median duration of HPN was 72 days (30; 159). The KPS results showed that 16 cancer patients (39%) had KPS scores ≤50, 17 (41.5%) requiring HPN were discharged and 24 (58.5%) died. The association between disease progression and KPS scores ≤50 was significant (p = 0.025; OR (95% CI): 5.28 (1.07; 36.18).

CONCLUSION

The KPS scale is a reliable tool to identify cancer patients eligible for HPN. Cancer patients with ≤50 scores had a five-fold increased risk of death than patients with >50 scores.