Quality of life: the patient's endpoint

Individualized nutrition intervention is of major benefit to colorectal cancer patients: long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of nutritional therapy

BACKGROUND

In our published randomized trial in colorectal cancer, group 1 (n = 37) received individualized nutritional counseling and education about regular foods, group 2 (n = 37) received dietary supplements and consumed their usual diet of regular foods, and group 3 (n = 37) consumed their usual diet of regular foods. Neither group 2 nor group 3 received individualized counseling. Early nutritional counseling during radiotherapy was highly effective at reducing acute radiotherapy toxicity and improving nutritional intake/status and quality of life (QoL). Efficacy persisted for 3 mo after the intervention.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to perform long-term follow-up in survivors of that clinical trial to specifically evaluate survival, late toxicity, QoL, and nutritional variables.

DESIGN

Medical data were collected from patients' records, and prescheduled interviews were conducted by dietitians for individualized evaluations. Analyses and comparisons between groups (adjusted for stage) were performed after a median follow-up of 6.5 (range: 4.9-8.1) y.

RESULTS

Patients complied with the Radiotherapy Department's follow-up protocol. Nutritional deterioration was higher (P < 0.001) in group 3 (n = 26) and group 2 (n = 29) than in group 1 (n = 34). Adequate nutritional status was maintained in 91% of group 1 patients but not in any of the group 3 patients (P < 0.002). Intakes in group 1 were similar to reference values, and the patients adhered to the prescribed recommendations. Intakes in groups 2 and 3 were lower than recommended intakes: group 3 ≃ group 2 < group 1 (P = 0.001). Median survival in group 3 was 4.9 y (30% died), in group 2 was 6.5 y (22% died), and in group 1 was 7.3 y (only 8% died): group 3 > group 2 > group 1 (P < 0.01). Late radiotherapy toxicity was higher in group 3 (n = 17; 65%) and group 2 (n = 17; 59%) than in group 1 (n = 3; 9%): group 3 ≃ group 2 > group 1 (P < 0.001). QoL was worse in groups 3 and 2 than in group 1: group 3 ≃ group 2 < group 1 (P < 0.002). Worse radiotherapy toxicity, QoL, and mortality were associated with deteriorated nutritional status and intake (P < 0.001). Likewise, depleted intake, nutritional status, and QoL predicted shorter survival and late toxicity (HR: 8.25; 95% CI: 2.74, 1.47; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study conveys novel information about the effectiveness of nutrition at improving long-term prognosis in colorectal cancer. Overall, the data indicate that early individualized nutritional counseling and education during radiotherapy is valuable for patients.

Cancer wasting and quality of life react to early individualized nutritional counselling!

To devise a meaningful nutritional therapy in cancer, a greater understanding of nutritional dimensions as well as patients' expectations and disease impact is essential. We have shown that nutritional deterioration in patients with gastrointestinal and head and neck cancer was multifactorial and mainly determined by the tumour burden and location. In a larger cohort, stage and location were yet again the major determinants of patients' quality of life (QoL), despite the fact that nutritional deterioration combined with intake deficits were functionally more relevant than cancer stage. Based on this framework, the potential role of integrated oral nutritional support on outcomes was investigated. In a pilot study using individualized nutritional counselling on a heterogeneous patient population, the achieved improvement of nutritional intake was proportional to a better QoL. The role of early nutritional support was further analysed in a prospective randomized controlled trial in head and neck cancer patients stratified by stage undergoing radiotherapy. Pre-defined outcomes were: nutritional status and intake, morbidity and QoL, at the end and 3 months after radiotherapy. Nutritional interventions, only given during radiotherapy, consisted of three randomization arms: (1) individualized nutritional counselling vs. (2) ad libitum diet+high protein supplements vs. (3) ad libitum diet. Nutritional interventions 1 and 2 positively influenced outcomes during radiotherapy; however, 3 months after its completion individualized nutritional counselling was the single method capable of sustaining a significant impact on patients' outcomes. The early provision of the appropriate mixture of foods and textures using regular foods may modulate outcomes in cancer patients.

Impact of nutrition on outcome: a prospective randomized controlled trial in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

We aimed to determine the effect of dietary counseling or oral supplements on outcome for patients with cancer, specifically, nutritional outcome, morbidity, and quality of life (QOL), during and 3 months after radiotherapy.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients with head and neck cancer who were referred for radiotherapy (RT) were randomized to the following groups: group 1 (n = 25), patients who received dietary counseling with regular foods; group 2 (n = 25), patients who maintained usual diet plus supplements; and group 3 (n = 25), patients who maintained intake ad lib. Nutritional intake (determined by diet history) and status (determined by Ottery's Subjective Global Assessment), and QOL (determined by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0 [EORTC QLQ-C30]) were evaluated at baseline, at the end of RT, and at 3 months.

RESULTS

Energy intake after RT increased in both groups 1 and 2 (p < or = .05). Protein intake also increased in both groups 1 and 2 (p < or = .006). Both energy and protein intake decreased significantly in group 3 (p < .01). At 3 months, group 1 maintained intakes, whereas groups 2 and 3 returned to or below baseline levels. After RT, >90% of patients experienced RT toxicity; this was not significantly different between groups, with a trend for reduced symptomatology in group 1 versus group 2/group 3 (p < .07). At 3 months, the reduction of incidence/severity of grade 1+2 anorexia, nausea/vomiting, xerostomia, and dysgeusia was different: 90% of the patients improved in group 1 versus 67% in group 2 versus 51% in group 3 (p < .0001). After RT, QOL function scores improved (p < .003) proportionally with improved nutritional intake and status in group 1/group 2 (p < .05) and worsened in group 3 (p < .05); at 3 months, patients in group 1 maintained or improved overall QOL, whereas patients in groups 2 and 3 maintained or worsened overall QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

During RT, nutritional interventions positively influenced outcomes, and counseling was of similar/higher benefit; in the medium term, only counseling exerted a significant impact on patient outcomes.

Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Oncology

QOL outcomes have become an integral component of many clinical oncology trials. Much work has been performed testing the validity and reliability of Q OL instruments. The current challenge is to understand better the clinical relevance of QOL research in oncology. QOL studies should focus on phase III trials with clear hypotheses that can lead to clinically meaningful interventions.

Dietary counseling improves patient outcomes: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in colorectal cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of dietary counseling or nutritional supplements on outcomes in cancer patients: nutritional, morbidity, and quality of life (QoL) during and 3 months after radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 111 colorectal cancer outpatients referred for radiotherapy, stratified by staging, were randomly assigned: group 1 (G1; n = 37), dietary counseling (regular foods); group 2 (G2; n = 37), protein supplements; and group 3 (G3; n = 37), ad libitum intake. Nutritional intake (diet history), status (Ottery's Subjective Global Assessment), and QoL (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0) were evaluated at baseline, at the end, and 3 months after radiotherapy.

RESULTS

At radiotherapy completion, energy intake increased in G1/G2 (P < or = .04), G1 more than G2 (P = .001), and decreased in G3 (P < .01). Protein intake increased in G1/G2 (P < or = .007), G1 less than G2 (not significant), and decreased in G3 (P < .01). At 3 months, G1 maintained nutritional intake and G2/G3 returned to baseline. After radiotherapy and at 3 months, rates of anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were higher in G3 (P < .05). At radiotherapy completion, in G1 all QoL function scores improved proportionally to adequate intake or nutritional status (P < .05); whereas in G2 only three of six function scores improved proportionally to protein intake (P = .04), and in G3 all scores worsened (P < .05). At 3 months, G1 patients maintained/improved function, symptoms, and single-item scores (P < .02); in G2, only few function and symptom scales improved (P < .05); in G3, QoL remained as poor as after radiotherapy. In G1/G2, respectively, improvement/deterioration of QoL correlated with better or poorer intake or nutritional status (P < .003).

CONCLUSION

During radiotherapy, both interventions positively influenced outcomes; dietary counseling was of similar or higher benefit, whereas even 3 months after RT, it was the only method to sustain a significant impact on patient outcomes.

Does nutrition influence quality of life in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy?

PURPOSE

To investigate in cancer patients referred for radiotherapy (RT): (1) quality of life (QoL), nutritional status and nutrient intake, at the onset and at the end of RT; (2) whether individualised nutritional counselling, despite symptoms, was able to enhance nutrient intake over time and whether the latter influenced the patient's QoL; and (3) which symptoms may anticipate poorer QoL and/or reduced nutritional intake.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty-five patients with tumours of the head-neck/gastrointestinal tract (high-risk: HR), prostate, breast, lung, brain, gallbladder, uterus (low-risk: LR) were evaluated before and at the end of RT. Nutritional status was evaluated by Ottery's Subjective Global Assessment, nutritional intake by a 24-h recall food questionnaire and QoL by two instruments: EUROQOL and the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30.

RESULTS

Baseline malnutrition was prevalent in HR vs. LR (P=0.02); nutritional intake was associated with nutritional status (P=0.007); the latter did not change significantly during RT. In LR, baseline energy intake was higher than EER (P=0.001), and higher than HR' intake (P=0.002); the latter increased (P<0.03), in spite of symptom increase anew and/or in severity (P=0.0001). According to both instruments, QoL was always better in LR vs. HR (P=0.01); at the end of RT, QoL improvement in HR was correlated with increased nutritional intake (P=0.001), both remained stable in LR.

CONCLUSIONS

Individualised nutritional counselling accounting for nutritional status and clinical condition, was able to improve nutritional intake and patients' QoL, despite self-reported symptoms.

A case for including spirituality in quality of life measurement in oncology

Most of the commonly used quality of life (QOL) instruments in oncology do not include spirituality as a core domain. However, previous research suggests that spirituality might be an important aspect of QOL for cancer patients and that it may, in fact, be especially salient in the context of life-threatening illness. This study used a large (n=1610) and ethnically diverse sample to address three questions relevant to including spirituality in QOL measurement: (1) Does spirituality demonstrate a positive association with QOL?; (2) Is this association unique?; and (3) Is there clinical utility in including spirituality in QOL measurement? Spirituality, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being (FACIT-Sp), was found to be associated with QOL to the same degree as physical well-being, a domain unquestioned in its importance to QOL. The significant association between spirituality and QOL was unique, remaining after controlling for core QOL domains as well as other possible confounding variables. Furthermore, spiritual well-being was found to be related to the ability to enjoy life even in the midst of symptoms, making this domain a potentially important clinical target. It is concluded that these results support the move to the biopsychosocialspiritual model for QOL measurement in oncology.

The impact of radiation therapy on quality of life in patients with cancer

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to evaluate the physical and mental status change during and after a course of radiation treatment in patients with cancer.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY

Twenty-four patients with various malignant diseases were enrolled, including 9 men and 15 women, whose median age was 64.5, to receive radiation therapy. All patients also received psychosocial support from nurses, social workers, and/or organized support groups. The Rand 36-item survey 1.0 (SF-36) was completed at the beginning, the second week, the completion of treatment, and 1 and 3 months after treatment for the evaluation of physical component scores and mental component scores. Karnofsky performance scale and toxicity scores were determined by the treating nurses and physicians.

RESULTS

The physical component scores of evaluated patients before treatment were approximately 20% lower than those of the general U.S. population, whereas mental component scores were similar to those of the general U.S. population. After treatment started, Karnofsky performance scale decreased concurrently with an increased rate of toxicity. Both physical and mental component scores were relatively stable throughout the course of evaluation. Mental component scores were the only predictor of toxicity during the treatment. Karnofsky performance scale dropped to their lowest point at the completion of treatment and then improved at 1-month follow-up.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The patients who had higher mental component scores before treatment appeared to have higher, and improving, physical component scores throughout the course of evaluation. Along with complementary social support, the implementation of psychosocial support early and throughout the course of treatment may result in physical benefits and improving overall quality of life. Care should also be taken to make psychosocial support available to patients after the completion of treatment.