Is there a role for TPN in terminally ill patients with bowel obstruction?

Inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: palliative interventions outcomes - mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Parenteral nutrition (PN) and palliative venting gastrostomies (PVG) are two interventions used clinically to manage inoperable malignant bowel obstruction (MBO); however, little is known about their role in clinical and quality-of-life outcomes to inform clinical decision making.

AIM

To examine the impact of PN and PVG on clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in inoperable MBO.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched (from inception to 29 April 2021): MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Health Technology Assessment and CareSearch for qualitative or quantitative studies of MBO, and PN or PVG. Titles, abstracts and papers were independently screened and quality appraised.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies representing 3538 participants were included. Current evidence cannot tell us whether these interventions improve MBO survival, but this was a firm belief by patients and clinicians informing their decision. Both interventions appear to allow patients valuable time at home. PVG provides relief from nausea and vomiting. Both interventions improve quality of life but not without significant burdens. Nutritional and performance status may be maintained or improved with PN.

CONCLUSION

PN and PVG seem to allow valuable time at home. We found no conclusive evidence to show either intervention prolonged survival, due to the lack of randomised controlled trials that have to date not been performed due to concerns about equipoise. Well-designed studies regarding survival for both interventions are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020164170.

A single-centre ten-year retrospective cohort study of malignant small bowel obstruction

INTRODUCTION

Management of malignant small bowel obstruction (mSBO) is challenging. The decision to perform an operation evaluates the perceived chance of success against a patient's fitness for operation. The aim of this study was to characterise the mSBO patient population in a tertiary UK centre and assess the patient's treatment pathway including use and effects of palliative surgery, total parenteral nutrition (TPN), Gastrografin and dexamethasone as well as preoperative stratification.

METHODS

Patients were included if they had mSBO confirmed on computed tomography imaging due to a primary or metastatic neoplasm. Data were collected on pathway and management, and Cox proportional hazard methods were utilised to observe effects on survival.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were included, with 104 inpatient episodes. Mean age was 67.4 (SD 13.7), with 57 (60.6%) females. Most (89.4%) had only one admission for mSBO. Eighty-four (89.4%) patients died over the ten-year period, 18 (17.3%) within 30 days of admission. Fifty patients (53.1%) underwent operative management: 70% bypass, 24% stoma formation and 6% open-close laparotomies. Log rank testing of survival probability analysis was significant (p = 0.00018), with 50% survival probability at 107.32 days for operative management and 47.87 days for non-operative.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Operative management forms part of the treatment pathway for a significant proportion of patients with mSBO, offering a survival benefit, though quality of survival is not known. Case selection is good, with few open-close laparotomies. Trials of non-operative interventions such as Gastrografin and dexamethasone are not utilised fully.

Home Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The use of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in patients with incurable cancer remains controversial with significant variation worldwide. We aimed to systematically evaluate the literature from 1960 to 2018 examining the use of HPN in advanced cancer patients for all intestinal failure indications and assess the potential benefits/burdens of HPN in this cohort of patients. The primary end point was survival and secondary end points were quality of life and nutritional/performance status. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model, where suitable. Of 493 studies retrieved, 22 met the quality inclusion criteria. Studies were mainly conducted in Western countries (Italy, USA, Canada, Germany), including a total of 3564 patients (mean age 57.8 years). Mean duration for HPN was 5.0 mo. Mean overall survival was 7.3 mo. Patients with improved performance status survived for longer on HPN. Quality of life was sparsely reported though there was no observed negative impact of PN. HPN-related complications were reported in eight studies only and were mainly catheter-related blood stream infections. In conclusion, HPN is used for several indications in advanced cancer, though there is significant heterogeneity of results. Disparities in geographical distribution of the studies may reflect variation in accessing HPN.

Palliative home parenteral nutrition in patients with ovarian cancer and malignant bowel obstruction: experiences of women and family caregivers

Background

Malnutrition is a problem in advanced cancer, particularly ovarian cancer where malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a frequent complication. Parenteral nutrition is the only way these patients can received adequate nutrition and is a principal indication for palliative home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Giving HPN is contentious as it may increase the burden on patients. This study investigates patients’ and family caregivers’ experiences of HPN, alongside nutritional status and survival in patients with ovarian cancer and MBO.

Methods

This mixed methods study collected data on participant characteristics, clinical details and body composition using computed tomography (CT) combined with longitudinal in-depth interviews underpinned by phenomenological principles. The cohort comprised 38 women with ovarian cancer and inoperable MBO admitted (10/2016 to 12/ 2017) to a tertiary referral hospital. Longitudinal interviews (n = 57) were carried out with 20 women considered for HPN and 13 of their family caregivers.

Results

Of the 38 women, 32 received parenteral nutrition (PN) in hospital and 17 were discharged on HPN. Nutritional status was poor with 31 of 33 women who had a CT scan having low muscle mass, although 10 were obese. Median overall survival from admission with MBO for all 38 women was 70 days (range 8–506) and for those 17 on HPN was 156 days (range 46–506).

Women experienced HPN as one facet of their illness, but viewed it as a “lifeline” that allowed them to live outside hospital. Nevertheless, HPN treatment came with losses including erosion of normality through an impact on activities of daily living and dealing with the bureaucracy surrounding the process. Family caregivers coped but were often left in an emotionally vulnerable state.

Conclusions

Women and family caregivers reported that the inconvenience and disruption caused by HPN was worth the extended time they had at home.

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.

Performance Status, Prognostic Scoring, and Parenteral Nutrition Requirements Predict Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer Receiving Home Parenteral Nutrition

We describe a cohort of Home Parenteral Nutrition (HPN) patients with advanced cancer in order to identify factors affecting prognosis. Demographic, anthropometric, biochemical and medical factors, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), and PN requirements were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed including Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox Regression, and correlation analyses. In total, 107 HPN patients (68 women, 39 men, mean age 57 yr) with advanced cancer were identified. The main indications for HPN were bowel obstruction (74.3%) and high output ostomies (14.3%). Cancer cachexia was present in 87.1% of patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for upper gastrointestinal and "other" cancers vs. gynaecological malignancy was 1.75 (p = 0.077) and 2.11 (p = 0.05), respectively. KPS score, GPS, PN volume, and PN potassium levels significantly predicted survival (HR_{KPS ≥50 vs <50} = 0.47; HR_{GPS = 2 vs. GPS = 0} = 3.19). In multivariate analysis, KPS and GPS remained significant predictors (p < 0.05), whilst PN volume reached borderline significance (p = 0.094). Survival was not significantly affected by the presence of metastatic disease, previous or concurrent surgery, chemo-radiotherapy, or indication for HPN (p > 0.05). Most patients passed away in their homes or hospice (77.9%). Performance status, prognostic scoring, and PN requirements may predict survival in patients with advanced cancer receiving HPN.

When Is Parenteral Nutrition Appropriate?

Parenteral nutrition (PN) represents one of the most notable achievements of modern medicine, serving as a therapeutic modality for all age groups across the healthcare continuum. PN offers a life-sustaining option when intestinal failure prevents adequate oral or enteral nutrition. However, providing nutrients by vein is an expensive form of nutrition support, and serious adverse events can occur. In an effort to provide clinical guidance regarding PN therapy, the Board of Directors of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) convened a task force to develop consensus recommendations regarding appropriate PN use. The recommendations contained in this document aim to delineate appropriate PN use and promote clinical benefits while minimizing the risks associated with the therapy. These consensus recommendations build on previous ASPEN clinical guidelines and consensus recommendations for PN safety. They are intended to guide evidence-based decisions regarding appropriate PN use for organizations and individual professionals, including physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and other clinicians involved in providing PN. They not only support decisions related to initiating and managing PN but also serve as a guide for developing quality monitoring tools for PN and for identifying areas for further research. Finally, the recommendations contained within the document are also designed to inform decisions made by additional stakeholders, such as policy makers and third-party payers, by providing current perspectives regarding the use of PN in a variety of healthcare settings.

Retrospective analysis of systemic chemotherapy and total parenteral nutrition for the treatment of malignant small bowel obstruction

Malignant small bowel obstruction (MSBO) that does not resolve with conservative measures frequently leaves few treatment options other than palliative care. This single‐institution retrospective study assesses the outcomes of a more aggressive approach—concurrent systemic chemotherapy and total parenteral nutrition (TPN)—in the treatment of MSBO. The MD Anderson pharmacy database was queried to identify patients who received concurrent systemic chemotherapy and TPN between 2005 and 2013. Only patients with MSBO secondary to peritoneal carcinomatosis requiring TPN for ≥8 days were included. Survival and multivariate analyses were performed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models. The study included 82 patients. MSBO resolution was observed in 10 patients. Radiographic assessments showed a response to chemotherapy in 19 patients; 6 of these patients experienced MSBO resolution. Patients spent an average of 38% of their remaining lives hospitalized, and 28% of patients required admission to the intensive care unit. In multivariate modeling, radiographic response to chemotherapy correlated with MSBO resolution (odds ratio [OR] 6.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68–27.85, P = 0.007). Median overall survival (OS) was 3.1 months, and the 1‐year OS rate was 12.6%. Radiographic response to chemotherapy (HR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16–0.56, P < 0.001), and initiation of new chemotherapy during TPN (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33–0.94, P = 0.026) independently predicted for longer OS. Concurrent treatment with systemic chemotherapy and TPN for persistent MSBO results in low efficacy and a high morbidity and mortality, and thus should not represent a standard approach.

Non-surgical oncology - Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition, Chapter 19

Reduced nutritional state is associated with unfavourable outcomes and a lower quality of life in patients with malignancies. Patients with active tumour disease frequently have insufficient food intake. The resting energy expenditure in cancer patients can be increased, decreased, or remain unchanged compared to predicted values. Tumours may result in varying degrees of systemic pro-inflammatory processes with secondary effects on all significant metabolic pathways. Therapeutic objectives are to stabilise nutritional state with oral/enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition (PN) and thus to prevent or reduce progressive weight loss. The maintenance or improvement of quality of life, and the increase in the effectiveness and a reduction in the side-effects of antitumor therapy are further objectives. Indications for PN in tumour patients are essentially identical to those in patients with benign illnesses, with preference given to oral or enteral nutrition when feasible. A combined nutritional concept is preferred if oral or enteral nutrition are possible but not sufficient. There are generally no accepted standards for ideal energy and nutrient intakes in oncological patients, particularly when exclusive artificial nutrition is administered. The use of PN as a general accompaniment to radiotherapy or chemotherapy is not indicated, but PN is indicated in chronic severe radiogenic enteritis or after allogenic transplantation with pronounced mucositis or GvH-related gastrointestinal damage for prolonged periods, with particular attention to increased risk of bleeding and infection. No PN is necessary in the terminal phase.

ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: non-surgical oncology

Parenteral nutrition offers the possibility of increasing or ensuring nutrient intake in patients in whom normal food intake is inadequate and enteral nutrition is not feasible, is contraindicated or is not accepted by the patient. These guidelines are intended to provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of parenteral nutrition in cancer patients. They were developed by an interdisciplinary expert group in accordance with accepted standards, are based on the most relevant publications of the last 30 years and share many of the conclusions of the ESPEN guidelines on enteral nutrition in oncology. Under-nutrition and cachexia occur frequently in cancer patients and are indicators of poor prognosis and, per se, responsible for excess morbidity and mortality. Many indications for parenteral nutrition parallel those for enteral nutrition (weight loss or reduction in food intake for more than 7-10 days), but only those who, for whatever reason cannot be fed orally or enterally, are candidates to receive parenteral nutrition. A standard nutritional regimen may be recommended for short-term parenteral nutrition, while in cachectic patients receiving intravenous feeding for several weeks a high fat-to-glucose ratio may be advised because these patients maintain a high capacity to metabolize fats. The limited nutritional response to the parenteral nutrition reflects more the presence of metabolic derangements which are characteristic of the cachexia syndrome (or merely the short duration of the nutritional support) rather than the inadequacy of the nutritional regimen. Perioperative parenteral nutrition is only recommended in malnourished patients if enteral nutrition is not feasible. In non-surgical well-nourished oncologic patients routine parenteral nutrition is not recommended because it has proved to offer no advantage and is associated with increased morbidity. A benefit, however, is reported in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Short-term parenteral nutrition is however commonly accepted in patients with acute gastrointestinal complications from chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and long-term (home) parenteral nutrition will sometimes be a life-saving maneuver in patients with sub acute/chronic radiation enteropathy. In incurable cancer patients home parenteral nutrition may be recommended in hypophagic/(sub)obstructed patients (if there is an acceptable performance status) if they are expected to die from starvation/under nutrition prior to tumor spread.

Home parenteral nutrition in advanced cancer: where are we?

Patients with advanced and incurable cancer are a compelling group. Questions and comments that these individuals and their families have may include: “My daughter is expecting our first grandchild in 3 months — can I hope to see our new family member?”; “I can’t keep any food down — is there anything I can do?”; “I am worried about losing so much weight, and feeling tired and weak — is there anything that may help?”; “Will I suffer a lot?”. Indeed, the most pressing concerns of the patient relate to predictions about survival and control of symptoms. The clinician taking care of the patient may wonder what is the utility or futility of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in both the individual with advanced cancer and in this population of patients at large, whether there is potential for harm such as increasing the burden of care or prolonging suffering, and how to optimize care and communication with the patient and their families. The nutrition scientist may want to know what the implications of advanced cancer are on nutrient requirements and utilization, whether there are markers that would differentiate between cachexia and simple starvation, and whether it is possible to use specific nutrients to modify the disease process. This review will provide insights into the understanding of the role of HPN in advanced cancer and opportunities for further investigation.

Cancer-Associated Cachexia and Underlying Biological Mechanisms

Cancer metastases (spread to distant organs from the primary tumor site) signify systemic, progressive, and essentially incurable malignant disease. Anorexia and wasting develop continuously throughout the course of incurable cancer. Overall, in Westernized countries nearly exactly half of current cancer diagnoses end in cure and the other half end in death; thus, cancer-associated cachexia has a high prevalence. The pathophysiology of cancer-associated cachexia has two principal components: a failure of food intake and a systemic hypermetabolism/hypercatabolism syndrome. The superimposed metabolic changes result in a rate of depletion of physiological reserves of energy and protein that is greater than would be expected based on the prevailing level of food intake. These features indicate a need for nutritional support, metabolic management, and a clear appreciation of the context of life-limiting illness.

Parenteral nutrition

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

During the past 12 months there have been clinically important advances in intravenous nutrition and adjunctive therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Useful steps have been taken in the understanding of the altered physiology of the intravenously fed patient, the potential for specific gains from manipulation with gut hormones, and avoidance of complications from amended lipid emulsions. The role of the nutrition team and the place of IVN in malignancy have also been addressed.

SUMMARY

Glucagon-like peptide-2, and lipid emulsions based less on soy-bean oil appear safe and effective. Euglycaemia is recommended at all times, but not too much vitamin C. Long-term intravenous nutrition in cancer patients can be justified, and hospital nutrition teams are probably cost-effective.