Effects of Five-Step Nutritional Interventions Conducted by a Multidisciplinary Care Team on Gastroenteric Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Quality of life endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic review 3 of the cachexia endpoints series

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of quality of life (QOL) is common in cachexia trials. Patients' self-report on health, functioning, wellbeing, and perceptions of care, represent important measures of efficacy. This review describes the frequency, variety, and reporting of QOL endpoints used in cancer cachexia clinical trials. Electronic literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (1990-2023). Seven thousand four hundred thirty-five papers were retained for evaluation. Eligibility criteria included QOL as a study endpoint using validated measures, controlled design, adults (>18 years), ≥40 participants randomized, and intervention exceeding 2 weeks. The Covidence software was used for review procedures and data extractions. Four independent authors screened all records for consensus. Papers were screened by titles and abstracts, prior to full-text reading. PRISMA guidance for systematic reviews was followed. The protocol was prospectively registered via PROSPERO (CRD42022276710). Fifty papers focused on QOL. Twenty-four (48%) were double-blind randomized controlled trials. Sample sizes varied considerably (n = 42 to 469). Thirty-nine trials (78%) included multiple cancer types. Twenty-seven trials (54%) featured multimodal interventions with various drugs and dietary supplements, 11 (22%) used nutritional interventions alone and 12 (24%) used a single pharmacological intervention only. The median duration of the interventions was 12 weeks (4-96). The most frequent QOL measure was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60%), followed by different FACIT questionnaires (34%). QOL was a primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoint in 15, 31 and 4 trials respectively, being the single primary in six. Statistically significant results on one or more QOL items favouring the intervention group were found in 18 trials. Eleven of these used a complete multidimensional measure. Adjustments for multiple testing when using multicomponent QOL measures were not reported. Nine trials (18%) defined a statistically or clinically significant difference for QOL, five with QOL as a primary outcome, and four with QOL as a secondary outcome. Correlation statistics with other study outcomes were rarely performed. PROMs including QOL are important endpoints in cachexia trials. We recommend using well-validated QOL measures, including cachexia-specific items such as weight history, appetite loss, and nutritional intake. Appropriate statistical methods with definitions of clinical significance, adjustment for multiple testing and few co-primary endpoints are encouraged, as is an understanding of how interventions may relate to changes in QOL endpoints. A strategic and scientific-based approach to PROM research in cachexia trials is warranted, to improve the research base in this field and avoid the use of QOL as supplementary measures.

Biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 5 of the cachexia endpoint series

Regulatory agencies require evidence that endpoints correlate with clinical benefit before they can be used to approve drugs. Biomarkers are often considered surrogate endpoints. In cancer cachexia trials, the measurement of biomarkers features frequently. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. A comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2023) was completed. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), prospective design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a biomarker(s) as an endpoint. Biomarkers were defined as any objective measure that was assayed from a body fluid, including scoring systems based on these assays. Routine haematology and biochemistry to monitor intervention toxicity were not considered. Data extraction was performed using Covidence, and reporting followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 studies were assessed, of which 52 trials (total participants = 6522) included biomarkers as endpoints. Most studies (n = 29, 55.7%) included a variety of cancer types. Pharmacological interventions (n = 27, 51.9%) were most evaluated, followed by nutritional interventions (n = 20, 38.4%). Ninety-nine different biomarkers were used across the trials, and of these, 96 were assayed from blood. Albumin (n = 29, 55.8%) was assessed most often, followed by C-reactive protein (n = 22, 42.3%), interleukin-6 (n = 16, 30.8%) and tumour necrosis factor-α (n = 14, 26.9%), the latter being the only biomarker that was used to guide sample size calculations. Biomarkers were explicitly listed as a primary outcome in six trials. In total, 12 biomarkers (12.1% of 99) were used in six trials or more. Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels both increased significantly in all three trials in which they were both used. This corresponded with a primary outcome, lean body mass, and was related to the pharmacological mechanism. Biomarkers were predominately used as exploratory rather than primary endpoints. The most commonly used biomarker, albumin, was limited by its lack of responsiveness to nutritional intervention. For a biomarker to be responsive to change, it must be related to the mechanism of action of the intervention and/or the underlying cachexia process that is modified by the intervention, as seen with IGFBP-3, IGF-1 and anamorelin. To reach regulatory approval as an endpoint, the relationship between the biomarker and clinical benefit must be clarified.

Are measures and related symptoms of cachexia recorded as outcomes in gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy clinical trials?

BACKGROUND

Cachexia is prevalent in gastrointestinal cancers and worsens patient outcomes and chemotherapy compliance. We examined to what extent registered gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy clinical trials record measures and related symptoms of cachexia as outcomes, and whether these were associated with trial characteristics.

METHODS

Four public trial registries (2012-2022) were accessed for Phase II and/or III randomized controlled pancreatic, gastric, and colorectal cancer chemotherapy trial protocols. Trial outcome measures of overall survival and toxicity/side effects, and those related to cachexia [physical activity, weight/body mass index (BMI), dietary limitations, caloric intake, lean muscle mass] and symptoms (appetite loss, diarrhoea, pain, fatigue/insomnia, constipation, nausea, vomiting, and oral mucositis) were extracted, along with the number and types of performance status and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) tools. Data were summarized descriptively. Chi-square tests examined associations between outcomes and trial characteristics (cancer type, trial location, funding source, PROs tools, and commencement year). Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

We included 540 trial protocols (pancreatic (35.2%), colorectal (33.3%) and gastric (31.5%)), with most trials from Europe (44.1%). Trial lead investigator was from academia (28.3%), industry (27.6%) and government (26.3%). Allied health professional involvement (26.9%) occurred at eligibility. Adjuvant therapy in trials was mainly treatment-related (68.1%). Additional medication included anti-nausea (2.2%) and analgesia (0.9%). Trial protocols mostly recorded overall survival (90.4%) and toxicity (78.9%), and the symptoms appetite loss (26.1%) and diarrhoea (19.1%), with the other symptoms recorded in <10% of the trials. Reporting of physical activity (P = 0.001), dietary limitations (P = 0.002), lean muscle mass (P = 0.027), appetite loss (P < 0.001), pain (P = 0.001), nausea (P = 0.012), and oral mucositis (P = 0.049) varied depending cancer type. Toxicity/side effects (P = 0.022), physical activity (P < 0.001), appetite loss, nausea, and vomiting (all P < 0.001), diarrhoea (P = 0.010), pain (P = 0.001), fatigue/insomnia (P = 0.001) varied depending on the trial location. Trial funding was predominantly from private/industry (34.3%) and influenced the reporting of overall survival (P = 0.049), weight/BMI (P = 0.005), caloric intake (P = 0.015), and pain (P = 0.031). Performance status and PROs tools were mentioned in 91.2% and 46.3% of the trials, respectively. Trials that incorporated PROs tools were more likely to report cachexia related outcomes, except for overall survival, lean muscle mass, and oral mucositis. The proportion of trials measuring weight/BMI increased with trial commencement year (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Cachexia-related outcomes were under-recorded in gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy trials. As trial patients experience a high symptom burden, cachexia-relevant measures and symptoms should be assessed throughout the trial, and integrated with primary endpoints to support their progress.

Nutritional Assessment Tools for Patients with Cancer: A Narrative Review

Cancer patients are at high risk of malnutrition, which can lead to adverse health outcomes such as prolonged hospitalization, increased complications, and increased mortality. Accurate and timely nutritional assessment plays a critical role in effectively managing malnutrition in these patients. However, while many tools exist to assess malnutrition, there is no universally accepted standard. Although different tools have their own strengths and limitations, there is a lack of narrative reviews on nutritional assessment tools for cancer patients. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a non-systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from their inception until May 2023. A total of 90 studies met our selection criteria and were included in our narrative review. We evaluated the applications, strengths, and limitations of 4 commonly used nutritional assessment tools for cancer patients: the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM). Our findings revealed that malnutrition was associated with adverse health outcomes. Each of these 4 tools has its applications, strengths, and limitations. Our findings provide medical staff with a foundation for choosing the optimal tool to rapidly and accurately assess malnutrition in cancer patients. It is essential for medical staff to be familiar with these common tools to ensure effective nutritional management of cancer patients.

How quality of life is measured in studies of nutritional intervention: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Nutrition care can positively affect multiple aspects of patient's health; outcomes are commonly evaluated on the basis of their impact on a patient's (i) illness-specific conditions and (ii) health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Our systematic review examined how HRQoL was measured in studies of nutritional interventions. To help future researchers select appropriate Quality of Life Questionnaires (QoLQ), we identified commonly-used instruments and their uses across populations in different regions, of different ages, and with different diseases.

METHODS

We searched EMCare, EMBASE, and Medline databases for studies that had HRQoL and nutrition intervention terms in the title, the abstract, or the MeSH term classifications "quality of life" and any of "nutrition therapy", "diet therapy", or "dietary supplements" and identified 1,113 studies for possible inclusion.We then reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify studies for final inclusion.

RESULTS

Our review of titles, abstracts, and full texts resulted in the inclusion of 116 relevant studies in our final analysis. Our review identified 14 general and 25 disease-specific QoLQ. The most-used general QoLQ were the Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) in 27 studies and EuroQol 5-Dimension, (EQ-5D) in 26 studies. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ), a cancer-specific QoLQ, was the most frequently used disease-specific QoLQ (28 studies). Disease-specific QoLQ were also identified for nutrition-related diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and dysphagia. Sixteen studies used multiple QoLQ, of which eight studies included both general and disease-specific measures of HRQoL. The most studied diseases were cancer (36 studies) and malnutrition (24 studies). There were few studies focused on specific age-group populations, with only 38 studies (33%) focused on adults 65 years and older and only 4 studies focused on pediatric patients. Regional variation in QoLQ use was observed, with EQ-5D used more frequently in Europe and SF-36 more commonly used in North America.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of QoLQ to measure HRQoL is well established in the literature; both general and disease-specific instruments are now available for use. We advise further studies to examine potential benefits of using both general and disease-specific QoLQ to better understand the impact of nutritional interventions on HRQoL.

A study on the effect of nutrition education based on the goal attainment theory on oral nutritional supplementation after colorectal cancer surgery

OBJECTIVE

To investigate their compliance with postoperative oral nutritional supplementation and nutritional outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 84 patients with colorectal cancer surgery with NRS-2002 risk score ≥ 3 who were treated with oral nutritional supplementation were selected and divided into control and observation groups according to the random number table method, with 42 cases in each group. The control group received conventional oral nutritional supplementation and dietary nutrition education; the observation group established a nutrition intervention group based on the Goal Attainment Theory and carried out individualized nutrition education based on the Goal Attainment Theory. The nutritional indicators at 1 day postoperative, 7 days postoperative, oral nutritional supplementation adherence scores at 7 and 14 days postoperative, and the attainment rate of trans-oral nutritional intake at 21 days postoperative were compared between the 2 groups of patients.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the nutritional status indexes of the 2 groups of patients before the intervention, p > 0.05; when comparing the prealbumin of the 2 groups of patients at 7 days postoperatively, the prealbumin level of the patients in the observation group at 7 days postoperatively (200.25 ± 53.25) was better than that of the control group (165.73 ± 43.00), with a p value of 0.002, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Comparison of oral nutritional supplementation adherence scores at 7 and 14 days postoperatively showed that ONS treatment adherence scores were better than those of the control group, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). When comparing the attainment rate of oral nutritional intake at 21 days after surgery, the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Nutritional education based on the Goal Attainment Theory can effectively improve the adherence to oral nutritional supplementation therapy and protein intake attainment rate of colorectal cancer patients after surgery and effectively improve the nutritional status of patients.