Perioperative immunonutrition in esophageal cancer patients undergoing esophagectomy: the first meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Pharmaconutrition: Which substrates?

With the term "pharmaconutrition" or "immunonutrition" is intended the use of specific nutritional substrates having the ability of modulating specific mechanisms involved in several immune and inflammatory pathways. To achieve these goals, these substrates have to be administered with over physiologic dose. Glutamine and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, used as single substrate, did not show clear clinical advantages on solid endpoints such as postoperative complications. Despite several multiple substrate enteral feeds are available on the market, very few of them have been tested in randomized clinical trial to prove efficacy. The most extensive investigated formulation is a combination of arginine, omega-3 fatty acids, ribonucleic acid with or without glutamine. Several meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials have been conducted to compare the effects of enteral immunonutrition with control diets on post-surgical morbidity. The results consistently showed that the use of enteral multiple substrate formulas significantly reduced infectious complications and duration of hospitalization. In a more contemporary view, pharmaconutrition should be tested more accurately in the contest of enhanced recovery programs, during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and in the prehabilitation setting.

Impact of Perioperative Immunonutrition on Postoperative Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Head and Neck or Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To clarify whether perioperative immunonutrition is effective in adult patients with or without malnutrition undergoing elective surgery for head and neck (HAN) or gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.

BACKGROUND

It is important to avoid postoperative complications in patients with cancer as they can compromise clinical outcomes. There is no consensus on the efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in patients with or without malnutrition undergoing HAN or GI cancer surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Selection, and Emcare from 1981 to 2022 using search terms related to immunonutrition and HAN or GI cancer. We included randomized controlled trials. Intervention was defined as immunonutritional therapy including arginine, n-3 omega fatty acids, or glutamine during the perioperative period. The control was defined as standard nutritional therapy. The primary outcomes were total postoperative and infectious complications, defined as events with a Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ II that occurred within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 4825 patients from 48 included studies, 19 had upper GI cancer, 9 had lower, and 8 had mixed cancer, whereas 12 had HAN cancers. Immunonutrition reduced the total postoperative complications (relative risk ratio: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; certainty of evidence: high) and infectious complications (relative risk ratio: 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82; certainty of evidence: high) compared with standard nutritional therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Nutritional intervention with perioperative immunonutrition in patients with HAN and GI cancers significantly reduced total postoperative complications and infectious complications.

Impact of Perioperative Immunonutrition on Postoperative Outcomes in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

There is no consensus on the efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery. We clarified the impact of perioperative immunonutrition on postoperative outcomes in patients with upper GI cancers. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Selection, and Emcare from 1981-2022 using search terms related to immunonutrition and upper GI cancer. We included randomized controlled trials. Intervention was defined as immunonutritional therapy, including arginine, n-3 omega fatty acids, or glutamine during the perioperative period. The control was defined as standard nutritional therapy. The primary outcomes were infectious complications, defined as events with a Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ II that occurred within 30 days after surgery. After screening, 23 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and in the quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis showed that immunonutrition reduced infectious complications (relative risk ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.92; certainty of evidence: Moderate) compared with standard nutritional therapy. In conclusion, nutritional intervention with perioperative immunonutrition in patients with upper GI cancers significantly reduced infectious complications. The effect of immunonutrition for upper GI cancers in reducing the risk of infectious complications was about 30%.

The effect of perioperative immunonutrition on patients undergoing esophagectomy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Introduction

Background: immunonutrition has been introduced and proposed to have positive modulating effects on inflammatory and immune responses in surgical patients. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether perioperative enteral immunonutrition (EIN) can reduce postoperative complications or reduce inflammatory responses in esophageal cancer (EC) patients undergoing esophagectomy. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of EIN before and/or after surgery in EC patients undergoing esophagectomy were identified. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Results: ten RCTs involving 1,052 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including 573 patients in the EIN group and 479 patients in the enteral nutrition (EN) group. Overall, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative pneumonia, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal abscess, septicemia, and urinary tract infection. No significant incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and in-hospital mortality was found. Conclusions: perioperative enteral immunonutrition did not reduce the incidence of infectious complications and anastomotic leakage in EC patients undergoing esophagectomy, nor did it reduce postoperative CRP and IL-6, but did not increase in-hospital mortality.

Inflammation and Nutrition: Friend or Foe?

The importance of the interplay between inflammation and nutrition has generated much interest in recent times. Inflammation has been identified as a key driver for disease-related malnutrition, leading to anorexia, reduced food intake, muscle catabolism, and insulin resistance, which are stimulating a catabolic state. Interesting recent data suggest that inflammation also modulates the response to nutritional treatment. Studies have demonstrated that patients with high inflammation show no response to nutritional interventions, while patients with lower levels of inflammation do. This may explain the contradictory results of nutritional trials to date. Several studies of heterogeneous patient populations, or in the critically ill or advanced cancer patients, have not found significant benefits on clinical outcome. Vice versa, several dietary patterns and nutrients with pro- or anti-inflammatory properties have been identified, demonstrating that nutrition influences inflammation. Within this review, we summarize and discuss recent advances in both the role of inflammation in malnutrition and the effect of nutrition on inflammation.

Esophagectomy-prevention of complications-tips and tricks for the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative stage

Esophagectomy still remains the mainstay of treatment for localized esophageal cancer. Many progresses have been made in the technique of esophagectomy in the last decades but the overall morbidity for this operation remains formidable. Postoperative complication and mortality rate after esophagectomy are significant; anastomotic leak has an incidence of 11,4%. The occurrence of a complication is a significant negative prognostic factor for long term survival and is also linked to longer postoperative stay, a lower quality of life, increased hospital costs. Preventing the occurrence of postoperative morbidity and reducing associated postoperative mortality rate is a major goal for surgeons experienced in resective esophageal surgery. Many details of pre, intra and postoperative care for patients undergoing esophagectomy need to be shared among the professionals taking care of these patients (oncologists, dieticians, physiotherapists, surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, gastroenterologists) in order to improve the short and long term clinical results.

Comparison of GLIM, SGA, PG-SGA, and PNI in diagnosing malnutrition among hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery patients

Objective

To compare the diagnostic value of four tools-the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, the subjective global assessment (SGA), patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA), and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in malnutrition among hospitalized patients undergoing hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery. Meanwhile, to observe the nutritional intervention of these patients.

Methods

Present study was a cross-sectional study, including 506 hospitalized patients who underwent hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery between December 2020 and February 2022 at Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital, China. The incidence rate of malnutrition was diagnosed using the four tools. The consistency of the four tools was analyzed by Cohen's kappa statistic. Data, including nutritional characteristics and nutritional interventions, were collected. The nutritional intervention was observed according to the principles of Five Steps Nutritional Treatment.

Results

The prevalence was 36.75, 44.58, and 60.24%, as diagnosed by the GLIM, PG-SGA, and PNI, respectively, among 332 tumor patients. Among the 174 non-tumor patients, the prevalence was 9.77, 10.92, and 32.18% as diagnosed by the GLIM, SGA, and PNI. The diagnostic concordance of PG-SGA and GLIM was higher (Kappa = 0.814, <0.001) than SGA vs. GLIM (Kappa = 0.752, P < 0.001) and PNI vs. GLIM (Kappa = 0.265, P < 0.001). The univariate analysis revealed that older age, lower BMI and tumorous were significantly associated with nutritional risks and malnutrition. Among 170 patients with nutritional risk, most of patients (118/170, 69.41%) did not meet the nutritional support standard.

Conclusion

The incidence of nutritional risk and malnutrition is high among patients with hepatobiliary and pancreatic diseases, specifically those with tumors. The GLIM showed the lowest prevalence of malnutrition among the four tools. The PG-SGA and GLIM had a relative high level of agreement. There was a low proportion of nutritional support in patients. More prospective and well-designed cohort studies are needed to confirm the relevance of these criteria in clinical practice in the future.

Network meta-analysis of the optimal time of applying enteral immunonutrition in esophageal cancer patients receiving esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Enteral immunonutrition (EIN) has been extensively applied in cancer patients; however, its role in esophageal cancer (EC) patients receiving esophagectomy remains unclear. We performed this network meta-analysis to investigate the impact of EIN on patients undergoing surgery for EC and further determine the optimal time of applying EIN.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify eligible studies. Categorical data was expressed as the odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI), and continuous data was expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Meta-analysis with head-to-head approach and network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of EIN on clinical outcomes using RevMan 5.3 and ADDIS V.1.16.8 software. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank all nutritional regimes.

RESULTS

Total 14 studies involving 1071 patients were included. Meta-analysis with head-to-head approach indicated no difference between EIN regardless of the application time and standard EN (SEN); however, subgroup analyses found that postoperative EIN was associated with decreased incidence of total infectious complications (OR = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.26 to 0.84; p = 0.01) and pneumonia (OR = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.25 to 0.90; p = 0.02) and shortened the length of hospitalization (LOH) (MD =  - 1.01; 95%CI =  - 1.44 to - 0.57; p < 0.001) compared to SEN, which were all supported by network meta-analyses. Ranking probability analysis further indicated that postoperative EIN has the highest probability of being the optimal option in terms of these three outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative EIN should be preferentially utilized in EC patients undergoing esophagectomy because it has optimal potential of decreasing the risk of total infectious complications and pneumonia and shortening LOH.

OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER

10.17605/OSF.IO/KJ9UY.

Association of Malnutrition, as Defined by the PG-SGA, ESPEN 2015, and GLIM Criteria, With Complications in Esophageal Cancer Patients After Esophagectomy

Background: There are several approaches that can be used for the pre-treatment identification of malnutrition in oncology populations including the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), the 2015 consensus statement by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN 2015) and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM). Aims: This study aimed to evaluate whether malnutrition, as defined by these three methods, can be used to predict complications in esophageal cancer (EC) patients after esophagectomy. Methods: We performed a single center, observational cohort study that included 360 EC patients undergoing esophagectomy from December 2014 to November 2019 at Daping Hospital in China. The prevalence of malnutrition in the study population was prospectively defined using the PG-SGA (≥9 defined malnutrition), and retrospectively defined using the ESPEN 2015 and the GLIM. The prevalence of malnutrition and association with postoperative complications were compared in parallel for the three methods. Results: The prevalence of malnutrition before surgery was 23.1% (83/360), 12.2% (44/360), and 33.3% (120/360) in the study population, as determined by the PG-SGA, the ESPEN 2015 and the GLIM, respectively. The PG-SGA and GLIM had higher diagnostic concordance (Kappa = 0.519, P < 0.001) compared to the ESPEN 2015 vs. GLIM (Kappa = 0.361, P < 0.001) and PG-SGA vs. ESPEN 2015 (Kappa = 0.297, P < 0.001). The overall incidence of postoperative complications for the study population was 58.1% (209/360). GLIM- and ESPEN 2015-defined malnutrition were both associated with the total number of postoperative complications in multivariable analyses. Moreover, GLIM-defined malnutrition exhibited the highest power to identify the incidence of complications among all independent predictors in a pooled analysis. Conclusion: Among the PG-SGA, the ESPEN 2015 and the GLIM, the GLIM framework defines the highest prevalence rate of malnutrition and appears to be the optimal method for predicting postoperative complications in EC patients undergoing esophagectomy. These results support the importance of preoperatively identifying malnutrition using appropriate assessment tools, because it can facilitate the selection of management strategies that will optimize the clinical outcomes of EC patients.