Cancer Cachexia: It Takes a Team to Fix the Complex Machinery

The Psychosocial Components of Multimodal Interventions Offered to People with Cancer Cachexia: A Scoping Review

The supportive care of people with cancer cachexia is a rapidly evolving field. In the past decade, multimodal treatments have been developed and new multidisciplinary cachexia clinics have been established across the world. This scoping review examines the extent to which psychosocial support has become part of the multimodal management of cancer cachexia. The review draws on a systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for publications about people who have cancer cachexia and receive multimodal interventions. Search limits were the English language, date range January 2013 to March 2021, and adults 18 years and older. The search found 19 papers about multimodal interventions for either cancer cachexia or its defining feature involuntary weight loss that included a psychosocial component. This review found three different ways a psychosocial component of a multimodal intervention can help patients: (1) enable adherence to multimodal therapies; (2) aid emotional adaptation and coping; and (3) treat comorbid anxiety and depression. Recognizing these three different functions of psychosocial support is important because they have different mechanisms of action. Behavioral change techniques are important for enabling adherence, education in coping methods is important to alleviate stress, and cognitive reframing for the treatment of anxiety and depression. The analysis reveals that multimodal interventions for cancer cachexia with a psychosocial component can either focus on physical health or have a more holistic focus. Holistic care is considered the best practice in cancer nursing. Thus multimodal interventions that can address not only physical health problems, but psychosocial issues are consistent with high-quality nursing care.

A multimodal approach to cancer-related cachexia: from theory to practice

Introduction: Cachexia represents a relevant issue in oncological care, which is still lacking effective therapies. Although the incidence of cancer cachexia varies across cancer types, it is responsible for approximately a quarter of cancer-related deaths. The pathophysiology of this syndrome is multifactorial, including weight loss, muscle atrophy and impairment of the pro-/anti-inflammatory balance.Areas covered: Diagnostic criteria and optimal endpoints for cachexia-dedicated trials are still debated, slowing the identification of interventions counteracting cachexia sequaele. The multifaceted features of this syndrome support the rationale for personalized therapy. A multimodal approach is likely to offer the best option to address key cachexia-related issues. Pharmacologic agents, physical exercise, nutritional and psycho-social interventions may have a synergistic effect, and improve quality of life.Expert opinion: A personalized multimodal intervention could be the best strategy to effectively manage cancer cachexia. To offer such a comprehensive approach, a specialized staff, including health professionals with different expertise, is necessary. Each specialist plays a specific role inside the multimodal intervention, with the aim of delivering the best cancer care and access to the most effective therapeutic options for each patient.

Clinical Framework for Quality Improvement of Cancer Cachexia

The objective of this article is to introduce the Clinical Framework for Quality Improvement of Cancer Cachexia (Cachexia Care Framework) as a tool to demonstrate the relevance of integrating the clinical components of cancer cachexia and the organizational strategies of a cancer institution on the quality of patient care and delivery of services throughout the cancer cachexia continuum. The data sources included peer-reviewed literature relevant to cancer cachexia and quality cancer care, and the authors’ expertise. The Cachexia Care Framework results from a combination of the international consensus definition of cancer cachexia, the Institute of Medicine report Ensuring Quality Cancer Care, and the authors’ experience with a cancer cachexia clinic. This framework is proposed as a guidance for oncology nurses and other healthcare providers to improve the quality of care of cancer cachexia patients. Specifically, the framework can be used by oncology nurses involved in the care of patients diagnosed with cancer cachexia either in direct patient care, administration, research, or education. Nurses can use the framework in clinical practice to identify specific assessments and interventions based on the cachexia stage of the patient; in nursing administration, the framework offers a wide view of potential errors that can happen and the opportunity to prevent them; in nursing research, the framework illustrates the several factors and processes that can impact patient outcomes; and in nursing education, the framework outlines the elements necessary to develop and implement a continuum education curriculum to educate the workforce of oncology nurses, and in the academic setting, an interprofessional curriculum to educate nurses and many other healthcare disciplines.

An analysis of the types of recently published research in the field of cachexia

Introduction Cachexia is a common complication of many and varied chronic disease processes, yet it has received very little attention as an area of clinical research effort until recently. We sought to survey the contemporary literature on published research into cachexia to define where it is being published and the proportion of output classified into the main types of research output. Methods I searched the PubMed listings under the topic research term "cachexia" and related terms for articles published in the calendar years of 2015 and 2016, regardless of language. Searches were conducted and relevant papers extracted by two observers, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results There were 954 publications, 370 of which were review articles or commentaries, 254 clinical observations or non-randomised trials, 246 original basic science reports and only 26 were randomised controlled trials. These articles were published in 478 separate journals but with 36% of them being published in a core set of 23 journals. The H-index of these papers was 25 and there were 147 papers with 10 or more citations. Of the top 100 cited papers, 25% were published in five journals. Of the top cited papers, 48% were review articles, 18% were original basic science, and 7% were randomised clinical trials. Discussion This analysis shows a steady but modest increase in publications concerning cachexia with a strong pipeline of basic science research but still a relative lack of randomised clinical trials, with none exceeding 1000 patients. Research in cachexia is still in its infancy, but the solid basic science effort offers hope that translation into randomised controlled clinical trials may eventually lead to effective therapies for this troubling and complex clinical disease process.