Effects of medical nutrition therapy compared with general nutritional advice on nutritional status and nutrition-related complications in esophageal cancer patients receiving concurrent chemoradiation: A randomized controlled trial

Dietary Counseling Interventions During Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review of Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy

Radiotherapy is a common cancer treatment, and concurrent nutritional interventions can maintain nutritional status and improve clinical and supportive care outcomes. However, optimal nutritional interventions during radiotherapy are not firmly established. Herein, we assessed the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of dietary counseling interventions without oral nutrition supplements on health outcomes in adults receiving radiotherapy for cancer in a systematic review. Prospective clinical trials that implemented nutritional counseling interventions during radiotherapy were identified from four databases from inception through December 2023. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy were extracted from 32 articles that described 23 randomized and 4 non-randomized clinical trials. The interventions included individualized nutritional counseling (n = 14 articles), nutritional counseling plus exercise (n = 4), and nutritional counseling focused on increasing or reducing intake of specific nutrients (n = 9). Trials targeted head and neck (n = 12), pelvic cancers (n = 14), and/or breast (n = 5) cancers. Control groups had variable designs and included general nutrition education and intervention as needed. Studies recruited 120 ± 104 participants (range 26-468). Interventions tended to be feasible regarding retention and attendance at sessions, though feasibility metrics varied among different interventions. Most interventions were safe with no studies reporting adverse events attributable to dietary intervention. Individualized dietary counseling interventions tended to lead to between-group differences favoring the intervention group in regard to improved nutritional status, maintenance or attenuation of loss of body mass, improved quality of life, and reduced radiation-induced toxicities. Diets that encouraged/discouraged specific nutrients tended to recruit patients receiving radiation to the pelvic area and resulted in positive or neutral effects on gastrointestinal symptoms. In conclusion, nutritional interventions appear to be feasible, safe, and effective during radiotherapy for various symptom outcomes.

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.

Body weight and composition endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 4 of the cachexia endpoints series

Significant variation exists in the outcomes used in cancer cachexia trials, including measures of body composition, which are often selected as primary or secondary endpoints. To date, there has been no review of the most commonly selected measures or their potential sensitivity to detect changes resulting from the interventions being examined. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the frequency and diversity of body composition measures that have been used in cancer cachexia trials. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched between January 1990 and June 2021. Eligible trials examined adults (≥18 years) who had received an intervention aiming to treat or attenuate the effects of cancer cachexia for >14 days. Trials were also of a prospective controlled design and included body weight or at least one anthropometric, bioelectrical or radiological endpoint pertaining to body composition, irrespective of the modality of intervention (e.g., pharmacological, nutritional, physical exercise and behavioural) or comparator. Trials with a sample size of <40 patients were excluded. Data extraction used Covidence software, and reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. This review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022276710). A total of 84 clinical trials, comprising 13 016 patients, were eligible for inclusion. Non-small-cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer were studied most frequently. The majority of trial interventions were pharmacological (52%) or nutritional (34%) in nature. The most frequently reported endpoints were assessments of body weight (68 trials, n = 11 561) followed by bioimpedance analysis (BIA)-based estimates (23 trials, n = 3140). Sixteen trials (n = 3052) included dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)-based endpoints, and computed tomography (CT) body composition was included in eight trials (n = 841). Discrepancies were evident when comparing the efficacy of interventions using BIA-based estimates of lean tissue mass against radiological assessment modalities. Body weight, BIA and DEXA-based endpoints have been most frequently used in cancer cachexia trials. Although the optimal endpoints cannot be determined from this review, body weight, alongside measurements from radiological body composition analysis, would seem appropriate. The choice of radiological modality is likely to be dependent on the trial setting, population and intervention in question. CT and magnetic resonance imaging, which have the ability to accurately discriminate tissue types, are likely to be more sensitive and provide greater detail. Endpoints are of particular importance when aligned with the intervention's mechanism of action and/or intended patient benefit.

Appetite and dietary intake endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 2 of the cachexia endpoints series

There is no consensus on the optimal endpoint(s) in cancer cachexia trials. Endpoint variation is an obstacle when comparing interventions and their clinical value. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate endpoints used to assess appetite and dietary intake in cancer cachexia clinical trials. A search for studies published from 1 January 1990 until 2 June 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies examined cancer cachexia treatment versus a comparator in adults with assessments of appetite and/or dietary intake as study endpoints, a sample size ≥40 and an intervention lasting ≥14 days. Reporting was in line with PRISMA guidance, and a protocol was published in PROSPERO (2022 CRD42022276710). This review is part of a series of systematic reviews examining cachexia endpoints. Of the 5975 articles identified, 116 were eligible for the wider review series and 80 specifically examined endpoints of appetite (65 studies) and/or dietary intake (21 studies). Six trials assessed both appetite and dietary intake. Appetite was the primary outcome in 15 trials and dietary intake in 7 trials. Median sample size was 101 patients (range 40-628). Forty-nine studies included multiple primary tumour sites, while 31 studies involved single primary tumour sites (15 gastrointestinal, 7 lung, 7 head and neck and 2 female reproductive organs). The most frequently reported appetite endpoints were visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) (40%). The appetite item from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30/C15 PAL (38%) and the appetite question from North Central Cancer Treatment Group anorexia questionnaire (17%) were also frequently applied. Of the studies that assessed dietary intake, 13 (62%) used food records (prospective registrations) and 10 (48%) used retrospective methods (24-h recall or dietary history). For VAS/NRS, a mean change of 1.3 corresponded to Hedge's g of 0.5 and can be considered a moderate change. For food records, a mean change of 231 kcal/day or 11 g of protein/day corresponded to a moderate change. Choice of endpoint in cachexia trials will depend on factors pertinent to the trial to be conducted. Nevertheless, from trials assessed and available literature, NRS or EORTC QLQ C30/C15 PAL seems suitable for appetite assessments. Appetite and dietary intake endpoints are rarely used as primary outcomes in cancer cachexia. Dietary intake assessments were used mainly to monitor compliance and are not validated in cachexia populations. Given the importance to cachexia studies, dietary intake endpoints must be validated before they are used as endpoints in clinical trials.

Impact of a multidisciplinary collaborative nutritional treatment model in patients who are critically ill with neurological disorders: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is a widespread problem in critically ill patients with neurological disorders.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of a multidisciplinary collaborative nutritional treatment mode based on a standardized unit for nutritional support on the outcome metrics in patients with neurological disorders who are critically ill.

METHODS

We enrolled 84 participants who were hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) of Yancheng No. 1 People's Hospital for neurological disorders between June 2018 and December 2021. The participants were randomly assigned to the control group and the test group. The control group received traditional nutritional support, while the test group was treated with a multidisciplinary collaborative nutritional treatment mode based on a standardized unit for nutritional support. We collected the general information, feeding tolerance (FT), nutritional risk score, and laboratory indicators before intervention, after intervention for one week, and after intervention for 2 weeks, and other data of the participants.

RESULTS

After the intervention, the test group scored significantly lower than the control group in the incidence of gastroparesis and diarrhea, as well as the NUTRIC score, with statistically significant differences (P< 0.001). The prealbumin levels in the test group increased progressively prior to intervention, after intervention for one week, and after intervention for two weeks. Compared to the control group, the test group had higher prealbumin levels prior to intervention, after intervention for one week, and after intervention for two weeks, with statistically significant differences (P< 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We developed a multidisciplinary collaborative nutritional treatment model based on a standard unit for nutritional support. This model can improve neural function, FT, and pertinent outcome indicators and is generally applicable.

Physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 1 of the cachexia endpoints series

In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function endpoints may be needed alongside other measures. However, it is not clear which physical function endpoints should be used. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. Following a comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2021), records were retrieved. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), controlled design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a physical function endpoint. Physical function measures were classified as an objective measure (hand grip strength [HGS], stair climb power [SCP], timed up and go [TUG] test, 6-min walking test [6MWT] and short physical performance battery [SPPB]), clinician assessment of function (Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status [ECOG-PS]) or patient-reported outcomes (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires [EORTC QLQ-C30 or C15]). Data extraction was performed using Covidence and followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 potential studies were examined and 71 were eligible. Pharmacological interventions were assessed in 38 trials (54%). Of these, 11 (29%, n = 1184) examined megestrol and 5 (13%, n = 1928) examined anamorelin; nutritional interventions were assessed in 21 trials (30%); and exercise-based interventions were assessed in 6 trials (8%). The remaining six trials (8%) assessed multimodal interventions. Among the objective measures of physical function (assessed as primary or secondary endpoints), HGS was most commonly examined (33 trials, n = 5081) and demonstrated a statistically significant finding in 12 (36%) trials (n = 2091). The 6MWT was assessed in 12 trials (n = 1074) and was statistically significant in 4 (33%) trials (n = 403), whereas SCP, TUG and SPPB were each assessed in 3 trials. KPS was more commonly assessed than the newer ECOG-PS (16 vs. 9 trials), and patient-reported EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function was reported in 25 trials. HGS is the most commonly used physical function endpoint in cancer cachexia clinical trials. However, heterogeneity in study design, populations, intervention and endpoint selection make it difficult to comment on the optimal endpoint and how to measure this. We offer several recommendations/considerations to improve the design of future clinical trials in cancer cachexia.

Nutrition as prevention for improved cancer health outcomes: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Among adults with cancer, malnutrition is associated with decreased treatment completion, more treatment harms and use of health care, and worse short-term survival. To inform the National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention workshop, "Nutrition as Prevention for Improved Cancer Health Outcomes," this systematic review examined the evidence for the effectiveness of providing nutrition interventions before or during cancer therapy to improve outcomes of cancer treatment.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled trials enrolling at least 50 participants published from 2000 through July 2022. We provide a detailed evidence map for included studies and grouped studies by broad intervention and cancer types. We conducted risk of bias (RoB) and qualitative descriptions of outcomes for intervention and cancer types with a larger volume of literature.

RESULTS

From 9798 unique references, 206 randomized controlled trials from 219 publications met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily focused on nonvitamin or mineral dietary supplements, nutrition support, and route or timing of inpatient nutrition interventions for gastrointestinal or head and neck cancers. Most studies evaluated changes in body weight or composition, adverse events from cancer treatment, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Few studies were conducted within the United States. Among intervention and cancer types with a high volume of literature (n = 114), 49% (n = 56) were assessed as high RoB. Higher-quality studies (low or medium RoB) reported mixed results on the effect of nutrition interventions across cancer and treatment-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological limitations of nutrition intervention studies surrounding cancer treatment impair translation of findings into clinical practice or guidelines.

Dietary advice with or without oral nutritional supplements for disease-related malnutrition in adults

BACKGROUND

Disease-related malnutrition has been reported in 10% to 55% of people in hospital and the community and is associated with significant health and social-care costs. Dietary advice (DA) encouraging consumption of energy- and nutrient-rich foods rather than oral nutritional supplements (ONS) may be an initial treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence that DA with/without ONS in adults with disease-related malnutrition improves survival, weight, anthropometry and quality of life (QoL).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified relevant publications from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching. Last search: 01 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of DA with/without ONS in adults with disease-related malnutrition in any healthcare setting compared with no advice, ONS or DA alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, extracted data and graded evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 94, mostly parallel, RCTs (102 comparisons; 10,284 adults) across many conditions possibly explaining the high heterogeneity.  Participants were mostly older people in hospital, residential care and the community, with limited reporting on their sex. Studies lasted from one month to 6.5 years.  DA versus no advice - 24 RCTs (3523 participants) Most outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 2.96), or at later time points. We had no three-month data, but advice may make little or no difference to hospitalisations, or days in hospital after four to six months and up to 12 months. A similar effect was seen for complications at up to three months, MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.32 to 0.32) and between four and six months. Advice may improve weight after three months, MD 0.97 kg (95% CI 0.06 to 1.87) continuing at four to six months and up to 12 months; and may result in a greater gain in fat-free mass (FFM) after 12 months, but not earlier. It may also improve global QoL at up to three months, MD 3.30 (95% CI 1.47 to 5.13), but not later. DA versus ONS - 12 RCTs (852 participants) All outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.26), or at later time points. Either intervention may make little or no difference to hospitalisations at three months, RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.24), but ONS may reduce hospitalisations up to six months. There was little or no difference between groups in weight change at three months, MD -0.14 kg (95% CI -2.01 to 1.74), or between four to six months. Advice (one study) may lead to better global QoL scores but only after 12 months. No study reported days in hospital, complications or FFM. DA versus DA plus ONS - 22 RCTs (1286 participants) Most outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.80) or at later time points. At three months advice may lead to fewer hospitalisations, RR 1.70 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.77), but not at up to six months. There may be little or no effect on length of hospital stay at up to three months, MD -1.07 (95% CI -4.10 to 1.97). At three months DA plus ONS may lead to fewer complications, RR 0.75 (95% CI o.56 to 0.99); greater weight gain, MD 1.15 kg (95% CI 0.42 to 1.87); and better global QoL scores, MD 0.33 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.57), but this was not seen at other time points. There was no effect on FFM at three months. DA plus ONS if required versus no advice or ONS - 31 RCTs (3308 participants) Evidence was moderate- to low-certainty. There may be little or no effect on mortality at three months, RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.16) or at later time points. Similarly, little or no effect on hospitalisations at three months, RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.15), at four to six months and up to 12 months; on days in hospital at three months, MD -0.12 (95% CI -2.48 to 2.25) or for complications at any time point. At three months, advice plus ONS probably improve weight, MD 1.25 kg (95% CI 0.73 to 1.76) and may improve FFM, 0.82 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.29), but these effects were not seen later. There may be little or no effect of either intervention on global QoL scores at three months, but advice plus ONS may improve scores at up to 12 months. DA plus ONS versus no advice or ONS - 13 RCTs (1315 participants) Evidence was low- to very low-certainty. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.52) or at later time points. No study reported hospitalisations and there may be little or no effect on days in hospital after three months, MD -1.81 (95% CI -3.65 to 0.04) or six months. Advice plus ONS may lead to fewer complications up to three months, MD 0.42 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.89) (one study). Interventions may make little or no difference to weight at three months, MD 1.08 kg (95% CI -0.17 to 2.33); however, advice plus ONS may improve weight at four to six months and up to 12 months. Interventions may make little or no difference in FFM or global QoL scores at any time point.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of an effect of any intervention on mortality. There may be weight gain with DA and with DA plus ONS in the short term, but the benefits of DA when compared with ONS are uncertain. The size and direction of effect and the length of intervention and follow-up required for benefits to emerge were inconsistent for all other outcomes.  There were too few data for many outcomes to allow meaningful conclusions. Studies focusing on both patient-centred and healthcare outcomes are needed to address the questions in this review.