Energy Metabolism in Gynecological Cancers: A Scoping Review

Evaluating predictive equations for energy requirements throughout breast cancer trajectory: A comparative study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Accurately estimating resting energy requirements is crucial for optimizing energy intake, particularly in the context of patients with varying energy needs, such as individuals with cancer. We sought to evaluate the agreement between resting energy expenditure (REE) predicted by 40 equations and that measured by reference methods in women undergoing active breast cancer treatment stage (I-IV) and post-completion (i.e., survivors).

METHODS

Data from 4 studies were combined. REE values estimated from 40 predictive equations identified by a systematic search were compared with REE assessed by indirect calorimetry (IC) using a metabolic cart (MC-REE N = 46) or a whole-room indirect calorimeter (WRIC-REE N = 44). Agreement between methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman and Lin's concordance coefficient correlation (Lin's CCC).

RESULTS

Ninety participants (24 % survivors, 61.1% had early-stage breast cancer I or II, mean age: 56.8 ± 11 years; body mass index: 28.7 ± 6.4 kg/m2) were included in this analysis. Mean MC-REE and WRIC-REE values were 1389 ± 199 kcal/day and 1506 ± 247 kcal/day, respectively. Limits of agreement were wide for all equations compared to both MC and WRIC (∼300 kcal for both methods), including the most commonly used ones, such as Harris-Benedict and Mifflin ST. Jeor equations; none had a bias within ±10% of measured REE, and all had low agreement per Lin's CCC analysis (<0.90). The Korth equation exhibited the best performance against WRIC and the Lvingston-Kohlstadt equation against MC. Similar patterns of bias were observed between survivors and patients and between patients with stages I-III versus IV cancer.

CONCLUSION

Most equations failed to accurately predict REE at the group level, and none were effective at the individual level. This inaccuracy has significant implications for women with or surviving breast cancer, who may experience weight gain, maintenance, or loss due to inaccurate energy needs estimations. Therefore, our research underscores the need for further efforts to improve REE estimation.

Resting energy expenditure changes after antineoplastic treatment in gynecological cancer: a prospective pilot study

Introduction

Introduction: energy metabolism in cancer patients is influenced by different factors. However, the effect of antineoplastic treatment is not clear, especially in women. Objective: to evaluate resting energy expenditure (REE) by indirect calorimetry (IC) before (T0) and after (T1) first cycle period of antineoplastic therapy: radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy (CT), and concomitant chemoradiation therapy (CRT), quality of life (QoL) and accuracy of REE were compared with international guidelines recommendations per kilogram (European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism [ESPEN]). Methods: an observational, longitudinal study was conducted in women with gynecological cancer diagnosis undergoing antineoplastic treatment: RT, CT and CRT. Weight loss, actual body weight and height were measured. REE was evaluated in T0-T1 and compared with ESPEN recommendations. Kruskal-Wallis test and Bland-Alman analysis were used to determine the agreement (± 10 % of energy predicted) of REE adjusted by physical activity (TEE) compared with ESPEN recommendations, respectively. Results: fifty-four women with cancer were included: 31.5 % (n = 17) for RT group, 31.5 % (n = 17) for CT group and 37 % (n = 20) for CRT group. REE showed statistical differences between T0 and T1 in the total population (p = 0.018), but these were not associated with anticancer therapy groups (p > 0.05). QoL had no significant changes after treatment (p > 0.05). Accuracy of 25 and 30 kcal/kg compared to TEE was less than 30 %. Conclusion: REE in women with gynecological cancer decreased after antineoplastic treatments but this is not associated with a particular antineoplastic therapy. It is needed to develop research to determine the accuracy of ESPEN recommendations with TEE estimated by IC and clinical factors in women with cancer.

Energy Expenditure in Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: a Scoping Review

Malnutrition is prevalent in people with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers and is associated with shorter survival and poor quality of life. In order to effectively prevent or treat malnutrition, nutrition interventions must ensure appropriate energy provision to meet daily metabolic demands. In practice, the energy needs of people with cancer are frequently estimated from predictive equations which are not cancer-specific and are demonstrated to be inaccurate in this population. The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesize the existing evidence regarding energy expenditure in people with upper GI cancer. Three databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL plus) were systematically searched to identify studies reporting on resting energy expenditure using indirect calorimetry and total energy expenditure using doubly labeled water (DLW) in adults with any stage of upper GI cancer at any point from diagnosis. A total of 57 original research studies involving 2,125 individuals with cancer of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas, biliary tract, or liver were eligible for inclusion. All studies used indirect calorimetry, and one study used DLW to measure energy expenditure, which was reported unadjusted in 42 studies, adjusted for body weight in 32 studies, and adjusted for fat-free mass in 13 studies. Energy expenditure in upper GI cancer was compared with noncancer controls in 19 studies and measured compared with predicted energy expenditure reported in 31 studies. There was heterogeneity in study design and in reporting of important clinical characteristics between studies. There was also substantial variation in energy expenditure between studies and within and between cancer types. Given this heterogeneity and known inaccuracies of predictive equations in patients with cancer, energy expenditure should be measured in practice wherever feasible. Additional research in cohorts defined by cancer type, stage, and treatment is needed to further characterize energy expenditure in upper GI cancer.

Total energy expenditure assessed by 24-h whole-room indirect calorimeter in patients with colorectal cancer: baseline findings from the PRIMe study

BACKGROUND

Total energy expenditure (TEE) determines energy requirements, but objective data in patients with cancer are limited.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to characterize TEE, investigate its predictors, and compare TEE with cancer-specific predicted energy requirements.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis included patients with stages II-IV colorectal cancer from the Protein Recommendation to Increase Muscle (PRIMe) trial. TEE was assessed by 24-h stay in a whole-room indirect calorimeter before dietary intervention and compared with cancer-specific predicted energy requirements (25-30 kcal/kg). Generalized linear models, paired-samples t tests, and Pearson correlation were applied.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (56 ± 10 y; body mass index [BMI]: 27.9 ± 5.5 kg/m2; 68% male) were included. Absolute TEE was higher in males (mean difference: 391 kcal/d; 95% CI: 167, 616 kcal/d; P < 0.001), patients with colon cancer (mean difference: 279 kcal/d; 95% CI: 73, 485 kcal/d; P = 0.010), and patients with obesity (mean difference: 393 kcal/d; 95% CI: 182, 604 kcal/d; P < 0.001). Appendicular lean soft tissue (β: 46.72; 95% CI: 34.27, 59.17; P < 0.001) and tumor location (colon-β: 139.69; 95% CI: 19.44, 259.95; P = 0.023) independently predicted TEE when adjusted for sex. Error between measured TEE and energy requirements predicted by 25 kcal/kg (mean difference: 241 kcal/d; 95% CI: 76, 405 kcal/d; P = 0.010) or 30 kcal/kg (mean difference: 367 kcal/d; 95% CI: 163, 571 kcal/d; P < 0.001) was higher for patients with obesity, and proportional error was observed (25 kcal/kg: r = -0.587; P < 0.001; and 30 kcal/kg: r = -0.751; P < 0.001). TEE (mean difference: 25 kcal/kg; 95% CI: 24, 27 kcal/kg) was below predicted requirements using 30 kcal/kg (-430 ± 322 kcal/d; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study to assess TEE of patients with cancer using whole-room indirect calorimeter and highlights the need for improved assessment of energy requirements in this population. Energy requirements predicted using 30 kcal/kg overestimated TEE by 1.44 times in a controlled sedentary environment and TEE was outside of the predicted requirement range for most. Special considerations are warranted when determining TEE of patients with colorectal cancer, such as BMI, body composition, and tumor location. This is a baseline cross-sectional analysis from a clinical trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02788955 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02788955).