Plasma lyso-phosphatidylcholine concentration is decreased in cancer patients with weight loss and activated inflammatory status

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been observed that ras-transformed cell lines in culture have a higher phosphatidylcholine (PC) biosynthesis rate as well as higher PC-degradation rate (increased PC-turnover) than normal cells. In correspondence to these findings, the concentrations of the PC-degradation product lyso-phosphatidylcholine (LPC) in cancer patients were found to be decreased. Our objective was the systematic investigation of the relationship between LPC and inflammatory and nutritional parameters in cancer patients. Therefore, plasma LPC concentrations were assessed in 59 cancer patients and related to nutritional and inflammatory parameters. To determine LPC in blood plasma we developed and validated a HPTLC method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Average plasma LPC concentration was 207 ± 59 μM which corresponds to the lower limit of the reported range in healthy subjects. No correlation between LPC and age, performance status, body mass index (BMI) or fat mass could be seen. However, LPC correlated inversely with plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) and whole blood hydrogen peroxides (HPO). Further, a negative correlation could be observed between LPC and whole body extra cellular fluid volume (ECF) as well as with relative change in body weight since cancer diagnosis.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In conclusion, LPC concentrations were decreased in cancer patients. LPC plasma concentrations correlated with weight loss and inflammatory parameters and, therefore, might be a general indicator of severity of malignant disease.</p

Metronomic antiangiogenic therapy with capecitabine and celecoxib in advanced tumor patients--results of a phase II study

Combined therapy of continuous low dose capecitabine and high dose celecoxib targeting angiogenesis was used in a phase II trial to treat advanced cancer patients. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) was used to monitor antiangiogenic effects.; 37 Patients (21 men, 16 women), mean age 60 years, with advanced and progressive cancer of various tumor types were included. Therapy consisted of 2 x 500 mg oral capecitabine/ day and 2 x 400 mg oral celecoxib/day continuously until progression of disease. To monitor antiangiogenic effects, DCE-MRI measurements were performed at baseline, after 1 month, and after 3 months of therapy. Tumor assessment was performed according to RECIST criteria, toxicity was evaluated according to the CTC version 2.0 catalogue.; Therapy was well tolerated without grade 3 and 4 toxicities. The mean number of treatment cycles was 4 (range: 1-15+). Disease stabilization after 3 cycles was seen in 11 patients. 6 patients were stable over long periods. The mean number of treatment cycles in this group was 10 (range: 7-15+). DCE-MRI demonstrated a reduction of tumor vessel permeability and blood flow in patients who reached stable disease or some minor regression.; Continuous dosing of the combination of capecitabine and celecoxib was well tolerated, produced antiangiogenic effects, and has antitumor activity. Patients with rapid progression did not benefit

The importance of protein sources to support muscle anabolism in cancer: an expert group opinion

This opinion paper presents a short review of the potential impact of protein on muscle anabolism in cancer, which is associated with better patient outcomes. Protein source is a topic of interest for patients and clinicians, partly due to recent emphasis on the supposed non-beneficial effect of proteins; therefore, misconceptions involving animal-based (e.g., meat, fish, dairy) and plant-based (e.g., legumes) proteins in cancer are acknowledged and addressed. Although the optimal dietary amino acid composition to support muscle health in cancer is yet to be established, animal-based proteins have a composition that offers superior anabolic potential, compared to plant-derived proteins. Thus, animal-based foods should represent the majority (i.e., ≥65%) of protein intake during active cancer treatment. A diet rich in plant-derived proteins may support muscle anabolism in cancer, albeit requiring a larger quantity of protein to fulfill the optimal amino acid intake. We caution that translating dietary recommendations for cancer prevention to cancer treatment may be inadequate to support the pro-inflammatory and catabolic nature of the disease. We further caution against initiating an exclusively plant-based (i.e., vegan) diet upon a diagnosis of cancer, given the presence of elevated protein requirements and risk of inadequate protein intake to support muscle anabolism. Amino acid combination and the long-term sustainability of a dietary pattern void of animal-based foods requires careful and laborious management of protein intake for patients with cancer. Ultimately, a dietary amino acid composition that promotes muscle anabolism is optimally obtained through combination of animal- and plant-based protein sources.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

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

Home parenteral nutrition provision modalities for chronic intestinal failure in adult patients:An international survey

Background & aims: The safety and effectiveness of a home parenteral nutrition (HPN) program depends both on the expertise and the management approach of the HPN center. We aimed to evaluate both the approaches of different international HPN-centers in their provision of HPN and the types of intravenous supplementation (IVS)-admixtures prescribed to patients with chronic intestinal failure (CIF). Methods: In March 2015, 65 centers from 22 countries enrolled 3239 patients (benign disease 90.1%, malignant disease 9.9%), recording the patient, CIF and HPN characteristics in a structured database. The HPN-provider was categorized as health care system local pharmacy (LP) or independent home care company (HCC). The IVS-admixture was categorized as fluids and electrolytes alone (FE) or parenteral nutrition, either commercially premixed (PA) or customized to the individual patient (CA), alone or plus extra FE (PAFE or CAFE). Doctors of HPN centers were responsible for the IVS prescriptions. Results: HCC (66%) was the most common HPN provider, with no difference noted between benign-CIF and malignant-CIF. LP was the main modality in 11 countries; HCC prevailed in 4 European countries: Israel, USA, South America and Oceania (p < 0.001). IVS-admixture comprised: FE 10%, PA 17%, PAFE 17%, CA 38%, CAFE 18%. PA and PAFE prevailed in malignant-CIF while CA and CAFE use was greater in benign-CIF (p < 0.001). PA + PAFE prevailed in those countries where LP was the main HPN-provider and CA + CAFE prevailed where the main HPN-provider was HCC (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate that HPN provision and the IVS-admixture differ greatly among countries, among HPN centers and between benign-CIF and cancer-CIF. As both HPN provider and IVS-admixture types may play a role in the safety and effectiveness of HPN therapy, criteria to homogenize HPN programs are needed so that patients can have equal access to optimal CIF care

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 (&gt;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

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