Parenteral Nutrition in Advanced Cancer: The Healthcare Providers’ Perspective

Introduction: The evidence base for parenteral nutrition (PN) in advanced cancer patients is limited. We studied healthcare providers’ (HCPs’) experiences with PN in cancer patients, focusing on perceived treatment benefits and challenges. Methods: An 18-item online survey was emailed to HCPs attending one of three regional palliative care seminars held within a 6-month period. The survey included single-response items, multiple-response items, and free text boxes concerning PN. Descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic content analysis were applied. Results: One hundred and two seminar participants completed the survey. Ninety-three percent were female, 86% were nurses/oncological nurses, and 80% worked in primary care. Respondents reported a well-functioning collaboration across levels of care. They perceived that PN may increase the patients’ level of energy, improve the general condition, and reduce eating-related distress. On the downside, HCPs observed burdensome side effects, that the treatment was resource-demanding, and that decisions on PN withdrawal were difficult. Conclusion: The study results are based on the perspectives of more than 100 HCPs with comprehensive clinical experience with PN. Their knowledge represents an important experience base for improvement of healthcare services and advanced care planning.publishedVersio

Development of the EORTC QLQ-CAX24, a questionnaire for cancer patients with cachexia

Context Cachexia is commonly found in cancer patients and has profound consequences; yet there is only one questionnaire that examines the patient's perspective. Objective To report a rigorously developed module for patient self-reported impact of cancer cachexia. Methods Module development followed published guidelines. Patients from across the cancer cachexia trajectory were included. In Phase 1, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues were generated from a literature review and interviews with patients in four countries. The issues were revised based on patient and health care professional (HCP) input. In Phase 2, questionnaire items were formulated and translated into the languages required for Phase 3, the pilot phase, in which patients from eight countries scored the relevance and importance of each item, and provided qualitative feedback. Results A total of 39 patients and 12 HCPs took part in Phase 1. The literature review produced 68 HRQOL issues, with 22 new issues arising from the patient interviews. After patient and HCP input, 44 issues were formulated into questionnaire items in Phase 2. One hundred ten patients took part in Phase 3. One item was reworded, and 20 items were deleted as a consequence of patient feedback. Conclusions The QLQ-CAX24 is a cancer cachexia-specific questionnaire, comprising 24 items, for HRQOL assessment in clinical trials and practice. It contains five multi-item scales (food aversion, eating and weight-loss worry, eating difficulties, loss of control, and physical decline) and four single items

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

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

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 (>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

Endpoints in clinical trials in cancer cachexia: where to start?

Purpose of review The lack of agreement and knowledge of optimal endpoints in cachexia trials have impeded progress in finding interventions counteracting the devastating effects cancer cachexia has on morbidity and mortality. An endpoint should both be sensitive enough to detect change and specific enough not to be influenced by other conditions or treatments. Recent findings There is a wealth of potential and applied endpoints in trials investigating cachexia. As of today, there is no generally acknowledged consensus, but assessments of key factors such as body composition should continue to be applied. However, the impact and effect size necessary to achieve clinical benefit using these endpoints are not clear. Further, the use of other endpoints assessing physical function, symptom evaluation and quality of life remains to be elucidated. Summary It is essential that endpoints are clinically relevant and further research is therefore needed to develop endpoints that are meaningful for patients with cachexia

Patient interpretation of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) Short Form

publishedVersio

Dietary treatment of weight loss in patients with advanced cancer and cachexia: A systematic literature review

Purpose A systematical literature review evaluating the effect of dietary counseling in treating weight loss and improving energy intake in patients with advanced cancer with different stages of cachexia. Principal results Five publications were retrieved, of which three were randomized. Two out of five studies showed less weight loss with dietary counseling (+1% weight gain vs. −1.5% weight loss, p = 0.03, 1.4 kg vs. −2 kg, p < 0.05), two presented positive effect on energy intake (92% of total caloric need vs. 73%, p < 0.01, 1865 ± 317 kcal vs. 1556 ± 497 kcal, ns). Conclusion Dietary counseling can effect energy intake and body weight, however, apparent heterogeneity between studies is present. Based on these results there is not enough proof of evidence that dietary counseling given to patients with cancer is beneficial for improving weight or energy balance in the different cachexia stages. Nutrition is an essential part of cachexia treatment as it is not considered possible to increase or stabilize weight if nutritional needs are not met