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

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

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

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

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

publishedVersio

Combining optimal nutrition and exercise in a multimodal approach for patients with active cancer and risk for losing weight: Rationale and practical approach

Weight loss and functional decline is a common and detrimental consequence of cancer. The interventions that are offered to patients with weight loss and functional decline often seem haphazard and varying from center to center. The lack of stringent management is probably based both on lack of knowledge of existing treatment guidelines and the current weak level of evidence of clinical effects of different nutritional and exercise interventions. Some studies evaluated multimodal interventions with various treatment combinations, including nutrition and exercise, that report clinically significant effects on cachexia outcomes. As of today, however, there is a paucity of large randomized controlled trials that incorporate both a fully structured exercise program and a well-described nutritional intervention. Studies investigating combinations of several interventions in patients with active cancer and risk for losing weight are too few and too heterogeneous to enable firm conclusions about effect, optimal dose, or timing of interventions. However, data presented in this review suggest an overall benefit, especially if interventions are started before weight loss and loss of function become too severe. Thus, the aim of this review was to examine the evidence for combined treatments targeting weight loss in cancer patients

Effects of current parenteral nutrition treatment on health-related quality of life, physical function, nutritional status, survival and adverse events exclusively in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic literature review

Background: The aim was to evaluate the effects of current parenteral nutrition (PN) treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: 4201707915). Results: Two underpowered randomized controlled trials and six observational studies were retrieved (n = 894 patients). Health-related quality of life and physical function may improve during anti-neoplastic treatment in who PN treatment is the only feeding opportunity, but not necessarily in patients able to feed enterally. Nutritional status may improve in patients regardless of anti-neoplastic treatment and gastrointestinal function. PN treatment was neither superior to fluid in terminal patients nor to dietary counselling in patients able to feed enterally in regards to survival. The total incidence of adverse events was low. Conclusion: Current PN treatment in patients with advanced cancer is understudied and the level of evidence is weak

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

Background: The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is a patient-reported instrument for assessment of nutrition status in patients with cancer. Despite thorough validation of PG-SGA, little has been reported about the way patients perceive, interpret, and respond to PG-SGA. The aim of this study was to investigate how patients interpret the patient-generated part of the PG-SGA, called PG-SGA Short Form. Methods: Purposive sampling was used to identify participants that had experienced weight loss and/or reduced dietary intake and/or had a low body mass index. Data were collected from 23 patients by combining observations of patients filling in the PG-SGA Short Form, think-aloud technique and structured interviews, and analyzed qualitatively using systematic text condensation. Results: Most of the participants managed to complete the PG-SGA Short Form without problems. However, participant-related and questionnaire-related sources of misinterpretation were identified, possibly causing misinterpretations or wrong/missing answers. Participants either read too fast and skipped words, or they struggled to find response options that were suitable for covering their entire situation perfectly. The word “normal” was perceived ambiguous, and the word “only” limited the participants’ possibility to accurately describe their food intake. Long recall periods in the questions and two-pieced response options made it difficult for patients to select only one option. Conclusion: The results of this study provide a unique patient perspective of using the PG-SGA Short Form and valuable input for future use and revisions of the form. The identified sources of misunderstanding could be used to develop a standardized instruction manual for patients and health care personnel using the PG-SGA Short Form