Search

Background & Aims: The benefits of artificial nutrition and hydration in patients with advanced cancer remain unknown. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate effects of enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition and hydration (PNH) on survival in palliative care units., Methods: This study involved a secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort study. Data of primary nutritional administration routes during the first week after admission (oral intake, enteral tube feeding, parenteral nutrition, parenteral hydration, poor oral intake) were obtained. Data of averaged calorie sufficiency rate/total calorie intake [high (75% ≤ or 750 kcal/day ≤), moderate (50-75% or 500-750 kcal/day), low (25-50% or 250-500 kcal/day), very low (<25% or <250 kcal/day)] were also obtained. After investigating the implementation of artificial nutrition and hydration, participants were divided into three groups according to the nutritional administration route and calorie sufficiency rate/total calorie intake: EN, PNH, and control. We conducted time-to-event analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses., Results: Patients were divided into the EN group (n = 730), PNH group (n = 190), and control group (n = 533). Differences in survival rates among the three groups were significant (Log-rank P < 0.001). Median survival times were 43.0 (95% CI 40-46), 33.0 (95% CI 29-37), and 15.0 (95% CI 14-16) days, respectively (P < 0.001). In the multivariate-adjusted model, a significantly lower risk of mortality was observed in Cox's proportional hazard model in the EN group and PNH groups (HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.37-0.49], P < 0.001; and HR 0.52 [95% CI 0.44-0.62], P < 0.001, respectively) than in the control group., Conclusions: This study indicated the clinical benefits of EN and PNH for patients with advanced cancer. Nevertheless, managing symptoms to improve oral intake is essential before initiation of PNH, because EN was superior to PNH., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors have read and understood the journal's policy on the declaration of interest and declare that there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Weight loss in cancer patients is a worrisome constitutional change predicting disease progression and shortened survival time. A logical approach to counter some of the weight loss is to provide nutritional support, administered through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The aim of this paper was to update the original systematic review and meta-analysis previously published by Chow et al., while also assessing publication quality and effect of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the meta-conclusion over time., Methods: A literature search was carried out; screening was conducted for RCTs published in January 2015 up until December 2018. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving no infection and no nutrition support complications. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients achieving no major complications and no mortality. Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) by Cochrane IMS and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3) by Biostat were used for meta-analyses of endpoints and assessment of publication quality., Results: An additional seven studies were identified since our prior publication, leading to 43 papers included in our review. The results echo those previously published; EN and PN are equivalent in all endpoints except for infection. Subgroup analyses of studies only containing adults indicate identical risks across all endpoints. Cumulative meta-analysis suggests that meta-conclusions have remained the same since the beginning of publication time for all endpoints except for the endpoint of infection, which changed from not favoring to favoring EN after studies published in 1997. There was low risk of bias, as determined by assessment tool and visual inspection of funnel plots., Conclusions: The results support the current European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guidelines recommending enteral over parenteral nutrition, when oral nutrition is inadequate, in adult patients. Further studies comparing EN and PN for these critical endpoints appear unnecessary, given the lack of change in meta-conclusion and low publication bias over the past decades.

Background: In cancer patients, weight loss is an ominous sign suggesting disease progression and shortened survival time. As a result, providing nutrition support for cancer patients has been proposed as a logical approach for improving clinical outcomes. Nutrition support can be given to patients through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The purpose of the review was to compare the outcomes of PN and EN in cancer patients., Methods: A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were included if over half of the patient population had cancer and reported on any of the following endpoints: the percentage of patients that experienced no infection, nutrition support complications, major complications or mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager Version 5.3 were calculated. Primary endpoints were stratified according to type of EN for subgroup analysis, grouping studies into either tube feeding (TF) or standard care (SC). Additionally, another subgroup analysis was conducted comparing studies with protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) patients and studies without PEM patients., Results: The literature search yielded 674 articles of which 36 were included for the meta-analysis. There were no difference in the endpoints between the two study interventions except that PN resulted in more infection when compared with EN (RR =1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.18; P=0.03)., Conclusions: Other than increased incidence of infection, PN has not resulted in prolonging the survival, increasing nutrition support complications, or major complications when compared with EN in cancer patients.

Context: Although an evidence-based clinical guideline for parenteral hydration therapy was established in Japan, the efficacy of the guideline has not been assessed., Objectives: Our purpose was to explore the effect of parenteral hydration therapy based on this clinical guideline on quality of life (QoL), discomfort, symptoms, and fluid retention signs in patients with advanced cancer., Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational study included 161 patients with advanced abdominal cancer who received guideline-based hydration therapy. We evaluated the longitudinal changes of the global QoL (Item 30 of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-C30); the Discomfort Scale; the intensity of seven physical symptoms; and the severity of fluid retention signs. We also evaluated patient satisfaction and the feeling of benefit from hydration one week after the study commenced, and bronchial secretions, hyperactive delirium, communication capacity, and agitation 48 hours before a patient's death., Results: The global QoL, the Discomfort Scale, and the intensities of all physical symptoms, except for vomiting and drowsiness, were stable throughout the study period. More than 80% of patients maintained all fluid retention signs. Patient global satisfaction was 76.4 (0-100) and feeling of benefit was 5.43 (range 0-7)., Conclusion: Guideline-based parenteral hydration therapy contributed to maintaining global QoL and provided satisfaction and a feeling of benefit without increasing discomfort and worsening symptoms and fluid retention signs in patients with advanced cancer., (Copyright © 2012 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Parenteral nutrition offers the possibility of increasing or ensuring nutrient intake in patients in whom normal food intake is inadequate and enteral nutrition is not feasible, is contraindicated or is not accepted by the patient. These guidelines are intended to provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of parenteral nutrition in cancer patients. They were developed by an interdisciplinary expert group in accordance with accepted standards, are based on the most relevant publications of the last 30 years and share many of the conclusions of the ESPEN guidelines on enteral nutrition in oncology. Under-nutrition and cachexia occur frequently in cancer patients and are indicators of poor prognosis and, per se, responsible for excess morbidity and mortality. Many indications for parenteral nutrition parallel those for enteral nutrition (weight loss or reduction in food intake for more than 7-10 days), but only those who, for whatever reason cannot be fed orally or enterally, are candidates to receive parenteral nutrition. A standard nutritional regimen may be recommended for short-term parenteral nutrition, while in cachectic patients receiving intravenous feeding for several weeks a high fat-to-glucose ratio may be advised because these patients maintain a high capacity to metabolize fats. The limited nutritional response to the parenteral nutrition reflects more the presence of metabolic derangements which are characteristic of the cachexia syndrome (or merely the short duration of the nutritional support) rather than the inadequacy of the nutritional regimen. Perioperative parenteral nutrition is only recommended in malnourished patients if enteral nutrition is not feasible. In non-surgical well-nourished oncologic patients routine parenteral nutrition is not recommended because it has proved to offer no advantage and is associated with increased morbidity. A benefit, however, is reported in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Short-term parenteral nutrition is however commonly accepted in patients with acute gastrointestinal complications from chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and long-term (home) parenteral nutrition will sometimes be a life-saving maneuver in patients with sub acute/chronic radiation enteropathy. In incurable cancer patients home parenteral nutrition may be recommended in hypophagic/(sub)obstructed patients (if there is an acceptable performance status) if they are expected to die from starvation/under nutrition prior to tumor spread.