Search

The role of nutritional support for cancer patients in palliative care is still a controversial topic, in part because there is no consensus on the definition of a palliative care patient because of ambiguity in the common medical use of the adjective palliative. Nonetheless, guidelines recommend assessing nutritional deficiencies in all such patients because, regardless of whether they are still on anticancer treatments or not, malnutrition leads to low performance status, impaired quality of life (QoL), unplanned hospitalizations, and reduced survival. Because nutritional interventions tailored to individual needs may be beneficial, guidelines recommend that if oral food intake remains inadequate despite counseling and oral nutritional supplements, home enteral nutrition or, if this is not sufficient or feasible, home parenteral nutrition (supplemental or total) should be considered in suitable patients. The purpose of this narrative review is to identify in these cancer patients the area of overlapping between the two therapeutic approaches consisting of nutritional support and palliative care in light of the variables that determine its identification (guidelines, evidence, ethics, and law). However, nutritional support for cancer patients in palliative care may be more likely to contribute to improving their QoL when part of a comprehensive early palliative care approach.

Purpose: Early palliative care (EPC) has shown a positive impact on quality of life (QoL), quality of care, and healthcare costs. We evaluated such effects in patients with advanced gastric cancer., Methods: In this prospective, multicenter study, 186 advanced gastric cancer patients were randomized 1:1 to receive standard cancer care (SCC) plus on-demand EPC (standard arm) or SCC plus systematic EPC (interventional arm). Primary outcome was a change in QoL between randomization (T0) and T1 (12 weeks after T0) in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) scores evaluated through the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were patient mood, overall survival, and family satisfaction with healthcare and care aggressiveness., Results: The mean change in TOI scores from T0 to T1 was - 1.30 (standard deviation (SD) 20.01) for standard arm patients and 1.65 (SD 22.38) for the interventional group, with a difference of 2.95 (95% CI - 4.43 to 10.32) (p = 0.430). The change in mean Gastric Cancer Subscale values for the standard arm was 0.91 (SD 14.14) and 3.19 (SD 15.25) for the interventional group, with a difference of 2.29 (95% CI - 2.80 to 7.38) (p = 0.375). Forty-three percent of patients in the standard arm received EPC., Conclusions: Our results indicated a slight, albeit not significant, benefit from EPC. Findings on EPC studies may be underestimated in the event of suboptimally managed issues: type of intervention, shared decision-making process between oncologists and PC physicians, risk of standard arm contamination, study duration, timeliness of assessment of primary outcomes, timeliness of cohort inception, and recruitment of patients with a significant symptom burden., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01996540).