Jann Arends

ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Non-surgical oncology.

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.

ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients

Cancers are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and the number of new cases is expected to rise significantly over the next decades. At the same time, all types of cancer treatment, such as surgery, radiation therapy, and pharmacological therapies are improving in sophistication, precision and in the power to target specific characteristics of individual cancers. Thus, while many cancers may still not be cured they may be converted to chronic diseases. All of these treatments, however, are impeded or precluded by the frequent development of malnutrition and metabolic derangements in cancer patients, induced by the tumor or by its treatment. These evidence-based guidelines were developed to translate current best evidence and expert opinion into recommendations for multi-disciplinary teams responsible for identification, prevention, and treatment of reversible elements of malnutrition in adult cancer patients. The guidelines were commissioned and financially supported by ESPEN and by the European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), an EU level initiative. Members of the guideline group were selected by ESPEN to include a range of professions and fields of expertise. We searched for meta-analyses, systematic reviews and comparative studies based on clinical questions according to the PICO format. The evidence was evaluated and merged to develop clinical recommendations using the GRADE method. Due to the deficits in the available evidence, relevant still open questions were listed and should be addressed by future studies. Malnutrition and a loss of muscle mass are frequent in cancer patients and have a negative effect on clinical outcome. They may be driven by inadequate food intake, decreased physical activity and catabolic metabolic derangements. To screen for, prevent, assess in detail, monitor and treat malnutrition standard operating procedures, responsibilities and a quality control process should be established at each institution involved in treating cancer patients. All cancer patients should be screened regularly for the risk or the presence of malnutrition. In all patients - with the exception of end of life care - energy and substrate requirements should be met by offering in a step-wise manner nutritional interventions from counseling to parenteral nutrition. However, benefits and risks of nutritional interventions have to be balanced with special consideration in patients with advanced disease. Nutritional care should always be accompanied by exercise training. To counter malnutrition in patients with advanced cancer there are few pharmacological agents and pharmaconutrients with only limited effects. Cancer survivors should engage in regular physical activity and adopt a prudent diet.

ESPEN guidelines on chronic intestinal failure in adults

BACKGROUND & AIMS Chronic Intestinal Failure (CIF) is the long-lasting reduction of gut function, below the minimum necessary for the absorption of macronutrients and/or water and electrolytes, such that intravenous supplementation is required to maintain health and/or growth. CIF is the rarest organ failure. Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is the primary treatment for CIF. No guidelines (GLs) have been developed that address the global management of CIF. These GLs have been devised to generate comprehensive recommendations for safe and effective management of adult patients with CIF. METHODS The GLs were developed by the Home Artificial Nutrition & Chronic Intestinal Failure Special Interest Group of ESPEN. The GRADE system was used for assigning strength of evidence. Recommendations were discussed, submitted to Delphi rounds, and accepted in an online survey of ESPEN members. RESULTS The following topics were addressed: management of HPN; parenteral nutrition formulation; intestinal rehabilitation, medical therapies, and non-transplant surgery, for short bowel syndrome, chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction, and radiation enteritis; intestinal transplantation; prevention/treatment of CVC-related infection, CVC-related occlusion/thrombosis; intestinal failure-associated liver disease, gallbladder sludge and stones, renal failure and metabolic bone disease. Literature search provided 623 full papers. Only 12% were controlled studies or meta-analyses. A total of 112 recommendations are given: grade of evidence, very low for 51%, low for 39%, moderate for 8%, and high for 2%; strength of recommendation: strong for 63%, weak for 37%. CONCLUSIONS CIF management requires complex technologies, multidisciplinary and multiprofessional activity, and expertise to care for both the underlying gastrointestinal disease and to provide HPN support. The rarity of the condition impairs the development of RCTs. As a consequence, most of the recommendations have a low or very low grade of evidence. However, two-thirds of the recommendations are considered strong. Specialized management and organization underpin these recommendations.

ESPEN expert group recommendations for action against cancer-related malnutrition

Patients with cancer are at particularly high risk for malnutrition because both the disease and its treatments threaten their nutritional status. Yet cancer-related nutritional risk is sometimes overlooked or under-treated by clinicians, patients, and their families. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) recently published evidence-based guidelines for nutritional care in patients with cancer. In further support of these guidelines, an ESPEN oncology expert group met for a Cancer and Nutrition Workshop in Berlin on October 24 and 25, 2016. The group examined the causes and consequences of cancer-related malnutrition, reviewed treatment approaches currently available, and built the rationale and impetus for clinicians involved with care of patients with cancer to take actions that facilitate nutrition support in practice. The content of this position paper is based on presentations and discussions at the Berlin meeting. The expert group emphasized 3 key steps to update nutritional care for people with cancer: (1) screen all patients with cancer for nutritional risk early in the course of their care, regardless of body mass index and weight history; (2) expand nutrition-related assessment practices to include measures of anorexia, body composition, inflammatory biomarkers, resting energy expenditure, and physical function; (3) use multimodal nutritional interventions with individualized plans, including care focused on increasing nutritional intake, lessening inflammation and hypermetabolic stress, and increasing physical activity.

Rapid EPA and DHA incorporation and reduced PGE2 levels after one week intervention with a medical food in cancer patients receiving radiotherapy, a randomized trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS In cancer patients, metabolic alterations, reduced immune competence and anti-cancer treatment can increase the risk of infections. A rapid-acting nutritional intervention might reduce this risk and support overall treatment. The present study investigated whether one week of intervention with a specific medical food led to fatty acid incorporation and functional immunological changes. METHODS In a randomized, double-blind study, 38 cancer patients receiving radiotherapy consumed daily for one week 400 ml of specific medical food, which is high in protein and leucine, and enriched with fish oil and specific oligosaccharides (Active group), or iso-caloric/iso-nitrogenous product (Control group). Blood samples were taken at day 0 (baseline) and day 7. RESULTS After one week of intervention, the incorporation of EPA and DHA in white blood cells was significantly higher in the Active group (2.6% and 2.6% of total fatty acids) compared to the Control group (1.0% and 2.2% of total fatty acids) (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05). Serum PGE2 levels decreased in the Active group and increased in the Control group (p < 0.01). No differences were observed on cytokine production in LPS-stimulated whole blood cultures. CONCLUSIONS In cancer patients receiving radiotherapy, nutritional intervention with a specific medical food rapidly increased the percentage EPA and DHA in white blood cell phospholipids and reduced serum levels of the inflammatory mediator PGE2 within one week. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR2121.

Quality of care for cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: development of key interventions and outcome indicators using a two-round Delphi approach

PurposeClear recommendations on how to guide patients with cancer on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are lacking as the use of HPN in this population remains a controversial issue. Therefore, the aims of this study were to rank treatment recommendations and main outcome indicators to ensure high-quality care and to indicate differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients.MethodsTreatment recommendations, identified from published guidelines, were used as a starting point for a two-round Delphi approach. Comments and additional interventions proposed in the first round were reevaluated in the second round. Ordinal logistic regression with SPSS 2.0 was used to identify differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients.ResultsTwenty-seven experts from five European countries completed two Delphi rounds. After the second Delphi round, the top three most important outcome indicators were (1) quality of life (QoL), (2) incidence of hospital readmission and (3) incidence of catheter-related infections. Forty-two interventions were considered as important for quality of care (28/42 based on published guidelines; 14/42 newly suggested by Delphi panel). The topics ‘Liver disease’ and ‘Metabolic bone disease’ were considered less important for cancer patients, together with use of infusion pumps (p = 0.004) and monitoring of vitamins and trace elements (p = 0.000). Monitoring of QoL is considered more important for cancer patients (p = 0.03).ConclusionUsing a two-round Delphi approach, we developed a minimal set of 42 interventions that may be used to determine quality of care in HPN patients with malignancies. This set of interventions differs from a similar set developed for benign patients.

Vitamin D in Oncology

Based on a conclusive theoretical background, both Western and Chinese Medicine have developed diagnostic and therapeutic procedures which lead to reproducible treatment results. Whilst Western Medicine focuses on a most precise diagnosis of tumor histology and the extend of dissemination, Chinese Medicine has developed tools for a functional diagnoses of disturbed body functions. And as Western Medicine aims at producing most specific targeted drugs, Chinese Medicine intends to stabilize disturbed body functions mostly with decoctions. A combined treatment which synergizes specific tumor attack and patient stabilization seems promising. However, the different cultural backgrounds have led to different standards of evaluation. Although the scientific evaluation of Chinese Medicine has led to the development of new drugs, the majority of treatments with decoctions are not evaluated according to the accepted standards. As of today, modern research could only occasionally find explanations for the longstanding experience, but new research ideas have resulted from this confrontation. The approach of combining standard treatments with Chinese treatment concepts only started a few decades ago. The experiences and promising results from smaller studies stand against possible risks of unknown interactions with proven treatment concepts. Pharmacokinetic and clinical studies will be necessary to evaluate these combined treatment concepts. In everyday life, Western and Chinese Medicine should be used in sequence, whereas in studies and special situations the combined approach should be applied to offer possible benefits without causing unnecessary risks to the patients.The vitamin D system has been strongly conserved in evolution. It links sun exposure to a multitude of endocrine messages. In most body cells the active hormone calcitriol binds intracellularly to the vitamin D receptor and regulates the expression of specific gene products. Vitamin D deficiency is epidemic affecting some 1 billion people worldwide and is mainly caused by chronically inadequate sun exposure. This deficiency is associated with harmful effects on almost all tissues including a predisposition to cancer. In cancer patients vitamin D deficiency is associated with a worsening of the prognosis. The active hormone calcitriol has anti-tumor activity and is being investigated as an anticancer agent. There is general agreement that exposure to sunlight should be increased while carefully avoiding UV erythema. In addition, recent suggestions call for a health-promoting dietary intake of 25–100 mg (1,000–4,000 IU) of vitamin D3. While supplements of vitamin D improve musculoskeletal symptoms, proof is still lacking that these doses convey a protection from cancer. Interventional studies that administer vitamin D versus placebo in patients with cancer should be a high priority because of the hypothesized benefits and the low risk of supplementation with vitamin D.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for oral nutritional intervention on nutritional and clinical outcomes during chemo(radio)therapy: current evidence and guidance for design of future trials

Abstract Background Driven by reduced nutritional intakes and metabolic alterations, malnutrition in cancer patients adversely affects quality of life, treatment tolerance and survival. We examined evidence for oral nutritional interventions during chemo(radio)therapy. Design We carried out a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) with either dietary counseling (DC), high-energy oral nutritional supplements (ONS) aiming at improving intakes or ONS enriched with protein and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) additionally aiming for modulation of cancer-related metabolic alterations. Meta-analyses were carried out on body weight (BW) response to nutritional interventions, with subgroup analyses for DC and/or high-energy ONS or high-protein n-3 PUFA-enriched ONS. Results Eleven studies were identified. Meta-analysis showed overall benefit of interventions on BW during chemo(radio)therapy (+1.31 kg, 95% CI 0.24–2.38, P = 0.02, heterogeneity Q = 21.1, P = 0.007). Subgroup analysis showed no effect of DC and/or high-energy ONS (+0.80 kg, 95% CI −1.14 to 2.74, P = 0.32; Q = 10.5, P = 0.03), possibly due to limited compliance and intakes falling short of intake goals. A significant effect was observed for high-protein n-3 PUFA-enriched intervention compared with isocaloric controls (+1.89 kg, 95% CI 0.51–3.27, P = 0.02; Q = 3.1 P = 0.37). High-protein, n-3 PUFA-enriched ONS studies showed attenuation of lean body mass loss (N = 2 studies) and improvement of some quality of life domains (N = 3 studies). Overall, studies were limited in number, heterogeneous, and inadequately powered to show effects on treatment toxicity or survival. Conclusion This systematic review suggests an overall positive effect of nutritional interventions during chemo(radio)therapy on BW. Subgroup analyses showed effects were driven by high-protein n-3 PUFA-enriched ONS, suggesting the benefit of targeting metabolic alterations. DC and/or high-energy ONS were less effective, likely due to cumulative caloric deficits despite interventions. We highlight the need and provide recommendations for well-designed RCT to determine the effect of nutritional interventions on clinical outcomes, with specific focus on reaching nutritional goals and providing the right nutrients, as part of an integral supportive care approach.

Corrigendum to “ESPEN guidelines on chronic intestinal failure in adults” [Clin Nutr 35 (2) (2016) 247–307]

To the authors regret, there is a mistake in Table 9 (recommended daily doses of trace elements for parenteral nutrition) regarding the conversion of the doses for copper and selenium to mcmols. Replace 4.7–9.6 by 4.7–7.9 mcmol (0.3–0.5 mg) for copper and 0.2–0.8 by 0.8–1.3 mcmol (60–100 mcg) for selenium, respectively. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Palliative Treatment: Anticancer, Antisymptom, or End-of-Life Care?

1. Brauch HB, Schroth W, Ingle JN, et al: CYP2D6 and tamoxifen: Awaiting the denouement. J Clin Oncol 29:4589, 2011 2. Stearns V, Johnson MD, Rae JM, et al: Active tamoxifen metabolite plasma concentrations after coadministration of tamoxifen and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor paroxetine. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:1758-1764, 2003 3. Johnson MD, Zuo H, Lee KH, et al: Pharmacological characterization of 4-hydroxy-N-desmethyl tamoxifen, a novel active metabolite of tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res Treat 85:151-159, 2004 4. Goetz MP, Rae JM, Suman VJ, et al: Pharmacogenetics of tamoxifen biotransformation is associated with clinical outcomes of efficacy and hot flashes. J Clin Oncol 23:9312-9318, 2005 5. Hayes DF, Stearns V, Rae J, et al: A model citizen? Is tamoxifen more effective than aromatase inhibitors if we pick the right patients? J Natl Cancer Inst 100:610-613, 2008 6. Higgins MJ, Rae JM, Flockhart DA, et al: Pharmacogenetics of tamoxifen: Who should undergo CYP2D6 genetic testing? J Natl Compr Canc Netw 7:203-213, 2009 7. Seruga B, Amir E: Cytochrome P450 2D6 and outcomes of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy: Results of a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 122:609-617, 2010 8. Cronin-Fenton DP, Lash TL: Clinical epidemiology and pharmacology of CYP2D6 inhibition related to breast cancer outcomes. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 4:363-377, 2011 9. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF: Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1446-1452, 2009 10. National Institutes of Health: ClinicalTrials.gov. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/ show/NCT01124695 11. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Guidelines & Clinical Resources. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp 12. Burstein HJ, Prestrud AA, Seidenfeld J, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline: Update on adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:37843796, 2010 13. Gnant M, Harbeck N, Thomssen C: St. Gallen 2011: Summary of the Consensus Discussion. Breast Care (Basel) 6:136-141, 2011