61
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical Nutrition in cancer

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references137

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Physical activity, biomarkers, and disease outcomes in cancer survivors: a systematic review.

            Cancer survivors often seek information about how lifestyle factors, such as physical activity, may influence their prognosis. We systematically reviewed studies that examined relationships between physical activity and mortality (cancer-specific and all-cause) and/or cancer biomarkers. We identified 45 articles published from January 1950 to August 2011 through MEDLINE database searches that were related to physical activity, cancer survival, and biomarkers potentially relevant to cancer survival. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement to guide this review. Study characteristics, mortality outcomes, and biomarker-relevant and subgroup results were abstracted for each article that met the inclusion criteria (ie, research articles that included participants with a cancer diagnosis, mortality outcomes, and an assessment of physical activity). There was consistent evidence from 27 observational studies that physical activity is associated with reduced all-cause, breast cancer-specific, and colon cancer-specific mortality. There is currently insufficient evidence regarding the association between physical activity and mortality for survivors of other cancers. Randomized controlled trials of exercise that included biomarker endpoints suggest that exercise may result in beneficial changes in the circulating level of insulin, insulin-related pathways, inflammation, and, possibly, immunity; however, the evidence is still preliminary. Future research directions identified include the need for more observational studies on additional types of cancer with larger sample sizes; the need to examine whether the association between physical activity and mortality varies by tumor, clinical, or risk factor characteristics; and the need for research on the biological mechanisms involved in the association between physical activity and survival after a cancer diagnosis. Future randomized controlled trials of exercise with biomarker and cancer-specific disease endpoints, such as recurrence, new primary cancers, and cancer-specific mortality in cancer survivors, are warranted.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

              No comprehensive systematic review has been published since 1998 about the frequency with which cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). MEDLINE, AMED, and Embase databases were searched for surveys published until January 2009. Surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States with at least 100 adult cancer patients were included. Detailed information on methods and results was independently extracted by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using a criteria list developed according to the STROBE guideline. Exploratory random effects metaanalysis and metaregression were applied. Studies from 18 countries (152; >65 000 cancer patients) were included. Heterogeneity of CAM use was high and to some extent explained by differences in survey methods. The combined prevalence for "current use" of CAM across all studies was 40%. The highest was in the United States and the lowest in Italy and the Netherlands. Metaanalysis suggested an increase in CAM use from an estimated 25% in the 1970s and 1980s to more than 32% in the 1990s and to 49% after 2000. The overall prevalence of CAM use found was lower than often claimed. However, there was some evidence that the use has increased considerably over the past years. Therefore, the health care systems ought to implement clear strategies of how to deal with this. To improve the validity and reporting of future surveys, the authors suggest criteria for methodological quality that should be fulfilled and reporting standards that should be required.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Clinical Nutrition
                Clinical Nutrition
                Elsevier BV
                02615614
                March 2021
                March 2021
                Article
                10.1016/j.clnu.2021.02.005
                33946039
                1948e574-ad57-47b2-a1bb-305db0aa9155
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article