Nutrition as prevention for improved cancer health outcomes: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Among adults with cancer, malnutrition is associated with decreased treatment completion, more treatment harms and use of health care, and worse short-term survival. To inform the National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention workshop, "Nutrition as Prevention for Improved Cancer Health Outcomes," this systematic review examined the evidence for the effectiveness of providing nutrition interventions before or during cancer therapy to improve outcomes of cancer treatment. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials enrolling at least 50 participants published from 2000 through July 2022. We provide a detailed evidence map for included studies and grouped studies by broad intervention and cancer types. We conducted risk of bias (RoB) and qualitative descriptions of outcomes for intervention and cancer types with a larger volume of literature. RESULTS: From 9798 unique references, 206 randomized controlled trials from 219 publications met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily focused on nonvitamin or mineral dietary supplements, nutrition support, and route or timing of inpatient nutrition interventions for gastrointestinal or head and neck cancers. Most studies evaluated changes in body weight or composition, adverse events from cancer treatment, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Few studies were conducted within the United States. Among intervention and cancer types with a high volume of literature (n = 114), 49% (n = 56) were assessed as high RoB. Higher-quality studies (low or medium RoB) reported mixed results on the effect of nutrition interventions across cancer and treatment-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological limitations of nutrition intervention studies surrounding cancer treatment impair translation of findings into clinical practice or guidelines.

Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Effectiveness Review.

PURPOSE: We sought to identify new information evaluating clinically localized prostate cancer therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bibliographic databases (2013-January 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov and systematic reviews were searched for controlled studies of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer with duration ≥5 years for mortality and metastases, and ≥1 year for harms. RESULTS: We identified 67 eligible references. Among patients with clinically, rather than prostate specific antigen, detected localized prostate cancer, watchful waiting may increase mortality and metastases but decreases urinary and erectile dysfunction vs radical prostatectomy. Comparative mortality effect may vary by tumor risk and age but not by race, health status, comorbidities or prostate specific antigen. Active monitoring probably results in little to no mortality difference in prostate specific antigen detected localized prostate cancer vs radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation regardless of tumor risk. Metastases were slightly higher with active monitoring. Harms were greater with radical prostatectomy than active monitoring and mixed between external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation vs active monitoring. 3-Dimensional conformal radiation and androgen deprivation plus low dose rate brachytherapy provided small mortality reductions vs 3-dimensional conformal radiation and androgen deprivation but little to no difference on metastases. External beam radiation plus androgen deprivation vs external beam radiation alone may result in small mortality and metastasis reductions in higher risk disease but may increase sexual harms. Few new data exist on other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality vs watchful waiting in clinically detected localized prostate cancer but causes more harms. Effectiveness may be limited to younger men and those with intermediate risk disease. Active monitoring results in little to no mortality difference vs radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation. Few new data exist on other treatments.

Adjuvant radiotherapy for synchronous bilateral testicular seminoma: a case report and a review of the pertinent literature.

Few cases of synchronous bilateral stage I seminomas have been reported in the world literature. We present a case of bilateral synchronous testicular seminoma, the current literature on the management of stage I seminoma, and the implications for radiotherapy. A forty-year-old man presented with synchronous bilateral classical seminomas, both stage IA. After undergoing bilateral inguinal orchiectomy, he received adjuvant external beam radiotherapy, with a standard paraaortic field. After 18 months of followup, he remains well, without evidence of recurrence. Bilateral germ cell tumors (BGCTs) are reported consistently at a low rate. Bilateral radical inguinal orchiectomy is standard of care, yet some groups have proposed an organ preservation approach. Of the reported cases of bilateral stage I synchronous GCT, with concordant seminoma histology, most of them were treated with bilateral orchiectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy. Although morbidity associated with radiotherapy directed at the abdomen is not negligible, adjuvant paraaortic radiotherapy remains safe and well-tolerated treatment regime. Bilateral synchronous stage I seminoma of the testes is rare. Organ preservation remains investigational. Chemotherapy is probably a reasonable option. We propose that patients with bilateral stage I synchronous GCT, with concordant seminoma histology, should be managed with bilateral orchiectomy, followed by paraaortic radiotherapy.

Lung reirradiation with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

INTRODUCTION: There is limited data on the use of SBRT in reirradiation of lung tumors. We reviewed outcomes following SBRT after previous thoracic radiotherapy at the University of Minnesota Medical Center. METHODS: From August 2006 through October 2012, fourteen lung tumors in thirteen patients with either biopsy confirmed or presumed non-small cell lung cancer in patients who were medically unable to undergo biopsy, were retreated with SBRT. Eligible patient charts were reviewed to evaluate survival, recurrence patterns and toxicity following reirradiation. RESULTS: The median age of patients at the time of SBRT was 67.9 years. The median duration of follow-up was 11.4 months. Ten patients received prior conventional thoracic irradiation (median dose 6120 cGy). Two patients received prior SBRT with curative intent. The median time to reirradiation with SBRT was 19.7 months. Following reirradiation with SBRT, four patients (33%) are alive and disease free. Eight patients (67%) experienced progressive disease. There were five distant and two regional recurrences. There was one isolated local recurrence. Local control was 92% with a median survival of 24 months (95% CI: 8-38 months). 1- and 2-year overall survival were 80% (95% CI: 41%-95%) and 36% (95% CI: 6%-68%) respectively. There was one grade 2 and one grade 3 toxicity. No grade 4 or 5 toxicities were seen. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is a reasonable salvage therapy for lung tumor recurrence or second primary lung malignancy in patients previously treated with thoracic radiotherapy, offering good local control and resulting in acceptable toxicity. Further evaluation of this treatment option is warranted.