Nutrition impact symptom monitoring and weight loss outcomes: a longitudinal radiotherapy study.

OBJECTIVES: Nutrition impact symptoms (NIS) are associated with weight loss (WL), and decreased energy intake in cross-sectional studies. We aimed to ascertain associations between changes in NIS burden, energy intake and WL over time in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Adult patients from an observational radiotherapy study for painful bone metastases self-reported NIS and WL using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment tool (PG-SGA) at baseline and week eight (W8). NIS burden, the sum of NIS per patient, categorised as 0, 1-2 and ≥3 with changes defined as 2-point differences from baseline to W8 were used. Energy intake was assessed by 24-hour recall interviews. RESULTS: 111 patients (72.1%) were analysed and grouped by NIS burden; 0 NIS (44.1%), 1-2 NIS (30.6%) and ≥3 NIS (25.2%). Patients with NIS burden of ≥3 reported higher baseline WL compared with those with 1-2 or 0 NIS (46.4% vs 18.2% vs 10.2%, respectively, p=0.002). At W8, 21 patients (19%) reported improved NIS burden, accompanied by a lower proportion of severe (≥5%) new-onset WL (19% vs 42.1%) and higher energy intake (median 29.6 vs 21.2 kcal/kg) than those with worsened NIS burden (17.1%). CONCLUSIONS: NIS management may improve energy intake and prevent WL, emphasising the importance of systematic follow-up and interventions. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION: NCT02107664.

Geriatric assessment with management for older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy: a cluster-randomised controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) improve outcomes in older patients with cancer treated with surgery or chemotherapy. It is unclear whether GAM may provide better function and quality of life (QoL), or be cost-effective, in a radiotherapy (RT) setting. METHODS: In this Norwegian cluster-randomised controlled pilot study, we assessed the impact of a GAM intervention involving specialist and primary health services. It was initiated in-hospital at the start of RT by assessing somatic and mental health, function, and social situation, followed by individually adapted management plans and systematic follow-up in the municipalities until 8 weeks after the end of RT, managed by municipal nurses as patients' care coordinators. Thirty-two municipal/city districts were 1:1 randomised to intervention or conventional care. Patients with cancer ≥ 65 years, referred for RT, were enrolled irrespective of cancer type, treatment intent, and frailty status, and followed the allocation of their residential district. The primary outcome was physical function measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes were overall quality of life (QoL), physical performance, use and costs of health services. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Study registration at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03881137. RESULTS: We included 178 patients, 89 in each group with comparable age (mean 74.1), sex (female 38.2%), and Edmonton Frail Scale scores (mean 3.4 [scale 0-17], scores 0-3 [fit] in 57%). More intervention patients received curative RT (76.4 vs 61.8%), had higher irradiation doses (mean 54.1 vs 45.5 Gy), and longer lasting RT (mean 4.4 vs 3.6 weeks). The primary outcome was completed by 91% (intervention) vs 88% (control) of patients. No significant differences between groups on predefined outcomes were observed. GAM costs represented 3% of health service costs for the intervention group during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this heterogeneous cohort of older patients receiving RT, the majority was fit. We found no impact of the intervention on patient-centred outcomes or the cost of health services. Targeting a more homogeneous group of only pre-frail and frail patients is strongly recommended in future studies needed to clarify the role and organisation of GAM in RT settings.

Body weight and composition endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 4 of the cachexia endpoints series.

Significant variation exists in the outcomes used in cancer cachexia trials, including measures of body composition, which are often selected as primary or secondary endpoints. To date, there has been no review of the most commonly selected measures or their potential sensitivity to detect changes resulting from the interventions being examined. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the frequency and diversity of body composition measures that have been used in cancer cachexia trials. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched between January 1990 and June 2021. Eligible trials examined adults (≥18 years) who had received an intervention aiming to treat or attenuate the effects of cancer cachexia for >14 days. Trials were also of a prospective controlled design and included body weight or at least one anthropometric, bioelectrical or radiological endpoint pertaining to body composition, irrespective of the modality of intervention (e.g., pharmacological, nutritional, physical exercise and behavioural) or comparator. Trials with a sample size of <40 patients were excluded. Data extraction used Covidence software, and reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. This review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022276710). A total of 84 clinical trials, comprising 13 016 patients, were eligible for inclusion. Non-small-cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer were studied most frequently. The majority of trial interventions were pharmacological (52%) or nutritional (34%) in nature. The most frequently reported endpoints were assessments of body weight (68 trials, n = 11 561) followed by bioimpedance analysis (BIA)-based estimates (23 trials, n = 3140). Sixteen trials (n = 3052) included dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)-based endpoints, and computed tomography (CT) body composition was included in eight trials (n = 841). Discrepancies were evident when comparing the efficacy of interventions using BIA-based estimates of lean tissue mass against radiological assessment modalities. Body weight, BIA and DEXA-based endpoints have been most frequently used in cancer cachexia trials. Although the optimal endpoints cannot be determined from this review, body weight, alongside measurements from radiological body composition analysis, would seem appropriate. The choice of radiological modality is likely to be dependent on the trial setting, population and intervention in question. CT and magnetic resonance imaging, which have the ability to accurately discriminate tissue types, are likely to be more sensitive and provide greater detail. Endpoints are of particular importance when aligned with the intervention's mechanism of action and/or intended patient benefit.

Biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 5 of the cachexia endpoint series.

Regulatory agencies require evidence that endpoints correlate with clinical benefit before they can be used to approve drugs. Biomarkers are often considered surrogate endpoints. In cancer cachexia trials, the measurement of biomarkers features frequently. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. A comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2023) was completed. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), prospective design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a biomarker(s) as an endpoint. Biomarkers were defined as any objective measure that was assayed from a body fluid, including scoring systems based on these assays. Routine haematology and biochemistry to monitor intervention toxicity were not considered. Data extraction was performed using Covidence, and reporting followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 studies were assessed, of which 52 trials (total participants = 6522) included biomarkers as endpoints. Most studies (n = 29, 55.7%) included a variety of cancer types. Pharmacological interventions (n = 27, 51.9%) were most evaluated, followed by nutritional interventions (n = 20, 38.4%). Ninety-nine different biomarkers were used across the trials, and of these, 96 were assayed from blood. Albumin (n = 29, 55.8%) was assessed most often, followed by C-reactive protein (n = 22, 42.3%), interleukin-6 (n = 16, 30.8%) and tumour necrosis factor-α (n = 14, 26.9%), the latter being the only biomarker that was used to guide sample size calculations. Biomarkers were explicitly listed as a primary outcome in six trials. In total, 12 biomarkers (12.1% of 99) were used in six trials or more. Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels both increased significantly in all three trials in which they were both used. This corresponded with a primary outcome, lean body mass, and was related to the pharmacological mechanism. Biomarkers were predominately used as exploratory rather than primary endpoints. The most commonly used biomarker, albumin, was limited by its lack of responsiveness to nutritional intervention. For a biomarker to be responsive to change, it must be related to the mechanism of action of the intervention and/or the underlying cachexia process that is modified by the intervention, as seen with IGFBP-3, IGF-1 and anamorelin. To reach regulatory approval as an endpoint, the relationship between the biomarker and clinical benefit must be clarified.

Quality of life endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic review 3 of the cachexia endpoints series.

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of quality of life (QOL) is common in cachexia trials. Patients' self-report on health, functioning, wellbeing, and perceptions of care, represent important measures of efficacy. This review describes the frequency, variety, and reporting of QOL endpoints used in cancer cachexia clinical trials. Electronic literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (1990-2023). Seven thousand four hundred thirty-five papers were retained for evaluation. Eligibility criteria included QOL as a study endpoint using validated measures, controlled design, adults (>18 years), ≥40 participants randomized, and intervention exceeding 2 weeks. The Covidence software was used for review procedures and data extractions. Four independent authors screened all records for consensus. Papers were screened by titles and abstracts, prior to full-text reading. PRISMA guidance for systematic reviews was followed. The protocol was prospectively registered via PROSPERO (CRD42022276710). Fifty papers focused on QOL. Twenty-four (48%) were double-blind randomized controlled trials. Sample sizes varied considerably (n = 42 to 469). Thirty-nine trials (78%) included multiple cancer types. Twenty-seven trials (54%) featured multimodal interventions with various drugs and dietary supplements, 11 (22%) used nutritional interventions alone and 12 (24%) used a single pharmacological intervention only. The median duration of the interventions was 12 weeks (4-96). The most frequent QOL measure was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60%), followed by different FACIT questionnaires (34%). QOL was a primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoint in 15, 31 and 4 trials respectively, being the single primary in six. Statistically significant results on one or more QOL items favouring the intervention group were found in 18 trials. Eleven of these used a complete multidimensional measure. Adjustments for multiple testing when using multicomponent QOL measures were not reported. Nine trials (18%) defined a statistically or clinically significant difference for QOL, five with QOL as a primary outcome, and four with QOL as a secondary outcome. Correlation statistics with other study outcomes were rarely performed. PROMs including QOL are important endpoints in cachexia trials. We recommend using well-validated QOL measures, including cachexia-specific items such as weight history, appetite loss, and nutritional intake. Appropriate statistical methods with definitions of clinical significance, adjustment for multiple testing and few co-primary endpoints are encouraged, as is an understanding of how interventions may relate to changes in QOL endpoints. A strategic and scientific-based approach to PROM research in cachexia trials is warranted, to improve the research base in this field and avoid the use of QOL as supplementary measures.

Appetite and dietary intake endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 2 of the cachexia endpoints series.

There is no consensus on the optimal endpoint(s) in cancer cachexia trials. Endpoint variation is an obstacle when comparing interventions and their clinical value. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate endpoints used to assess appetite and dietary intake in cancer cachexia clinical trials. A search for studies published from 1 January 1990 until 2 June 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies examined cancer cachexia treatment versus a comparator in adults with assessments of appetite and/or dietary intake as study endpoints, a sample size ≥40 and an intervention lasting ≥14 days. Reporting was in line with PRISMA guidance, and a protocol was published in PROSPERO (2022 CRD42022276710). This review is part of a series of systematic reviews examining cachexia endpoints. Of the 5975 articles identified, 116 were eligible for the wider review series and 80 specifically examined endpoints of appetite (65 studies) and/or dietary intake (21 studies). Six trials assessed both appetite and dietary intake. Appetite was the primary outcome in 15 trials and dietary intake in 7 trials. Median sample size was 101 patients (range 40-628). Forty-nine studies included multiple primary tumour sites, while 31 studies involved single primary tumour sites (15 gastrointestinal, 7 lung, 7 head and neck and 2 female reproductive organs). The most frequently reported appetite endpoints were visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) (40%). The appetite item from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30/C15 PAL (38%) and the appetite question from North Central Cancer Treatment Group anorexia questionnaire (17%) were also frequently applied. Of the studies that assessed dietary intake, 13 (62%) used food records (prospective registrations) and 10 (48%) used retrospective methods (24-h recall or dietary history). For VAS/NRS, a mean change of 1.3 corresponded to Hedge's g of 0.5 and can be considered a moderate change. For food records, a mean change of 231 kcal/day or 11 g of protein/day corresponded to a moderate change. Choice of endpoint in cachexia trials will depend on factors pertinent to the trial to be conducted. Nevertheless, from trials assessed and available literature, NRS or EORTC QLQ C30/C15 PAL seems suitable for appetite assessments. Appetite and dietary intake endpoints are rarely used as primary outcomes in cancer cachexia. Dietary intake assessments were used mainly to monitor compliance and are not validated in cachexia populations. Given the importance to cachexia studies, dietary intake endpoints must be validated before they are used as endpoints in clinical trials.

The association between age and long-term quality of life after curative treatment for prostate cancer: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the associations between age at radical prostate cancer treatment and long-term global quality of life (QoL), physical function (PF), and treatment-related side effects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This single-center, cross-sectional study included men treated for localized prostate cancer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in 2014-2018. Global QoL and PF were assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30), side effects by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26). Adjusted linear regression models were estimated to assess associations between age (continuous variable) at treatment and outcomes. QLQ-C30 scores were compared to normative data after dividing the cohort in two groups, <70 years and ≥70 years at treatment. RESULTS: Of 654 men included, 516 (79%) had undergone RARP, and 138 (21%) had undergone EBRT combined with androgen deprivation therapy for 93%. Mean time since treatment was 57 months. Median age at treatment was 68 (min-max 44-84) years. We found no statistically significant independent association between age at treatment and global QoL, PF or side effects, except for sexual function (regression coefficient [RC] -0.77; p < 0.001) and hormonal/vitality (RC 0.30; p = 0.006) function. Mean QLQ-C30 scores were slightly poorer than age-adjusted normative scores, for men <70 years (n = 411) as well as for men ≥70 years (n = 243) at treatment, but the differences were not beyond clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of prostate cancer survivors, age at treatment had little impact on long-term QoL and function. Due to the cross-sectional design, short term impact or variation over time cannot be ruled out.

Physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 1 of the cachexia endpoints series.

In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function endpoints may be needed alongside other measures. However, it is not clear which physical function endpoints should be used. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. Following a comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2021), records were retrieved. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), controlled design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a physical function endpoint. Physical function measures were classified as an objective measure (hand grip strength [HGS], stair climb power [SCP], timed up and go [TUG] test, 6-min walking test [6MWT] and short physical performance battery [SPPB]), clinician assessment of function (Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status [ECOG-PS]) or patient-reported outcomes (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires [EORTC QLQ-C30 or C15]). Data extraction was performed using Covidence and followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 potential studies were examined and 71 were eligible. Pharmacological interventions were assessed in 38 trials (54%). Of these, 11 (29%, n = 1184) examined megestrol and 5 (13%, n = 1928) examined anamorelin; nutritional interventions were assessed in 21 trials (30%); and exercise-based interventions were assessed in 6 trials (8%). The remaining six trials (8%) assessed multimodal interventions. Among the objective measures of physical function (assessed as primary or secondary endpoints), HGS was most commonly examined (33 trials, n = 5081) and demonstrated a statistically significant finding in 12 (36%) trials (n = 2091). The 6MWT was assessed in 12 trials (n = 1074) and was statistically significant in 4 (33%) trials (n = 403), whereas SCP, TUG and SPPB were each assessed in 3 trials. KPS was more commonly assessed than the newer ECOG-PS (16 vs. 9 trials), and patient-reported EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function was reported in 25 trials. HGS is the most commonly used physical function endpoint in cancer cachexia clinical trials. However, heterogeneity in study design, populations, intervention and endpoint selection make it difficult to comment on the optimal endpoint and how to measure this. We offer several recommendations/considerations to improve the design of future clinical trials in cancer cachexia.

The effect of nutritional interventions in acute radiation-induced diarrhoea in patients with primary pelvic cancer: A systematic review.

Acute radiation-induced diarrhoea (RID) is a well-known side effect of external radiation therapy for pelvic cancer. Acute RID is an unresolved clinical problem in approximately 80% of patients. We investigated the effect of nutritional interventions on acute RID in patients with pelvic cancer treated with curative radiotherapy. A search was conducted using PubMed, Embase.com, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, from 1 January 2005 until 10 October 2022. We included randomised controlled trials or prospective observational studies. Eleven of the 21 identified studies had low quality of evidence, mainly because of low patient numbers distributed among several cancer diagnoses, and non-systematic assessment of acute RID. Interventions included probiotics (n = 6), prebiotics (n = 6), glutamine (n = 4), and others (n = 5). Five studies, of which two provided high quality evidence, showed that probiotics improved acute RID. Future well-designed studies investigating the effects of probiotics on acute RID are warranted. PROSPERO ID: CRD42020209499).

Geriatric impairments are associated with reduced quality of life and physical function in older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy - A prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Quality of life (QoL) and function are important outcomes for older adults with cancer. We aimed to assess differences in trends in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during radiotherapy (RT) between (1) groups with curative or palliative treatment intent and (2) groups defined according to the number of geriatric impairments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study including patients aged ≥65 years receiving curative or palliative RT was conducted. Geriatric assessment (GA) was performed before RT, and cut-offs for impairments within each domain were defined. Patients were grouped according to the number of geriatric impairments: 0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4. Our primary outcomes, global QoL and physical function (PF), were assessed by The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC) (QLQ-C30) at baseline, RT completion, and two, eight, and sixteen weeks later. Differences in trends in outcomes between the groups were assessed by linear mixed models. RESULTS: 301 patients were enrolled, mean age was 73.6 years, 53.8% received curative RT. Patients receiving palliative RT reported significantly worse global QoL and PF compared to the curative group. The prevalence of 0, 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 geriatric impairments was 16.6%, 22.7%, 16.9%, 16.3% and 27.5%, respectively. Global QoL and PF gradually decreased with an increasing number of impairments. These group differences remained stable from baseline throughout follow-up without any clinically significant changes for any of the outcomes. DISCUSSION: Increasing number of geriatric impairments had a profound negative impact on global QoL and PF, but no further decline was observed for any group or outcome, indicating that RT was mainly well tolerated. Thus, geriatric impairments per se should not be reasons for withholding RT. GA is key to identifying vulnerable patients in need of supportive measures, which may have the potential to improve treatment tolerance. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03071640).

The Norwegian Directorate of Health recommends malnutrition screening tool (MST) for all adults.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Malnutrition is underdiagnosed and undertreated in Norway. In a revision of a national guideline on malnutrition, the Norwegian Directorate of Health aimed for a harmonization and standardization of the malnutrition screening practice, including a recommendation of one malnutrition screening tool to be used among all adults in Norwegian health and care services. METHODS: A working group was appointed by the Norwegian Directorate of Health. Evidence-based practice, a pragmatic decision-making process based on a literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), and the DECIDE decision-making model was used as a guidance in order to convert evidence into recommendations. RESULTS: The criteria and properties of the four most frequently validated malnutrition screening tools were identified and ranked by the working group. The tools were prioritized in the following order: 1: Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), 2: Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), 3: Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), and 4: Mini-Nutritional Assessment short form (MNA). CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian Directorate of Health recommends use of MST for screening for malnutrition among all adults (≥18 years), across all health care settings, and diagnoses or conditions in Norway.

Harmonization and standardization of malnutrition screening for all adults - A systematic review initiated by the Norwegian Directorate of Health.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Norwegian Directorate of Health has identified a need to harmonize and standardize the malnutrition screening practice in Norwegian hospitals and primary health care settings, in order to provide a seamless communication of malnutrition screening along the patient pathway. Our aim was to perform a systematic review of the validity and reliability of screening tools used to identify risk of malnutrition across health care settings, diagnoses or conditions and adult age groups, as a first step towards a national recommendation of one screening tool. METHODS: A systematic literature search for articles evaluating validity, agreement, and reliability of malnutrition screening tools, published up to August 2020, was conducted in: MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, Cinahl, Cochrane Databases, Web of Science, Epistemonikos, SveMed+, and Norart. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022300558). For critical appraisal of each included article, the Quality Criteria Checklist by The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics was used. RESULTS: The review identified 105 articles that fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most frequently validated tools were Mini Nutritional Assessment short form (MNA), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002). MNA, MST and NRS-2002 displayed overall moderate validity, and MUST low validity. All four tools displayed low agreement. MST and MUST were validated across health care settings and age groups. In general, data on reliability was limited. CONCLUSIONS: The screening tools MST and NRS-2002 displayed moderate validity for the identification of malnutrition in adults, of which MST is validated across health care settings. In addition, MNA has moderate validity for the identification of malnutrition in adults 65 years or older.

Benefits of Study Participation for Patients with Advanced Cancer Receiving Radiotherapy: A Prospective Observational Study.

Background: Patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases may have unmet palliative care (PC) needs that go unnoticed during clinical oncological practice. This observational study describes interventions that were initiated as the patients participated in the Palliative Radiotherapy and Inflammation Study (PRAIS). It was hypothesized that the patients would benefit from study participation due to PC interventions initiated by the study team. Methods: A retrospective review of patients' electronic records. Patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases included in PRAIS were eligible. All patients met with the study team before start of radiotherapy, after completion of Patient Reported Outcome Measures. Interventions initiated by the study team were documented in the patients' electronic records. Results: A total of 133 patients were reviewed: 63% males, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age 65 (9.6) and mean (SD) Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score 73.2 (9.1). Interventions were initiated in 50% (n = 67) of the patients. Changes in opioid management (69%), treatment of constipation (43%), and nausea (24%) and nutritional advice were most frequent (21%). Patients receiving interventions had lower mean KPS (70 vs. 77 p < 0.001), shorter survival time after study inclusion (median 28 vs. 57.5 weeks p = 0.005) and were more often opioid naïve (12% vs. 39% p < 0.001) than those not receiving interventions by the study team. Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastasis benefited from study participation due to multiple PC interventions initiated by the study team. The findings call for a systematic integration of PC in patients with advanced cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02107664.

Geriatric assessment with management for older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy. Protocol of a Norwegian cluster-randomised controlled pilot study.

About 50% of patients with cancer are expected to need radiotherapy (RT), and the majority of these are older. To improve outcomes for older patients with cancer, geriatric assessment (GA) with management (GAM) is highly recommended. Evidence for its benefits is still scarce, in particular for patients receiving RT. We report the protocol of a cluster-randomised pilot study designed to test the effect, feasibility and health economic impact of a GAM intervention for patients ≥65 years, referred for palliative or curative RT. The randomising units are municipalities and city districts. The intervention is municipality-based and carried out in collaboration between hospital and municipal health services from the start of RT to eight weeks after the end of RT. Its main constituents are an initial GA followed by measures adapted to individual patients' impairments and needs, systematic symptom assessments and regular follow-up by municipal cancer nurses, appointed to coordinate the patient's care. Follow-up includes at least one weekly phone call, and a house call four weeks after the end of RT. All patients receive an individually adapted physical exercise program and nutritional counselling. Detailed guidelines for management of patients' impairments are provided. Patients allocated to the intervention group will be compared to controls receiving standard care. The primary outcome is physical function assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30. Secondary outcomes are global quality of life, objectively tested physical performance and use of health care services. Economic evaluation will be based on a comparison of costs and effects (measured by the main outcome measures). Feasibility will be assessed with mixed methodology, based on log notes and questionnaires filled in by the municipal nurses and interviews with patients and nurses. The study is carried out at two Norwegian RT centres. It was opened in May 2019. Follow-up will proceed until June 2022. Statistical analyses will start by the end of 2021. We expect the trial to provide important new knowledge about the effect, feasibility and costs of a GAM intervention for older patients receiving RT. Trial registration: ClinTrials.gov, ID NCT03881137, initial release 13th of March 2019.

Mortality and microbial diversity after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: secondary analysis of a randomized nutritional intervention trial.

Gut mucosal barrier injury is common following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and associated with poor clinical outcomes. Diet is critical for microbial diversity, but whether nutritional support affects microbiota and outcome after allo-HSCT is unknown. We present a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled nutritional intervention trial during allo-HSCT. We investigated if the intervention influenced gut microbiota, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), and markers of gut barrier functions, and if these parameters were associated with clinical outcomes. Fecal specimens were available from 47 recipients, and subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We found no significant differences between the intervention group and controls in investigated parameters. We observed a major depletion of microbiota, SCFAs, and altered markers of gut barrier function from baseline to 3 weeks post-transplant. One-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with lower diversity at 3 weeks post-HSCT, but not related to diversity at baseline. The relative abundance of Blautia genus at 3 weeks was higher in survivors. Fecal propionic acid was associated with survival. Markers of gut barrier functions were less strongly associated with clinical outcomes. Possibly, other strategies than dietary intervention are needed to prevent negative effects of gut microbiota and clinical outcomes after allo-HSCT.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01181076).

Exercise and Nutrition Interventions in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer during Curative Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the effects of nutritional and physical exercise interventions and interventions combining these interventions during radiotherapy treatment for patients with head and neck cancer on body composition, objectively measured physical function and nutritional status. Systematic electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed interface), EMBASE (Ovid interface), CINAHL (EBSCO interface) and Cochrane Library (Wiley interface). We identified 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included 858 patients. For body composition, using only nutrition as intervention, a significant difference between treatment and control group were observed (SMD 0.42 (95CI 0.23-0.62), p < 0.001). Only pilot RCTs investigated combination treatment and no significant difference between the treatment and control groups were found (SMD 0.21 (95CI -0.16-0.58), p = 0.259). For physical function, a significant difference between treatment and control group with a better outcome for the treatment group were observed (SMD 0.78 (95CI 0.51-1.04), p < 0.001). No effects on nutritional status were found. This meta-analysis found significantly positive effects of nutrition and physical exercise interventions alone in favor of the treatment groups. No effects in studies with combined interventions were observed. Future full-scaled RCTs combining nutrition and physical exercise is warranted.

Physical rehabilitation in patients with head and neck cancer: Impact on health-related quality of life and suitability of a post-treatment program.

OBJECTIVE: Physical rehabilitation programs hold the potential to mitigate deterioration in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with head and neck cancer. The objective was to assess development in relevant domains of HRQoL following a physical exercise and nutrition intervention administrated during or after treatment. METHODS: In a pilot study, 41 patients were randomized to resistance training and oral nutritional supplements during (EN-DUR, n = 20) or after (EN-AF, n = 21) radiotherapy. Global health status/QoL (GHS) and physical functioning (PF) were measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire at baseline, week 6, and week 14. Differences between the groups were assessed by analysis of covariance. A difference of ≥10 points in GHS and PF was interpreted as clinically relevant. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups; however, clinically relevant changes and differences in GHS and PF were observed. From baseline to week 6, GHS decreased 9 points in the EN-DUR group and 23 points in the EN-AF group and PF decreased 13 points and 21 points, respectively. From week 6 to week 14, GHS increased 14 points in the EN-DUR group and 26 points EN-AF group and PF did not change (0 points) in the EN-DUR group and increased 16 points in the EN-AF group. CONCLUSION: The findings from the present pilot study are promising and indicate that a physical rehabilitation program may have a positive impact on HRQoL during treatment and enhance recovery after treatment. A definitive randomized trial is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b-Individual randomized controlled trial.

Long-term follow-up with a smartphone application improves exercise capacity post cardiac rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health interventions, especially smartphone applications (apps), have been proposed as promising interventions for supporting adherence to healthy behaviour in patients post cardiac rehabilitation (CR). The overall aim of the study was to examine the effect of individualized follow-up with an app for one year on peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) in patients completing CR. DESIGN: The study was designed as a single-blinded multicentre randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The intervention group (IG) received individualized follow-up enabled with an app for one year, while the control group (CG) received usual care. The primary outcome was difference in VO2peak. Secondary outcomes included exercise performance (time to exhaustion, peak incline (%) and peak velocity (km/h)), bodyweight, resting blood pressure, lipid profile, triglycerides, exercise habits, health-related quality of life, health status and self-perceived goal achievement. RESULTS: In total, 113 patients completing CR (73.4% with coronary artery disease, 16.8% after valve surgery and 9.8% with other heart diseases) were randomly allocated to the IG or CG. Intention to treat analyses showed a statistically significant difference in VO2peak between the groups at follow-up of 2.2 ml/kg/min, 95% confidence interval 0.9-3.5 (p < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were also observed in exercise performance, exercise habits and in self-perceived goal achievement. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized follow-up for one year with an app significantly improved VO2peak, exercise performance and exercise habits, as well as self-perceived goal achievement, compared with a CG in patients post-CR. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups at follow-up in the other outcome measures evaluated.

Power Comparisons and Clinical Meaning of Outcome Measures in Assessing Treatment Effect in Cancer Cachexia: Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Pilot Multimodal Intervention Trial.

Background: New clinical trials in cancer cachexia are essential, and outcome measures with high responsiveness to detect meaningful changes are crucial. This secondary analysis from a multimodal intervention trial estimates sensitivity to change and between treatment effect sizes (ESs) of outcome measures associated with body composition, physical function, metabolism, and trial intervention. Methods: The study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized pilot study investigating the feasibility of a 6-week multimodal intervention [exercise, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and oral nutritional supplements containing polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs)] vs. standard cancer care in non-operable non-small-cell lung cancer and advanced pancreatic cancer. Body composition measures from computerized tomography scans and circulating biomarkers were analyzed. Results: Forty-six patients were randomized, and the analysis included 22 and 18 patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively. The between-group ESs were high for body weight (ES = 1.2, p < 0.001), small for body composition and physical function [handgrip strength (HGS)] measures (ES < 0.25), moderate to high for n-3 PUFAs and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH vitamin D) (ES range 0.64-1.37, p < 0.05 for all), and moderate for serum C-reactive protein (ES = 0.53, p = 0.12). Analysis within the multimodal treatment group showed high sensitivity to change for adiponectin (ES = 0.86, p = 0.001) and n-3 PUFAs (ES > 0.8, p < 0.05 for all) and moderate for 25-OH vitamin D (ES = 0.49, p = 0.03). In the control group, a moderate sensitivity to change for body weight (ES = -0.84, p = 0.002) and muscle mass (ES = -0.67, p = 0.016) and a high sensitivity to change for plasma levels of 25-OH vitamin D (ES = -0.88, p = 0.002) were found. Conclusion: Demonstrating high sensitivity to change and between treatment ES and body composition measures, body weight still stands out as a clinical and relevant outcome measure in cancer cachexia. Body composition and physical function measures clearly are important to address but demand large sample sizes to detect treatment group differences. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01419145.

Deterioration in Muscle Mass and Physical Function Differs According to Weight Loss History in Cancer Cachexia.

BACKGROUND: Muscle mass and physical function (PF) are common co-primary endpoints in cancer cachexia trials, but there is a lack of data on how these outcomes interact over time. The aim of this secondary analysis of data from a trial investigating multimodal intervention for cancer cachexia (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01419145) is to explore whether changes in muscle mass and PF are associated with weight loss and cachexia status at baseline. METHODS: Secondary analysis was conducted using data from a phase II randomized controlled trial including 46 patients with stage III-IV non-small cell lung cancer (n = 26) or inoperable pancreatic cancer (n = 20) due to commence chemotherapy. Cachexia status at baseline was classified according to international consensus. Muscle mass (assessed using computed tomography (CT)) and PF outcomes, i.e., Karnofsky performance status (KPS), self-reported PF (self-PF), handgrip strength (HGS), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and physical activity (PA), were measured at baseline and after six weeks. RESULTS: When compared according to cachexia status at baseline, patients with no/pre-cachexia had a mean loss of muscle mass (-5.3 cm2, p = 0.020) but no statistically significant change in PF outcomes. Patients with cachexia also lost muscle mass but to a lesser extent (-2.8 cm2, p = 0.146), but demonstrated a statistically significant decline in PF; KPS (-3.8 points, p = 0.030), self-PF (-8.8 points, p = 0.027), and HGS (-2.7 kg, p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss history and cachexia status at baseline are of importance if one aims to detect changes in PF outcomes in cancer cachexia trials. To improve the use of co-primary endpoints that include PF in future trials, outcomes that have the potential to detect change relative to weight loss should be investigated further.