RESUMO
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of perioperative nutritional therapy care in gastrointestinal (esophageal, gastric, gastroesophageal) cancer patients on nutritional status and disease progression (complications, hospitalization, mortality). We considered 62 gastrointestinal cancer patients treated at the Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Bonn, Germany (August 2017-July 2019). Of these, 42 patients (as intervention group: IG) received pre- and postoperative nutritional support with counseling, while 20 patients (as historical control group CG) received only postoperative nutritional therapy. Several clinical parameters, such as Body Mass Index (BMI), nutritional risk screening (NRS), phase angle, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and mortality, were determined. There were significantly fewer patients with gastric cancer/CDH1 gene mutation and more with esophageal cancer in IG (p = 0.001). Significantly more patients received neoadjuvant therapy in IG (p = 0.036). No significant differences were found between the groups regarding BMI, NRS, complications, length of hospital stay, and mortality. However, the comparison of post- and preoperative parameters in IG showed a tendency to lose 1.74 kg of weight (p = 0.046), a decrease in phase angle by 0.59° (p = 0.004), and an increase in NRS of 1.34 points (p < 0.001). Contrary to prior reports, we found no significant effect of perioperative nutritional therapy care in gastrointestinal cancer patients; however, the small cohort size and infrequent standardization in nutritional status may possibly account for the variance. Considering that oncological pathways and metabolic nutritional pathways are interrelated, dividing patients into subgroups to provide a personalized nutritional approach may help in improving their treatment.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: International and national studies have shown unmet information needs regarding nutrition in breast cancer patients. An intervention study has examined the question of the extent to which a fact sheet on the topic of nutrition is suitable to cover the need for information of breast cancer patients. METHOD: The fact sheet with basic information on nutrition was distributed in 21 intervention breast care centres in 2017. The use of the fact sheets was evaluated in a quasi-experimental design as part of the annual breast cancer patients' survey of the University of Cologne. The breast cancer patients considered were being treated with primary breast carcinoma in a hospital in North Rhine-Westphalia. A multilevel analysis was carried out in order to quantify the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: Unmet information needs are experienced more by younger and non-native German-speaking patients. With regard to education, patients without a graduation and a high grade of education express more unmet information needs. The multilevel analysis showed that patients who were treated at an intervention site and therefore possibly received the fact sheet have a significantly higher chance of their information needs being met (OR = 1.45; p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: The intervention study showed that a fact sheet with basic information on nutrition is a possible instrument to satisfy the information needs of breast cancer patients and therefore reduce unmet information needs regarding nutrition. This intervention study is a pragmatic example on how to reduce unmet information needs among breast cancer patients in Germany.