A systematic review examining nutrition support interventions in patients with incurable cancer.

PURPOSE: Recent guidelines by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) have advocated increased attention to nutritional support in all patients with cancer; however, little is known about the optimal type of nutritional intervention. The aim of this review was to assess the current evidence for nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from 1990 to 2018. Evidence was appraised using a modified risk of bias table, based on guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. RESULTS: Sixty studies were assessed of which twelve met the eligibility criteria. Eleven studies examined body composition, with six studies reporting improvements in weight. Six studies examined nutritional status with three studies reporting an improvement. Nine studies examined nutritional intake with six showing improvements including significant improvements in dietary and protein intake. Ten studies examined quality of life, with six studies reporting improvements following intervention. The most common nutritional interventions examined were nutrition counselling and dietary supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence to support the need for increased attention to nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer; however, despite some statistically significant results being reported, the clinical effects of them were small. Key questions remain as to the optimal timing for these interventions to be implemented (e.g. cachexia stage, illness stage and timing with anticancer therapy) and the most appropriate endpoint measures.

Combined exercise and nutritional rehabilitation in outpatients with incurable cancer: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The optimal components for rehabilitation in patients with incurable cancer are unclear. However, principles of exercise and nutrition-based interventions used in cancer cachexia may be applied usefully to this population of cancer patients. This systematic review examines current evidence for rehabilitation combining exercise and nutritional support in patients with incurable cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched. Eligible studies included patients with incurable cancer and rehabilitation programmes combining exercise and nutritional interventions. Studies of cancer survivors, curative treatments, reviews, case note reviews, protocols and abstracts were excluded. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were applied to patient-important outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 2424 search results, 67 abstracts were reviewed and 24 full texts examined. Eight studies (n = 685) were included comprising two randomised control trials, three prospective, one exploratory and two secondary analyses. All examined multi-modal outpatient programmes. GRADE analysis revealed moderate evidence (B) for improvements in depression and physical endurance, low-quality evidence (C) for quality of life and fatigue and very low-quality evidence (D) for overall function and nutritional status. CONCLUSION: There are limited data for multi-modal rehabilitation programmes combining exercise and nutritional interventions in patients with incurable cancer. However, studies to date report improvements in multiple domains, most notably physical endurance and depression scores. This supports the concept that multi-modal rehabilitation incorporating principles of cachexia management may be appropriate for the wider group of patients with incurable cancer. Further, high-quality studies are needed to define the optimal approach and outcome measures.

A randomized, feasibility trial of an exercise and nutrition-based rehabilitation programme (ENeRgy) in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite rehabilitation being increasingly advocated for people living with incurable cancer, there is limited evidence supporting efficacy or component parts. The progressive decline in function and nutritional in this population would support an approach that targets these factors. This trial aimed to assess the feasibility of an exercise and nutrition based rehabilitation programme in people with incurable cancer. METHODS: We randomized community dwelling adults with incurable cancer to either a personalized exercise and nutrition based programme (experimental arm) or standard care (control arm) for 8 weeks. Endpoints included feasibility, quality of life, physical activity (step count), and body weight. Qualitative and health economic analyses were also included. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were recruited (23 experimental arm, 22 control arm). There were 26 men (58%), and the median age was 78 years (IQR 69-84). At baseline, the median BMI was 26 kg/m2 (IQR: 22-29), and median weight loss in the previous 6 months was 5% (IQR: -12% to 0%). Adherence to the experimental arm was >80% in 16/21 (76%) patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the following between trial arms: step count - median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental -18.5% [IQR: -61 to 65], control 5% [IQR: -32 to 50], P = 0.548); weight - median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental 1%[IQR: -3 to 3], control -0.5% [IQR: -3 to 1], P = 0.184); overall quality of life - median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental 0% [IQR: -20 to 19], control 0% [IQR: -23 to 33], P = 0.846). Qualitative findings observed themes of capability, opportunity, and motivation amongst patients in the experimental arm. The mean incremental cost of the experimental arm versus control was £-319.51 [CI -7593.53 to 6581.91], suggesting the experimental arm was less costly. CONCLUSIONS: An exercise and nutritional rehabilitation intervention is feasible and has potential benefits for people with incurable cancer. A larger trial is now warranted to test the efficacy of this approach.

CPR decision-making conversations in the UK: an integrative review.

OBJECTIVES: Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) discussions with patients and their caregivers have been subjected to intense ethical and legal debate in recent years. Legal cases and national guidelines have tried to clarify the best approach to DNACPR discussions; however, there is little evidence of how best to approach them from the patient, family or caregiver perspective. This paper describes published accounts of patient, family and caregiver experiences of discussions about advance cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decision making. METHODS: An integrative review of the UK literature between 2000 and 2016 including qualitative and quantitative studies was conducted. Worldwide, 773 abstracts were identified, and 20 papers from the UK were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Patient, family and caregivers prefer discussions to be initiated by someone trusted, and wishes for family involvement vary depending on the context. Timing of discussions should be individualised, though discussions earlier in the illness are often preferable. Discussions held in the acute setting are suboptimal. CPR decisions should be part of a wider discussion about future care and adequate communication skills training is important. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review are at odds with the current statutory framework and potentially challenging for medical professionals who are working in a stretched health service, with pressure to discuss DNACPR decisions at the earliest opportunity. With increasing focus on person-centred care and realistic medicine, patient narratives must be considered by doctors and policy makers alike, to minimise harm.