Effectiveness of central parenteral nutrition versus peripheral parenteral nutrition plus enteral nutrition in reversing protein-energy malnutrition in children with advanced neuroblastoma and Wilms' tumor: a prospective randomized study.

The effectiveness of central parenteral nutrition (CPN) versus peripheral parenteral nutrition (PPN) plus enteral nutrition in reversing protein-energy malnutrition was evaluated in 19 children (nine CPN, 10 PPN) with advanced neuroblastoma or Wilms' tumor. Weekly dietary, anthropometric, and biochemical measurements were compared for 15 patients (eight CPN, seven PPN) who completed more than 25 days of nutrition support. The groups had similar mean energy and protein intakes (CPN: 95 +/- 5% of healthy children, 2.5 +/- 0.3 g/kg; PPN: 102 +/- 5% of healthy children, 2.9 +/- 0.3 g/kg). Increases in weight (p less than 0.001), subscapular skinfold thickness (p less than 0.001), albumin (p less than 0.05), and transferrin (p less than 0.05) for the first 28 days were significant and did not differ between groups. Fever, sepsis, elevated SGOT, and severe anemia occurred with both CPN and PPN. PPN resulted in subcutaneous infiltrations and more psychological trauma. PPN with enteral nutrition seems most appropriate for short term intravenous nutrition support or as a temporary substitute for CPN; CPN is preferred for long-term support.

Effectiveness of two methods of parenteral nutrition support in improving muscle mass of children with neuroblastoma or Wilms' tumor. A randomized study.

The short-term and long-term effectiveness of central parenteral nutrition (CPN) versus peripheral parenteral nutrition (PPN) in improving muscle mass (arm muscle area [AMA]) was evaluated for 24 malnourished children with newly diagnosed Stage IV neuroblastoma (n = 14) or Stages II-V Wilms' tumor (n = 10). Patients were randomized to either CPN or PPN plus enteral nutrition (EN: intense nutrition counseling, oral foods, and supplements) for 4 weeks followed by EN until week 10. Oncologic treatment was similar for each tumor type. Dietary, anthropometric, and biochemical measurements were obtained at weeks 0, 4, and 10. During weeks 1 through 4, energy (CPN: means 100 +/- 4; PPN: means 96 +/- 4% of healthy children) and protein (CPN: means 2.5 +/- 0.1; PPN means 2.7 +/- 0.2 g/kg) intakes of the two groups did not differ. The AMA increased (P less than 0.05) with 4 weeks of CPN but not with PPN; changes thereafter with EN were not significant. Weight (P less than 0.05) and triceps skinfolds (P less than 0.01) increased with 4 weeks of PN in both groups and decreased with EN thereafter (P less than 0.01) but were higher at week 10 than diagnosis. Increases in albumin in both groups reached significance at week 10 (P less than 0.05). These data show that CPN improves AMA in malnourished children with neuroblastoma or Wilms' tumor when energy and protein intakes are adequate. The AMA gains can be maintained thereafter with EN.

Integration of nutrition support into oncologic treatment protocols for high and low nutritional risk children with Wilms' tumor. A prospective randomized study.

Benefits and risks of nutrition support were evaluated in 31 malnourished children with newly diagnosed Wilms' tumor managed according to the third National Wilms' Tumor Study protocol. Patients were classified at diagnosis as being at high nutritional risk (HNR, n = 19) or low nutritional risk (LNR, n = 12). Ten HNR patients were randomized to central parenteral nutrition (CPN) and nine HNR patients were randomized to peripheral parenteral nutrition (PPN) plus enteral nutrition (EN) for 4 weeks of initial intense treatment and EN (nutritional counseling, oral foods and supplements) thereafter. Thirteen HNR patients (seven CPN, six PPN) completed the protocol. Twelve LNR patients received EN; 11 Stage I malnourished patients were randomized to 10 or 26 weeks of chemotherapy. Dietary, anthropometric, and biochemical data were determined for HNR patients at weeks 0-4, 6, 13, 19, and 26 and for LNR patients at weeks 1, 2, 5, and 26. In HNR patients, adequate parenteral nutrition support reversed protein energy malnutrition (PEM), and prevented chemotherapy and radiotherapy delays due to granulocytopenia. CPN was superior to PPN in reversing PEM: energy intake, weight gain, and retinol binding protein were higher (P less than 0.05). LNR patients lost weight and fat reserves in the first 2 weeks of treatment; depletion persisted at week 5, and 25% had chemotherapy delays. Thereafter, EN reversed PEM in patients with both chemotherapy regimens. These data suggest that CPN is preferable during initial intense treatment for HNR patients, and that, although EN is ineffective in preventing depletion and treatment delays in the first 5 weeks of treatment for LNR patients, it is effective thereafter.

Short- and long-term effectiveness of enteral and parenteral nutrition in reversing or preventing protein-energy malnutrition in advanced neuroblastoma. A prospective randomized study.

The effectiveness of enteral and parenteral nutrition regimens in preventing or reversing protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) and in preventing treatment delays was evaluated in 32 children receiving treatment for newly diagnosed Stage III (3 patients) and IV (29 patients) neuroblastoma. Ten of 18 malnourished patients were randomized to central parenteral nutrition (CPN) and 8 to peripheral parenteral nutrition (PPN) plus enteral nutrition for 4 weeks and then received enteral nutrition (EN: intense nutrition counselling, oral foods and supplements) for weeks 5 through 10. Ten of 14 nourished patients received EN and 4 CPN for 4 weeks and EN thereafter. Dietary, anthropometric and biochemical measurements were determined for weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10 for 24 patients who completed the protocols. In malnourished patients, both CPN (seven patients) and PPN (seven patients) were effective in reversing PEM in the first 4 weeks; thereafter, EN effectively maintained nutritional gains in both groups. In nourished patients, EN (seven patients) was not as effective as CPN (three patients) in preventing PEM during the first 4 weeks; afterwards, EN maintained gains in the CPN group but did not promote needed increases in weight nor fat reserves in the EN group. Patients supported by parenteral nutrition (PN, weeks 1-4) had fewer treatment delays (2/17, 12%) than EN patients (4/7, 57%, P less than 0.05). These data indicate that PN reverses or prevents PEM and prevents treatment delays during the first 4 weeks of intense oncologic treatment and provides nutritional benefits which can be maintained with EN thereafter.