Cancer-related malnutrition management: A survey among Italian Oncology Units and Patients' Associations.

Attitudes toward cancer-related malnutrition vary considerably among oncologists and nutritional support is often not handled according to the available guidelines. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Society of Artificial Nutrition and Metabolism (SINPE), Italian Federation of Volunteer-based Cancer Organizations (FAVO), and Fondazione AIOM Working Group conducted a national web-based survey addressed to all Italian Oncology Units referees and Italian Cancer Patients Associations. The aim was to investigate the current management of malnutrition and views on nutritional care among oncologists and patients. One hundred and seventy-one (51.6%) of the 331 registered Italian Oncology Units and 75 (38.5%) of the 195 FAVO local communities participated in the survey. Nutritional assessment and support were integrated into patient care from diagnosis for 35% of Oncology Unit referees and 15% of FAVO associates. According to 42% of oncologists, nutritional assessment was carried out only after patients requested it, while it was not performed at all for 45% of FAVO associates. Almost 60% of patient affiliates were not aware of clinical referrals for home artificial nutrition management. However, for almost all responders, the evaluation of nutritional status was considered crucial in predicting tolerance to anticancer treatment. Although malnutrition was considered a limiting factor in oncology treatments by both oncologists and patients, nutritional care practices still appear largely inappropriate. Attitudes differ between oncologists and patients, the latter reporting a more dissatisfied picture. Improving nutritional care in oncology remains a challenging task.

Nutritional Therapy in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemoradiotherapy: Should We Need Stronger Recommendations to Act for Improving Outcomes?

One of the challenges during chemotherapy and radiotherapy is to complete the planned cycles and doses without dose-limiting toxicity. Growing evidence clearly demonstrates the relationship between dose-limiting toxicity and low muscle mass. Moreover, malnutrition leads to low performance status, impaired quality of life, unplanned hospital admissions, and reduced survival. In the past, the lack of clear and authoritative recommendations and guidelines has meant that oncologists have not always fully appreciated the importance of nutritional therapy in patients receiving anticancer treatments. Therefore, collaboration between oncologists and clinical nutrition specialists needs to be urgently improved. Recent guidelines from scientific societies and practical recommendations by inter-society consensus documents can be summarized as follows: 1) timely nutritional therapy should be carefully considered if patients undergoing anticancer treatments are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition due to inadequate oral intake; 2) if oral intake is inadequate despite counseling and oral nutritional supplements, supplemental enteral nutrition or, if this is not sufficient or feasible, parenteral nutrition should be considered; 3) home artificial nutrition should be prescribed and regularly monitored using defined protocols developed between oncologists and clinical nutrition specialists; 4) appropriate nutritional management in the context of simultaneous care should become a guaranteed right for all patients with cancer. The purpose of this review is to provide oncologists with an overview of the aims and current evidence about nutrition in oncology, together with updated practical and concise recommendations on the application of nutritional therapy in cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy.

Awareness and consideration of malnutrition among oncologists: Insights from an exploratory survey.

OBJECTIVES: The attitude toward malnutrition varies considerably among oncologists and many malnourished cancer patients receive inadequate nutritional support. The aim of this brief report was to report the results of the exploratory national survey conducted by the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM) and the Italian Society of Artificial Nutrition and Metabolism (SINPE) before publication of a consensus document aimed at evaluating current attitudes toward malnutrition and management of nutrition, among Italian medical oncologists. METHODS: Between January and July 2015, the AIOM and the SINPE conducted a national web-based exploratory survey to investigate the attitude of oncologists toward malnutrition, and the management of nutritional support, before publication of an intersociety consensus document. RESULTS: Of the 2375 AIOM members, 135 (5.7%) participated in the survey, with a satisfactory distribution across all Italian regions. Nutritional assessment and support were routinely integrated into patient care for 38 (28%) responders. According to 66 (49%) participants, nutritional assessment was carried out only at the patients' request (n = 62), or not at all (n = 4). Availability of clinical nutritionists was reported by 88 (65%) participants. For 131 responders (97%), nutritional status was decisive (n = 63) or often crucial (n = 68) in assessing whether anticancer treatment was practicable or would be tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The low response rate may reflect the lack of awareness and consideration of nutritional issues among Italian oncologists. Although malnutrition and nutritional support seemed to be perceived by the responders as relevant factors for the efficacy of oncologic treatments, it seems that nutritional care practices may well be inappropriate. The lack of collaboration between oncologists and clinical nutritionists may be the first obstacle to overcome. Educational intersociety initiatives aimed at improving nutritional support management for cancer patients in Italy appear urgently needed.

Chemotherapy-induced anemia and oncologist perception on treatment: results of a web-based survey.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Anemia prevalence and incidence in chemotherapy-treated patients is high. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are frequently employed in the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia. However, other treatments such as red blood transfusion or iron supplementation are normally used. Recent international guidelines raised some concern about ESAs employment with a possible impact in chemotherapy-induced anemia management and changes in clinical practice behavior. METHODS: To evaluate opinions about chemotherapy-induced anemia clinical management preference, the Associazione Italiana Oncologia Medica (AIOM) Lombardy section coordinators sent via email a 12-item questionnaire about their knowledge on CIA and usual therapeutic strategies to manage this adverse event to AIOM Lombardy onco-hematologist members. RESULTS: From January 2011 to March 2011, 81 questionnaires were collected with an approximated share of 30%. The survey was completed mainly by oncologists (91%) aged 35-50 years (50%). Chemotherapy-induced anemia was considered to have clinical impact in changing cancer therapeutic strategy by nearly 60% of the respondents. ESAs were administered largely (80%) with concomitant iron supplementation in 52%; 38% jointly used blood transfusion as part of the therapy. Nearly 20% of those who replied correctly employed transferrin saturation levels as a marker to guide iron supplementation. Physician prescribers strictly followed the guidelines to start and stop ESAs even if 14% were negatively influenced by new ASCO recommendations. ESA biosimilars were considered future substitutes of originators in 45% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy-induced anemia was perceived as an adverse event with a mild impact on clinical practice. ESAs were largely employed, however the number of transfusions and lack of employment of markers of iron depletion suggested that adherence to guidelines could be theoretically met but with some discordances regarding the most appropriate strategies in daily clinical practice.

Randomised phase II trial (NCT00637975) evaluating activity and toxicity of two different escalating strategies for pregabalin and oxycodone combination therapy for neuropathic pain in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Neuropathic pain is commonly associated with cancer. Current treatments include combination opioid and adjuvant therapies, but no guidelines are available for dose escalation strategies. This phase II study compared the efficacy and tolerability of two dose escalation strategies for oxycodone and pregabalin combination therapy. METHODS: Patients (N = 75) with oncological neuropathic pain, previously untreated with pregabalin, were recruited in 5 Italian institutions between 2007 and 2010. Patients were randomised to two different dose escalation strategies (arm A; N = 38) oxycodone at a fixed dose with increasing pregabalin doses; (arm B; N = 37) pregabalin at a fixed dose with increasing oxycodone doses. Patients were evaluated from daily diaries and follow-ups at 3, 7, 10, and 14 days after beginning treatment with a numerical rating scale (NRS), neuropathic pain scale (SDN), and well-being scale (ESAS). The primary endpoint was a ≥1/3 reduction in pain (NRS); secondary endpoints included the time to analgesia and adverse effects. The study had a 90% probability of detecting the best strategy for a true difference of at least 15%. RESULTS: More patients in arm A (76%) than arm B (64%) achieved ≥1/3 overall pain reduction even after controlling for baseline factors (gender, baseline pain). Group A reported fewer side effects than group B; constipation 52.8% vs. 66.7%; nausea: 27.8% vs. 44.4%; drowsiness: 44.4% vs. 55.6%; confusion: 16.7% vs. 27.8%; itching: 8.3% vs. 19.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Both strategies effectively controlled neuropathic pain, but according to the adopted selection design arm A is preferable to arm B for pain control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00637975.