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.

A prospective study examining cachexia predictors in patients with incurable cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early intervention against cachexia necessitates a predictive model. The aims of this study were to identify predictors of cachexia development and to create and evaluate accuracy of a predictive model based on these predictors. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a prospective, observational, multicentre study was conducted. Patients, who attended a palliative care programme, had incurable cancer and did not have cachexia at baseline, were amenable to the analysis. Cachexia was defined as weight loss (WL) > 5% (6 months) or WL > 2% and body mass index< 20 kg/m2. Clinical and demographic markers were evaluated as possible predictors with Cox analysis. A classification and regression tree analysis was used to create a model based on optimal combinations and cut-offs of significant predictors for cachexia development, and accuracy was evaluated with a calibration plot, Harrell's c-statistic and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Six-hundred-twenty-eight patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 65 years (IQR 17), 359(57%) were female and median Karnofsky performance status was 70(IQR 10). Median follow-up was 109 days (IQR 108), and 159 (25%) patients developed cachexia. Initial WL, cancer type, appetite and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were significant predictors (p ≤ 0.04). A five-level model was created with each level carrying an increasing risk of cachexia development. For Risk-level 1-patients (WL < 3%, breast or hematologic cancer and no or little appetite loss), median time to cachexia development was not reached, while Risk-level 5-patients (WL 3-5%) had a median time to cachexia development of 51 days. Accuracy of cachexia predictions at 3 months was 76%. CONCLUSION: Important predictors of cachexia have been identified and used to construct a predictive model of cancer cachexia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01362816 .

Measurement of health-related quality of life during chemotherapy - the importance of timing.

BACKGROUND: Side effects of chemotherapy may occur at different time-points in the treatment cycle, and the exact assessment time relative to chemotherapy may affect HRQoL scores. The current study examined the variation of HRQoL during chemotherapy cycles, and whether differences in HRQoL scores varied at selected time-points between patients allocated to two different chemotherapy regimens. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive three cycles of carboplatin plus vinorelbine (VC) or gemcitabine (GC) every 3 weeks. HRQoL was reported on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 on days 1, 4, 8, 11 and 15 of every cycle. Global health status, nausea/vomiting, fatigue and dyspnea (LC13) were defined as the HRQoL scales of primary interest. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled. Variation of mean scores of global health status, nausea/vomiting and fatigue showed a consistent pattern during chemotherapy. Day 4 appeared to be the time-point when chemotherapy influenced HRQoL the most. The differences in mean HRQoL scores between the two treatment arms varied at the different time-points, especially for nausea/vomiting. CONCLUSION: There was a clinically relevant variation of HRQoL during chemotherapy cycles, with increased symptom burden the first week following treatment. Our results suggest that timing of HRQoL assessment can influence the chances of detecting differences between the treatment regimens.

Weight loss, appetite loss and food intake in cancer patients with cancer cachexia: three peas in a pod? - analysis from a multicenter cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: How to assess cachexia is a barrier both in research and in clinical practice. This study examines the need for assessing both reduced food intake and loss of appetite, to see if these variables can be used interchangeably. A secondary aim is to assess the variance explained by food intake, appetite and weight loss by using tumor-related factors, symptoms and biological markers as explanatory variables. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One thousand and seventy patients with incurable cancer were registered in an observational, cross sectional multicenter study. A total of 885 patients that had complete data on food intake (PG-SGA), appetite (EORTC QLQ-C30) and weight loss were included in the present analysis. The association between reduced food intake and appetite loss was assessed using Spearman's correlation. To find the explained variance of the three symptoms a multivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean age was 62 years with a mean survival of 247 days and a mean Karnofsky performance status of 72. Thirteen percent of the patients who reported eating less than normal had good appetite and 25% who had unchanged or increased food intake had reduced appetite. Correlation between appetite loss and food intake was 0.50. Explained variance for the regression models was 44% for appetite loss, 27% for food intake and only 13% for weight loss. CONCLUSION: Both appetite loss and food intake should be assessed in cachectic patients since conscious control of eating may sometimes overcome appetite loss. The low explained variance for weight loss is probably caused by the need for more knowledge about metabolism and inflammation, and is consistent with the cancer cachexia definition that claims that in cachexia weight loss is not caused by reduced food intake alone. The questions concerning appetite loss from EORTC-QLQ C30 and food intake from PG-SGA seem practical and informative when dealing with advanced cancer patients.

Do older patients with colorectal cancer experience more deterioration in health-related quality of life than younger patients during the first year of palliative chemotherapy? A prospective real-world observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim was to evaluate changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a real-life population among younger (< 70 years) and older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) during the first year of palliative chemotherapy. The secondary aims were to assess the impact of chemo-break on HRQoL and to report overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed mCRC, ≥ 18 years, and scheduled for first line palliative chemotherapy were included in this multicentre longitudinal observational study. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (0-100) was filled in at baseline and every second month. Changes or differences in QoL scores of >20, 10-20, and 5-10 points were considered to be of large, moderate, and small clinical magnitude, respectively. Comparing means of different QoL scores between groups or over time, a threshold of 5-10 was considered the minimally important difference (MID). Treatments, patient characteristics, and tumour characteristics were prospectively registered. RESULTS: A total of 214 patients were included, and 146 were alive after one year. Four months after start of treatment, large deteriorations in fatigue and physical functioning were reported by 40% and 25% of the patients, respectively. Changes in global QoL, physical functioning, role functioning, fatigue, pain, and nausea/vomiting were not significantly different between the age groups and reached baseline levels after one year. Patients on chemo-break reported significant improvements in several HRQoL domains. Median OS was 17.5 months [95% confidence interval 14.4-20.5] with no difference between younger and older patients. DISCUSSION: Older patients did not experience more deterioration in HRQoL than younger patients during the first year of palliative chemotherapy. Measures to mitigate the deteriorations in fatigue and physical functioning observed during the first months of palliative treatment are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02395224, March 23, 2015, retrospectively registered.

Validity of dietary intake methods in cancer cachexia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Accurate assessment of dietary intake, especially energy and protein intake, is crucial for optimizing nutritional care and outcomes in patients with cancer. Validation of dietary assessment methods is necessary to ensure accuracy, but the validity of these methods in patients with cancer, and especially in those with cancer cachexia, is uncertain. Validating nutritional intake is complex because of the variety of dietary methods, lack of a gold standard method, and diverse validation measures. Here, we review the literature on validations of dietary intake methods in patients with cancer, including those with cachexia, and highlight the gap between current validation efforts and the need for accurate dietary assessment methods in this population. RECENT FINDINGS: We analyzed 8 studies involving 1479 patients with cancer to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of 24-hour recalls, food records, and food frequency questionnaires in estimating energy and protein intake. We discuss validation methods, including comparison with biomarkers, indirect calorimetry, and relative validation of dietary intake methods. SUMMARY: Few have validated dietary intake methods against objective markers in patients with cancer. While food records and 24-hour recalls show potential accuracy for energy and protein intake, this may be compromised in hypermetabolic patients. Additionally, under- and overreporting of intake may be less frequent, and the reliability of urinary nitrogen as a protein intake marker in patients with cachexia needs further investigation. Accurate dietary assessment is important for enhancing nutritional care outcomes in cachexia trials, requiring validation at multiple time points throughout the cancer trajectory.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory treatment in cancer cachexia: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: There are no established treatments for cachexia. Recently it has been suggested that the evidence for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) treatment is sufficient to support its regular clinical use. Primary objective in this systematic review was to assess efficacy and safety of NSAID treatment in improving body weight and muscle mass in patients with cancer cachexia. Secondary objectives were to assess whether this treatment could improve other cachexia domains such as anorexia and food intake, catabolic drive and function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central register of controlled trials database was carried out using both text words and MeSH/EMTREE terms. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included; all but two trials showed either improvement or stabilization in weight or lean body mass. Seven studies were without a comparator. Studies are generally small and a few are methodologically flawed, often due to multiple outcomes with excess risk of false positives. CONCLUSION: NSAIDs may improve weight in cancer patients with cachexia, and there is some evidence on effect on physical performance, self-reported quality of life and inflammatory parameters. Evidence is too frail to recommend NSAID for cachexia outside clinical trials. This is supported by the known side effects of NSAIDs, even though the reviewed literature report almost negligible toxicity.

Cannabinoids in the treatment of cancer anorexia and cachexia: Where have we been, where are we going?

Cachexia-anorexia cancer syndrome remains an unmet clinical need with a dearth of treatment and no standard of care. Acting through the endocannabinoid system, cannabinoids are one potential cancer cachexia treatment. Herein, the potential mechanisms for cannabinoids for cancer cachexia are discussed as are previous and ongoing clinical trials.

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.

Parenteral Nutrition in Advanced Cancer: The Healthcare Providers' Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence base for parenteral nutrition (PN) in advanced cancer patients is limited. We studied healthcare providers' (HCPs') experiences with PN in cancer patients, focusing on perceived treatment benefits and challenges. METHODS: An 18-item online survey was emailed to HCPs attending one of three regional palliative care seminars held within a 6-month period. The survey included single-response items, multiple-response items, and free text boxes concerning PN. Descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic content analysis were applied. RESULTS: One hundred and two seminar participants completed the survey. Ninety-three percent were female, 86% were nurses/oncological nurses, and 80% worked in primary care. Respondents reported a well-functioning collaboration across levels of care. They perceived that PN may increase the patients' level of energy, improve the general condition, and reduce eating-related distress. On the downside, HCPs observed burdensome side effects, that the treatment was resource-demanding, and that decisions on PN withdrawal were difficult. CONCLUSION: The study results are based on the perspectives of more than 100 HCPs with comprehensive clinical experience with PN. Their knowledge represents an important experience base for improvement of healthcare services and advanced care planning.

Diagnostic Value of 18 F-FACBC PET/MRI in Brain Metastases.

PURPOSE: The study aims to evaluate whether combined 18 F-FACBC PET/MRI could provide additional diagnostic information compared with MRI alone in brain metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients with newly diagnosed or suspected recurrence of brain metastases received dynamic 18 F-FACBC PET/MRI. Lesion detection was evaluated on PET and MRI scans in 2 groups depending on prior stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS group) or not (no-SRS group). SUVs, time-activity curves, and volumetric analyses of the lesions were performed. RESULTS: In the no-SRS group, 29/29 brain lesions were defined as "MRI positive." With PET, 19/29 lesions were detected and had high tumor-to-background ratios (TBRs) (D max MR , ≥7 mm; SUV max , 1.2-8.4; TBR, 3.9-25.9), whereas 10/29 lesions were undetected (D max MR , ≤8 mm; SUV max , 0.3-1.2; TBR, 1.0-2.7). In the SRS group, 4/6 lesions were defined as "MRI positive," whereas 2/6 lesions were defined as "MRI negative" indicative of radiation necrosis. All 6 lesions were detected with PET (D max MR , ≥15 mm; SUV max , 1.4-4.2; TBR, 3.6-12.6). PET volumes correlated and were comparable in size with contrast-enhanced MRI volumes but were only partially congruent (mean DSC, 0.66). All time-activity curves had an early peak, followed by a plateau or a decreasing slope. CONCLUSIONS: 18 F-FACBC PET demonstrated uptake in brain metastases from cancer of different origins (lung, gastrointestinal tract, breast, thyroid, and malignant melanoma). However, 18 F-FACBC PET/MRI did not improve detection of brain metastases compared with MRI but might detect tumor tissue beyond contrast enhancement on MRI. 18 F-FACBC PET should be further evaluated in recurrent brain metastases.

18F-FACBC PET/MRI in the evaluation of human brain metastases: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic cancer to the brain have a poor prognosis. In clinical practice, MRI is used to delineate, diagnose and plan treatment of brain metastases. However, MRI alone is limited in detecting micro-metastases, delineating lesions and discriminating progression from pseudo-progression. Combined PET/MRI utilises superior soft tissue images from MRI and metabolic data from PET to evaluate tumour structure and function. The amino acid PET tracer 18F-FACBC has shown promising results in discriminating high- and low-grade gliomas, but there are currently no reports on its use on brain metastases. This is the first study to evaluate the use of 18F-FACBC on brain metastases. CASE PRESENTATION: A middle-aged female patient with brain metastases was evaluated using hybrid PET/MRI with 18F-FACBC before and after stereotactic radiotherapy, and at suspicion of recurrence. Static/dynamic PET and contrast-enhanced T1 MRI data were acquired and analysed. This case report includes the analysis of four 18F-FACBC PET/MRI examinations, investigating their utility in evaluating functional and structural metastasis properties. CONCLUSION: Analysis showed high tumour-to-background ratios in brain metastases compared to other amino acid PET tracers, including high uptake in a very small cerebellar metastasis, suggesting that 18F-FACBC PET can provide early detection of otherwise overlooked metastases. Further studies to determine a threshold for 18F-FACBC brain tumour boundaries and explore its utility in clinical practice should be performed.

ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical Nutrition in cancer.

BACKGROUND: This practical guideline is based on the current scientific ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. METHODS: ESPEN guidelines have been shortened and transformed into flow charts for easier use in clinical practice. The practical guideline is dedicated to all professionals including physicians, dieticians, nutritionists and nurses working with patients with cancer. RESULTS: A total of 43 recommendations are presented with short commentaries for the nutritional and metabolic management of patients with neoplastic diseases. The disease-related recommendations are preceded by general recommendations on the diagnostics of nutritional status in cancer patients. CONCLUSION: This practical guideline gives guidance to health care providers involved in the management of cancer patients to offer optimal nutritional care.

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.

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.