Preoperative nutrition therapy in people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Poor preoperative nutritional status has been consistently linked to an increase in postoperative complications and worse surgical outcomes. We updated a review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preoperative nutritional therapy compared to usual care in people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trial registries on 28 March 2023. We searched reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery and receiving preoperative nutritional therapy, including parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition or oral nutrition supplements, compared to usual care. We only included nutritional therapy that contained macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate and fat) and micronutrients, and excluded studies that evaluated single nutrients. We included studies regardless of the nutritional status of participants, that is, well-nourished participants, participants at risk of malnutrition, or mixed populations. We excluded studies in people undergoing pancreatic and liver surgery. Our primary outcomes were non-infectious complications, infectious complications and length of hospital stay. Our secondary outcomes were nutritional aspects, quality of life, change in macronutrient intake, biochemical parameters, 30-day perioperative mortality and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 1 tool and applied the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs reporting 19 comparisons (2164 participants). Seven studies were new for this update. Participants' ages ranged from 21 to 79 years, and 62% were men. Three RCTs used parenteral nutrition, two used enteral nutrition, eight used immune-enhancing nutrition and six used standard oral nutrition supplements. All studies included mixed groups of well-nourished and malnourished participants; they used different methods to identify malnutrition and reported this in different ways. Not all the included studies were conducted within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme, which is now current clinical practice in most hospitals undertaking GI surgery. We were concerned about risk of bias in all the studies and 14 studies were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. We are uncertain if parenteral nutrition has any effect on the number of participants who had a non-infectious complication (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.02; 3 RCTs, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence); infectious complication (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.80; 3 RCTs, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 5.49 days, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.96; 2 RCTs, 135 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the enteral nutrition studies reported non-infectious complications as an outcome. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of enteral nutrition on the number of participants with infectious complications after surgery (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; 2 RCTs, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 5.10 days, 95% CI -1.03 to 11.23; 2 RCTs, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Immune-enhancing nutrition compared to controls may result in little to no effect on the number of participants experiencing a non-infectious complication (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.00; 8 RCTs, 1020 participants; low-certainty evidence), infectious complications (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.04; 7 RCTs, 925 participants; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD -1.22 days, 95% CI -2.80 to 0.35; 6 RCTs, 688 participants; low-certainty evidence). Standard oral nutrition supplements may result in little to no effect on number of participants with a non-infectious complication (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 5 RCTs, 473 participants; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD -0.65 days, 95% CI -2.33 to 1.03; 3 RCTs, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral nutrition supplements on the number of participants with an infectious complication (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.27; 5 RCTs, 473 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis based on malnourished and weight-losing participants found oral nutrition supplements may result in a slight reduction in infections (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 184 participants). Studies reported some secondary outcomes, but not consistently. Complications associated with central venous catheters occurred in RCTs involving parenteral nutrition. Adverse events in the enteral nutrition, immune-enhancing nutrition and standard oral nutrition supplements RCTs included nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to determine if parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, immune-enhancing nutrition or standard oral nutrition supplements have any effect on the clinical outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence. There is some evidence that standard oral nutrition supplements may have no effect on complications. Sensitivity analysis showed standard oral nutrition supplements probably reduced infections in weight-losing or malnourished participants. Further high-quality multicentre research considering the ERAS programme is required and further research in low- and middle-income countries is needed.

Investigating the Relationship between Home Parenteral Support and Needs-Based Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Intestinal Failure: A National Multi-Centre Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Home parenteral support (HPS) is an essential but potentially burdensome treatment that can affect quality of life (QoL). The aims of this longitudinal study were to understand whether any changes in HPS over time were associated with QoL. The Parenteral Nutrition Impact Questionnaire (PNIQ) was used, and data were collected on HPS prescribed at three time points. Data were analysed using multi-level mixed regression models presented as effect size and were adjusted for confounders. Study recruited 572 participants from 15 sites. Of these, 201 and 145 completed surveys at second and third time-points, respectively. PNIQ score was out of 20 with a higher score indicating poorer QoL. Any reduction in HPS infusions per week was associated with an improved PNIQ score of -1.10 (95% CI -2.17, -0.02) unadjusted and -1.34 (95% CI -2.45, -0.24) adjusted. Per day change to the number of infusions per week was associated with a change in the PNIQ score of 0.32 (95% CI -0.15, 0.80) unadjusted and 0.34 (95% CI -0.17, 0.85) adjusted. This is the largest national study to demonstrate improvements in QoL associated with HPS reduction over time using an HPS-specific and patient-centric tool, adding unique data for use of therapies in intestinal failure.

Patients, family members and healthcare professionals' top ten research priorities for adults receiving home parenteral nutrition for malignant or benign disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is the primary treatment for chronic intestinal failure (CIF) due to non-malignant disease and is increasingly used in patients with a diagnosis of cancer. This project engaged with patients, family members and healthcare professionals to ascertain what questions they want researched. METHODS: This study followed the five-stage process of the James Lind Alliance that involved (1) setting up a steering group, (2) carrying out an initial survey to gather participants' questions, (3) data processing, (4) an interim priority setting survey and (5) final priority setting workshop. Surveys were translated and back translated into Italian, Danish and French. RESULTS: The project was delivered by an international steering committee with representation from Denmark, Italy, the United Kingdom and United States consisting of three patients, six healthcare professionals and facilitated by University researchers. For the first survey, 633 questions were submitted by 292 respondents from 12 countries. There were 79 questions removed as out of scope or already in the published literature. Responses were collated into two interim surveys of 41 questions for benign CIF and 13 questions for HPN and cancer. In the second survey, 216 respondents prioritised their top ten questions. The ordering from the cancer and HPN survey was taken as definitive; top priorities were quality of life, survival, when to commence HPN, using HPN with anti-cancer treatments, access barriers, measuring benefit and ethical implications. For CIF with benign disease, 18 questions were discussed in two workshops attended by 13 patients and 7 healthcare professionals. The questions were ranked using a modified nominal group technique; the top research priorities were prevention and treatment of liver disease, improving central infusion lines, oral absorption, avoiding long-term negative consequences, vascular access, side effects, line infections, decreasing stoma output, quality of life and sleep. CONCLUSIONS: Priorities identified will assist researchers to focus on research questions important to patients, family members and healthcare professionals.

Do people change their eating habits after a diagnosis of cancer? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People who live with and beyond cancer are considered to be motivated to change their diet. However, there is a lack of reviews conducted on what specific dietary changes people make and further evaluation may inform future interventional studies. Hence, we aim to summarise the evidence on dietary changes in observational studies before and after a cancer diagnosis. METHODS: This systematic review followed the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Electronic searches were conducted in four databases to identify cohort and cross-sectional studies on dietary changes before and after a cancer diagnosis, excluding studies that evaluated an intervention. Quality assessment was undertaken, and meta-analyses were conducted where suitable. RESULTS: We identified 14 studies with 16,443 participants diagnosed with cancer, with age range 18-75 years. Dietary change was assessed <1-5 years before diagnosis and up to 12 years post-diagnosis. Meta-analyses showed that the standard mean difference (SMD) for energy (SMD-0.32, 95% confidence interval = -0.46 to -0.17) and carbohydrate consumption (SMD 0.20, 95% confidence interval = -0.27 to -0.14). Studies showed inconsistent findings for fat, protein and fibre, most food groups, and supplement intake. A small decrease in red and processed meat consumption was consistently reported. CONCLUSIONS: All studies reported some positive changes in dietary intake and supplement consumption after receiving a cancer diagnosis without any intervention. However, differences for food groups and nutrients were mainly small and not necessarily clinically meaningful. Evidence demonstrates that a cancer diagnosis alone is insufficient to motivate people to change their dietary intake, indicating that most people would benefit from a dietary intervention to facilitate change.

Prevalence of Undernutrition, Frailty and Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling People Aged 50 Years and Above: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The world's population aged ≥65 is expected to rise from one in eleven in 2019 to one in six by 2050. People aged ≥65 are at a risk of undernutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia. The association between these conditions is investigated in a hospital setting. However, there is little understanding about the overlap and adverse health outcomes of these conditions in community-dwelling people. This systematic review aims to quantify the reported prevalence and incidence of undernutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia among older people aged ≥50 living in community dwellings. Searches were conducted using six databases (AMED, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL), and 37 studies were included. Meta-analyses produced weighted combined estimates of prevalence for each condition (Metaprop, Stata V16/MP). The combined undernutrition prevalence was 17% (95% CI 0.01, 0.46, studies n = 5; participants = 4214), frailty was 13% (95% CI 0.11, 0.17 studies n = 28; participants = 95,036), and sarcopenia was 14% (95% CI 0.09, 0.20, studies n = 9; participants = 7656). Four studies reported incidence rates, of which three included data on frailty. Nearly one in five of those aged ≥50 was considered either undernourished, frail, or sarcopenic, with a higher occurrence in women, which may reflect a longer life expectancy generally observed in females. Few studies measured incidence rates. Further work is required to understand population characteristics with these conditions and the overlap between them. PROSPERO registration No. CRD42019153806.

A Qualitative Exploration of Nutrition Screening, Assessment and Oral Support Used in Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Preoperative undernutrition is a prognostic indicator for postoperative mortality and morbidity. Evidence suggests that treating undernutrition can improve surgical outcomes. This study explored the provision of nutritional screening, assessment and support on surgical cancer wards in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This was a qualitative study and participants took part in one focus group or one individual interview. Data were analysed thematically. There were 34 participants from Ghana, India, the Philippines and Zambia: 24 healthcare professionals (HCPs) and 10 patients. Results showed that knowledge levels and enthusiasm were high in HCPs. Barriers to adequate nutritional support were a lack of provision of ward and kitchen equipment, food and sustainable nutritional supplements. There was variation across countries towards nutritional screening and assessment which seemed to be driven by resources. Many hospitals where resources were scarce focused on the care of individual patients in favour of an integrated systems approach to identify and manage undernutrition. In conclusion, there is scope to improve the efficiency of nutritional management of surgical cancer patients in LMICs through the integration of nutrition assessment and support into routine hospital policies and procedures, moving from case management undertaken by interested personnel to a system-based approach including the whole multidisciplinary team.

Impact of home parenteral nutrition on family members: A national multi-centre cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is a necessary treatment for patients with chronic, type 3, intestinal failure (IF). HPN often requires lifestyle adaptations, which are likely to affect quality of life (QoL) in both patients and family members. The aim of this study was to identify the level of burden on family members who are involved with HPN care and to understand specific factors that contribute to any burden. METHODS: Patients over the age of 18 and receiving HPN were identified in IF clinics from multiple centres across the U.K. Eligible patients were asked to complete the parenteral nutrition impact questionnaire (PNIQ) to assess their QoL, while family members were asked to complete the burden scale for family caregivers (BSFC). Logistical regression was undertaken giving adjusted odds ratios (aOR). RESULTS: 678 participants completed the survey representing 339 patients with their appointed family member. Mean PNIQ score was 11.53 (S.D. 5.5), representing a moderate impact of HPN on patients' QoL. On the BSFC scale, 23% of family members reported a moderate to very severe subjective burden indicating an increased risk of psychosomatic symptoms. After adjusting for age and gender, predictors of BSFC included: family members self-reported health status using the EuroQol visual analogue scale (aOR 19.91, 95% CI 1.69, 233.99, p = 0.017) and support received by health services (aOR = 5.83, 95% CI = 1.93, 17.56, p = 0.002). Employment status, disease type, number of nights on HPN and length of time on HPN were not associated with BSFC. CONCLUSIONS: Family members with a poor health status or lack of support by health service were more likely to have a moderate to very severe subjective burden. Tailored support from the multi-professional IF team may reduce the burden experienced by family members of people dependent on HPN.

Glucagon-like peptide 2 analogues in the treatment of intestinal failure: A qualitative exploration of the views of patients and their families in decision making.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with short bowel syndrome and type 3 intestinal failure (SBS-IF) are dependent on parenteral nutrition (PN), a lifesaving treatment but inconvenient and with risks. Glucagon-like peptide 2 analogue (teduglutide) can reduce patients' need for PN. However, it comes with the risk of a number of side effects. This qualitative study investigated patients' decision making process to start teduglutide and how family members contributed to the decision. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine participants, six patients with SBS-IF and three family members about the decision to take teduglutide. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: The prominent motivation for taking teduglutide (Revestive® Takeda Pharmaceuticals Limited) was reducing or stopping PN. Other motivations were to help others by assisting in developing the knowledge base around teduglutide, patients felt that they had nothing to lose by trying the drug and the support of relatives. The reasons patients considered not taking the drug were that they had accepted being on PN, the potential side effects of teduglutide and undergoing extra monitoring. However, the monitoring programme also acted as a motivator providing reassurance that patients would be observed and supported with side effects. Family members were happy to support patients' decision to try teduglutide, although they had more reservations, indicating a higher risk threshold. CONCLUSION: Patients considered potential benefits of teduglutide outweighed any disadvantages. Relatives, although supportive, had more reservations.

Systematic Review of Behaviour Change Theories Implementation in Dietary Interventions for People Who Have Survived Cancer.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of dietary interventions for cancer survivors have been based on the behaviour change theory framework. The purpose of this study is to review the use and implementation of behaviour change theories in dietary interventions for people after cancer and assess their effects on the reported outcomes. METHODS: The search strategy from a Cochrane review on dietary interventions for cancer survivors was expanded to incorporate an additional criterion on the use of behaviour change theory and updated to September 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) testing a dietary intervention compared to the control were included. Standard Cochrane methodological procedures were used. RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs, with 6261 participants (age range 44.6 to 73.1 years), were included in the review. The Social Cognitive Theory was the most frequently used theory (15 studies, 79%). Studies included between 4 to 17 behaviour change techniques. Due to limited information on the mediators of intervention and large heterogeneity between studies, no meta-analyses was conducted to assess which theoretical components of the interventions are effective. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst researchers have incorporated behaviour change theories into dietary interventions for cancer survivors, due to inconsistencies in design, evaluation and reporting, the effect of theories on survivors' outcomes remains unclear.

Quality of life in patients and in family members of those receiving home parenteral support with intestinal failure: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: People with type 3 intestinal failure require regular home parenteral support (HPS) for survival. Intestinal failure is a long term condition and HPS is a burdensome treatment so understanding quality of life (QoL) and how people live with HPS over time is essential. The aim of this review was to assess the impact of HPS on QoL in adults receiving HPS and their family members. METHODS: A systematic review (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020166197) of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, PsycInfo, Web of Science and PROSPERO. Included articles were hand searched to identify any other relevant studies. Eligibility assessment was performed independently by two reviewers in an unblinded standardised manner. Quality was assessed using appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using predefined data fields. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GradePro. RESULTS: Included in this review were 12 studies with 1236 patients receiving HPS. There were 10 observational studies and 2 randomised controlled trials. Only studies examining QoL in adults receiving HPS were found. There were no studies examining QoL in family carers of these patients. The quality of evidence was graded as low to high and the certainty of evidence for QoL was graded as very low to low. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis so a narrative review was conducted. All of the studies considered quality of life using validated questionnaires. QoL of patients receiving HPS was lower than the general population regarding physical functioning. Patients had a higher QoL the fewer nights each week they received HPS. CONCLUSIONS: HPS prescriptions seemed to influence QoL. However, the certainty of evidence was very low to low so there is very little to limited confidence about the effect of HPS on patient QoL. Research into family members' QoL is lacking and requires further investigation.

Healthy Eating and Active Lifestyle After Bowel Cancer (HEAL ABC): feasibility randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Targeting modifiable lifestyle factors including diet and physical activity represents a potentially cost-effective strategy that could support a growing population of colorectal cancer survivors and improve their health outcomes. Currently, effective, evidence-based interventions and resources helping people after bowel cancer to adopt new lifestyle habits are lacking. The aim of this trial is to test the Healthy Eating and Active Lifestyle After Bowel Cancer (HEAL-ABC) intervention to inform a future definitive randomised controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a feasibility randomised controlled trial. A total of 72 survivors who have completed surgery and all anticancer treatments will be recruited. The intervention group will receive HEAL-ABC resources based on behaviour change theory combined with supportive telephone calls informed by motivational interviewing every 2 weeks during the 3-month intervention, and once a month for 6 months to follow-up. Participants in the control group will follow usual care and have access to resources available in the public domain. The study is testing feasibility of the intervention including adherence and ability to collect data on anthropometry, body composition, diet, physical activity, behaviour change, quality of life, blood markers, contact with healthcare services, morbidities and overall survival. DISCUSSION: The proposed study will add to the evidence base by addressing an area where there is a paucity of data. This study on lifestyle interventions for people after colorectal cancer follows the Medical Research Council guidance on evaluating complex interventions in clinical practice. It focuses on people living after treatment for colorectal cancer and targets an important research area identified by cancer survivors as a research priority reported by the National Cancer Institute and James Lind Alliance UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04227353 approved on the 13th of January 2020.

Discharging Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer on Home Parenteral Nutrition: Making and Implementing the Decision.

Increasingly, patients with advanced ovarian cancer in bowel obstruction are receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Little is known about making and implementing the decision. This study explored the decision-making process for HPN and investigated the barriers and facilitators to implementation. This was a qualitative study underpinned by phenomenology involving 93 longitudinal in-depth interviews with 20 patients, their relatives and healthcare professionals, over 15 months. Participants were interviewed a maximum of four times. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically as per the techniques of Van Manen. We found variance between oncologists and patients regarding ownership of the HPN decision. The oncologists believed they were engaging in a shared decision-making process. However, patients felt that the decision was oncologist-driven. Nevertheless, they were content to have the treatment, when viewing the choice as either HPN or death. In implementing the decision, the principal mutable barrier to a timely discharge was communication difficulties across professional disciplines and organisations. Facilitators included developing a single point-of-contact between organisations, improving communication and implementing standardised processes. Oncologists and patients differ in their perceptions of how treatment decisions are made. Although patients are satisfied with the process, it might be beneficial for healthcare professionals to check patients' understanding of treatment.

Palliative home parenteral nutrition in patients with ovarian cancer and malignant bowel obstruction: experiences of women and family caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is a problem in advanced cancer, particularly ovarian cancer where malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a frequent complication. Parenteral nutrition is the only way these patients can received adequate nutrition and is a principal indication for palliative home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Giving HPN is contentious as it may increase the burden on patients. This study investigates patients' and family caregivers' experiences of HPN, alongside nutritional status and survival in patients with ovarian cancer and MBO. METHODS: This mixed methods study collected data on participant characteristics, clinical details and body composition using computed tomography (CT) combined with longitudinal in-depth interviews underpinned by phenomenological principles. The cohort comprised 38 women with ovarian cancer and inoperable MBO admitted (10/2016 to 12/ 2017) to a tertiary referral hospital. Longitudinal interviews (n = 57) were carried out with 20 women considered for HPN and 13 of their family caregivers. RESULTS: Of the 38 women, 32 received parenteral nutrition (PN) in hospital and 17 were discharged on HPN. Nutritional status was poor with 31 of 33 women who had a CT scan having low muscle mass, although 10 were obese. Median overall survival from admission with MBO for all 38 women was 70 days (range 8-506) and for those 17 on HPN was 156 days (range 46-506). Women experienced HPN as one facet of their illness, but viewed it as a "lifeline" that allowed them to live outside hospital. Nevertheless, HPN treatment came with losses including erosion of normality through an impact on activities of daily living and dealing with the bureaucracy surrounding the process. Family caregivers coped but were often left in an emotionally vulnerable state. CONCLUSIONS: Women and family caregivers reported that the inconvenience and disruption caused by HPN was worth the extended time they had at home.

Dietary interventions for adult cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: International dietary recommendations include guidance on healthy eating and weight management for people who have survived cancer; however dietary interventions are not provided routinely for people living beyond cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of dietary interventions for adult cancer survivors on morbidity and mortality, changes in dietary behaviour, body composition, health-related quality of life, and clinical measurements. SEARCH METHODS: We ran searches on 18 September 2019 and searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). We searched other resources including reference lists of retrieved articles, other reviews on the topic, the International Trials Registry for ongoing trials, metaRegister, Physicians Data Query, and appropriate websites for ongoing trials. We searched conference abstracts and WorldCat for dissertations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people following a cancer diagnosis. The intervention was any dietary advice provided by any method including group sessions, telephone instruction, written materials, or a web-based approach. We included comparisons that could be usual care or written information, and outcomes measured included overall survival, morbidities, secondary malignancies, dietary changes, anthropometry, quality of life (QoL), and biochemistry. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two people independently assessed titles and full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. For analysis, we used a random-effects statistical model for all meta-analyses, and the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence, considering limitations, indirectness, inconsistencies, imprecision, and bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs involving 7259 participants including 977 (13.5%) men and 6282 (86.5%) women. Mean age reported ranged from 52.6 to 71 years, and range of age of included participants was 23 to 85 years. The trials reported 27 comparisons and included participants who had survived breast cancer (17 trials), colorectal cancer (2 trials), gynaecological cancer (1 trial), and cancer at mixed sites (5 trials). For overall survival, dietary intervention and control groups showed little or no difference in risk of mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.23; 1 study; 3107 participants; low-certainty evidence). For secondary malignancies, dietary interventions versus control trials reported little or no difference (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.15; 1 study; 3107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Co-morbidities were not measured in any included trials. Subsequent outcomes reported after 12 months found that dietary interventions versus control probably make little or no difference in energy intake at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -59.13 kcal, 95% CI -159.05 to 37.79; 5 studies; 3283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions versus control probably led to slight increases in fruit and vegetable servings (MD 0.41 servings, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71; 5 studies; 834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); mixed results for fibre intake overall (MD 5.12 g, 95% CI 0.66 to 10.9; 2 studies; 3127 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and likely improvement in Diet Quality Index (MD 3.46, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.38; 747 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For anthropometry, dietary intervention versus control probably led to a slightly decreased body mass index (BMI) (MD -0.79 kg/m², 95% CI -1.50 to -0.07; 4 studies; 777 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions versus control probably had little or no effect on waist-to-hip ratio (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 2 studies; 106 participants; low-certainty evidence). For QoL, there were mixed results; several different quality assessment tools were used and evidence was of low to very low-certainty. No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence demonstrated little effects of dietary interventions on overall mortality and secondary cancers. For comorbidities, no evidence was identified. For nutritional outcomes, there was probably little or no effect on energy intake, although probably a slight increase in fruit and vegetable intake and Diet Quality Index. Results were mixed for fibre. For anthropometry, there was probably a slight decrease in body mass index (BMI) but probably little or no effect on waist-to-hip ratio. For QoL, results were highly varied. Additional high-quality research is needed to examine the effects of dietary interventions for different cancer sites, and to evaluate important outcomes including comorbidities and body composition. Evidence on new technologies used to deliver dietary interventions was limited.

Home parenteral nutrition for people with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: People with advanced ovarian or gastrointestinal cancer may develop malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). They are able to tolerate limited, if any, oral or enteral (via a tube directly into the gut) nutrition. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is the provision of macronutrients, micronutrients, electrolytes and fluid infused as an intravenous solution and provides a method for these people to receive nutrients. There are clinical and ethical arguments for and against the administration of PN to people receiving palliative care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in improving survival and quality of life in people with inoperable MBO. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), BNI, CINAHL, Web of Science and NHS Economic Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment up to January 2018, ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) and in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/). In addition, we handsearched included studies and used the 'Similar articles' feature on PubMed for included articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included any studies with more than five participants investigating HPN in people over 16 years of age with inoperable MBO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted the data and assessed risk of bias for each study. We entered data into Review Manager 5 and used GRADEpro to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies with a total of 721 participants in the review. The studies were observational, 12 studies had only one relevant treatment arm and no control and for the one study with a control arm, very few details were given. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes. Due to heterogeneity of data, meta-analysis was not performed and therefore the data were synthesised via a narrative summary.The evidence for benefit derived from PN was very low for survival and quality of life. All the studies measured overall survival and 636 (88%) of participants were deceased at the end of the study. However there were varying definitions of overall survival that yielded median survival intervals between 15 to 155 days (range three to 1278 days). Three studies used validated measures of quality of life. The results from assessment of quality of life were equivocal; one study reported improvements up until three months and two studies reported approximately similar numbers of participants with improvements and deterioration. Different quality of life scales were used in each of the studies and quality of life was measured at different time points. Due to the very low certainty of the evidence, we are very uncertain about the adverse events related to PN use. Adverse events were measured by nine studies and data for individual participants could be extracted from eight studies. This revealed that 32 of 260 (12%) patients developed a central venous catheter infection or were hospitalised because of complications related to PN. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain whether HPN improves survival or quality of life in people with MBO as the certainty of evidence was very low for both outcomes. As the evidence base is limited and at high risk of bias, further higher-quality prospective studies are required.

Why are older women not having surgery for breast cancer? A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for breast cancer. However, there is evidence that older women are not receiving this treatment. This study explores reasons why older women are not having surgery. METHODS: Twenty eight in-depth interviews were conducted with women over 70 years old with operable breast cancer receiving primary endocrine therapy (PET) as their primary treatment. The interviews focused on their perceptions of why they were being treated with PET rather than surgery. Transcripts were analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: Based on reasons for PET, patients were divided into three groups: 'Patient Declined', 'Patient Considered' or 'Surgeon Decided'. The first group 'Patient Declined' absolutely ruled out surgery to treat their breast cancer. These patients were not interested in maximising their survival and rejected surgery citing their age or concerns about impact of treatment on their level of functioning. The second group 'Patient Considered' considered surgery but chose to have PET most specifying if PET failed then they could have the operation. Patients viewed this as offering them two options of treatment. The third group 'Surgeon Decided' was started by the surgeon on PET. These patients had comorbidities and in most cases the surgeon asserted that the comorbidities were incompatible with surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Older women represent a diverse group and have multifaceted reasons for foregoing surgery. Discussions about breast cancer treatment should be patient centred and adapted to differing patient priorities.