The current landscape of nutrition care in oesophageal and gastric cancer - insights from the national oesophagogastric nutrition audit (NONA) survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Specialist nutritional support is important during treatment for oesophagogastric (OG) cancer yet current practice remains unstandardised across the UK. The National Oesophagogastric Nutrition Audit (NONA) aimed to describe the current landscape of OG dietetic services in the UK and Ireland, with a specific focus on resource allocation, barriers to dietetic support, and the provision of support throughout the cancer pathway. METHODS: Tertiary cancer units, secondary care, and community services across the UK and Ireland were invited to complete a 28-point electronic questionnaire. Team leaders and senior specialist OG dietitians were the target respondents. All data points were peer-reviewed, piloted, and revised by the NONA steering committee before distribution. Data points covered a range of areas related to resources, skill mix, provision of support throughout the cancer pathway, and involvement with national audit and research. RESULTS: Complete responses were received from 50 individual units (tertiary surgical units, n = 35 and tertiary oncology units, n = 10). Secondary care and community services were underrepresented (n = 5). Of the units proving tertiary cancer care, the majority (77%) agreed or strongly agreed they were able to provide adequate nutritional care in the post-operative period. However, confidence dropped significantly in the early diagnostic phase and in the neoadjuvant period, with 52% and 67% of tertiary units disagreeing that they could provide adequate dietetic support during these parts of the cancer pathway, respectively. Inadequate funding, understaffing, and the prioritisation of inpatients were commonly reported barriers. There was significant variation in practice regarding nutritional assessment, service structure, and staffing resource allocation across specialist units. CONCLUSION: The NONA survey provides a 'real-world' landscape of nutritional care for patients with OG cancer. Lack of funding, resource, and evidence-base may explain the variation seen in services provided across the UK. Further research and consensus is required to help standardise nutritional care, guide service specification, and improve nutritional outcomes for patients with OG cancer.

Nutritional screening in a cancer prehabilitation programme: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are often malnourished pre-operatively. The present study aimed to establish whether current screening was appropriate for use in prehabilitation and investigate any association between nutritional risk, functionality and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: This cohort study used routinely collected data from September 2020 to August 2021 from patients in a Prehab4cancer programme. Included patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had colorectal, lung or oesophago-gastric cancer and were scheduled for surgery. Nutritional assessment included Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) Short-Form and QoL with a sit-to-stand test. Association between nutritional risk and outcomes was analysed using adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: From 928 patients referred to Prehab4Cancer service over 12 months, data on nutritional risk were collected from 526 patients. Pre-operatively, 233 out of 526 (44%) patients were at nutritional risk (score ≥ 2). During prehabilitation, 31% of patients improved their PG-SGA and 74% of patients maintained or improved their weight. Odds ratios (OR) with confidence intervals (CI) showed that patients with better QoL using EuroQol-5 Dimensions (OR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.45, p = 0.01), EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.93, 1.00, p = 0.04) or sit-to-stand (OR = 0.96, 95% 0.93, 1.00, p = 0.04) were less likely to be nutritional at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of patients in Prehab4Cancer programme assessed using PG-SGA were at risk of malnutrition. However, almost half of the sample did not have their risk assessed. Patients at risk of malnutrition were more likely to have a poorer QoL and sit-to-stand test than those who were not at risk.

Perioperative nutrition for the treatment of bladder cancer by radical cystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Radical cystectomy (RC) is the primary surgical treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. This major operation is typically associated with an extended hospital stay, a prolonged recovery period and potentially major complications. Nutritional interventions are beneficial in some people with other types of cancer and may be of value in this setting too. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of perioperative nutrition in people undergoing radical cystectomy for the treatment of bladder cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 22 February 2019, with no restrictions on the language or status of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults undergoing RC for bladder cancer. The intervention was any perioperative nutrition support. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the quality of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications at 90 days and length of hospital stay. The secondary outcome was mortality up to 90 days after surgery. When 90-day outcome data were not available, we reported 30-day data. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified eight trials including 500 participants. Six trials were conducted in the USA and two in Europe.1. Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus oral nutrition: based on one study with 157 participants, PN may increase postoperative complications within 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.82; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence for serious study limitations (unclear risk of selection, performance and selective reporting bias) and serious imprecision. This corresponds to 198 more complications per 1000 participants (95% CI 35 more to 405 more). Length of hospital stay may be similar (mean difference (MD) 0.5 days higher, CI not reported; low-quality evidence).2. Immuno-enhancing nutrition versus standard nutrition: based on one study including 29 participants, immuno-enhancing nutrition may reduce 90-day postoperative complications (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.23; low-quality evidence). These findings correspond to 322 fewer complications per 1000 participants (95% CI 429 fewer to 107 more). Length of hospital stay may be similar (MD 0.20 days, 95% CI 1.69 lower to 2.09 higher; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence of both outcomes for very serious imprecision.3. Preoperative oral nutritional support versus normal diet: based on one study including 28 participants, we are very uncertain if preoperative oral supplements reduces postoperative complications. We downgraded quality for serious study limitations (unclear risk of selection, performance, attrition and selective reporting bias) and very serious imprecision. The study did not report on length of hospital stay.4. Early postoperative feeding versus standard postoperative management: based on one study with 102 participants, early postoperative feeding may increase postoperative complications (very low-quality evidence) but we are very uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of evidence for serious study limitations (unclear risk of selection and performance bias) and very serious imprecision. Length of hospital stay may be similar (MD 0.95 days less, CI not reported; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence for serious study limitations (unclear risk of selection and performance bias) and serious imprecision.5. Amino acid with dextrose versus dextrose: based on two studies with 104 participants, we are very uncertain whether amino acids reduce postoperative complications (very low-quality evidence). We are also very uncertain whether length of hospital stay is similar (very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence for both outcomes for serious study limitations (unclear and high risk of selection bias; unclear risk of performance, detection and selective reporting bias), serious indirectness related to the patient population and very serious imprecision.6. Branch chain amino acids versus dextrose only: based on one study including 19 participants, we are very uncertain whether complication rates are similar (very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence for serious study limitations (unclear risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition and selective reporting bias), serious indirectness related to the patient population and very serious imprecision. The study did not report on length of hospital stay.7. Perioperative oral nutritional supplements versus oral multivitamin and mineral supplement: based on one study with 61 participants, oral supplements compared to a multivitamin and mineral supplement may slightly decrease postoperative complications (low-quality evidence). These findings correspond to 135 fewer occurrences per 1000 participants (95% CI 256 fewer to 65 more). Length of hospital stay may be similar (low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence of both outcomes for study limitations and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on few, small and dated studies, with serious methodological limitations, we found limited evidence for a benefit of perioperative nutrition interventions. We rated the quality of evidence as low or very low, which underscores the urgent need for high-quality research studies to better inform nutritional support interventions for people undergoing surgery for bladder cancer.