The evolution of nutritional care in children and young people with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) is the most common paediatric malignancy in the world. Advances in treatment protocols have resulted in survival rates of >80% in most high-income countries (HIC); however, children and young people (CYP) with ALL continue to face significant nutrition-related challenges during treatment. METHODS: This narrative review outlines the changing landscape of treatment and survivorship for CYP with ALL and the advances in nutrition knowledge that call for changes to clinical nutrition practice. RESULTS: The incidence of ALL has remained stable in HIC; however, there have been significant advances in survival over the past 30 years. Overweight and obesity are increasingly prevalent in CYP with ALL at diagnosis, during treatment and in survivorship. Coupled with poor diet quality, high-energy and saturated fat intakes, altered eating behaviours and inactivity, this necessitates the need for a shift in nutrition intervention. Undernutrition remains a concern for CYP with high-risk treatment protocols where oral or enteral nutrition support remains a cornerstone of maintaining nutrition status. CONCLUSIONS: With improved treatment protocols and high survival rates, a shift to focusing on diet quality, prevention of excessive weight gain and obesity during treatment and survivorship is necessary.

Research priorities for children's cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. SETTING: UK health service and community. METHODS: A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities. PARTICIPANTS: Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children's surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was 'can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?' CONCLUSIONS: We have identified research priorities for children's cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.

Nutritional assessment and dietetic resource for children and young people with cancer in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Both under- and overnutrition may have adverse impact on outcome of cancer in children and teenagers/young adults (CTYA). Previous studies confirm that screening for nutritional risk and detection of nutritional abnormality is inconsistently undertaken in practice. METHODS: We undertook a survey of dietetic resource and nutritional assessment in CTYA principal treatment centres (PTC) in the United Kingdom. Responses were received from 95% children's and 69% TYA PTC. RESULTS: Only 13/18 (72%) children's PTC, and one of 11 (9%) TYA PTC, met national standards for dietetic resource; one of 18 (6%) paediatric and six of 11(54%) TYA PTC had no such resource. While resources were greater in larger paediatric PTC, who were also most likely to undertake stem cell transplantation, resources in TYA PTC were too low to assess relationship to centre size. Most centres focused resources on inpatient care and <50% considered staffing adequate; 82% used nutritional screening tools but without consistency in the tool used. Weight and height were the principal method for assessment, but with inconsistency in the frequency of measurement and use in different clinical settings. Measures derived from weight and height, including body mass index (BMI), were inconsistently utilised. The use of arm anthropometry was rare despite evidence that use increases recognition of undernutrition. Detailed nutritional assessment was infrequently attempted. CONCLUSION: Barriers to adequate nutritional assessment and treatment for all patients include resource limitations (particularly TYA), training for staff, and uncertainty about detailed assessment of nutritional status. There is a need to harmonise screening and assessment of nutritional status in CTYA with cancer.