Nutritional support in children and young people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy

Evelyn J Ward, Lisa M Henry, Amanda J Friend, Simone Wilkins, Robert S Phillips, Evelyn J Ward, Lisa M Henry, Amanda J Friend, Simone Wilkins, Robert S Phillips

Abstract

Background: It is well documented that malnutrition is a common complication of paediatric malignancy and its treatment. Malnutrition can often be a consequence of cancer itself or a result of chemotherapy. Nutritional support aims to reverse malnutrition seen at diagnosis, prevent malnutrition associated with treatment and promote weight gain and growth. The most effective and safe forms of nutritional support in children and young people with cancer are not known.

Objectives: To determine the effects of any form of parenteral (PN) or enteral (EN) nutritional support, excluding vitamin supplementation and micronutrient supplementation, in children and young people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy and to determine the effect of the nutritional content of PN and EN. This is an update of a previous Cochrane review.

Search methods: We searched the following databases for the initial review: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1950 to 2006), EMBASE (1974 to 2006), CINAHL (1982 to 2006), the National Research Register (2007) and Dissertations & Theses (2007). Experts in the field were also contacted for information on relevant trials. For this update, we searched the same electronic databases from 2006 to September 2013. We also scrutinised the reference lists of included articles to identify additional trials.

Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any form of nutritional support with another, or control, in children or young people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected trials. At least two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted trialists for missing information.

Main results: The current review included the eight trials from the initial review and six new trials which randomised 595 participants (< 21 years of age) with leukaemias or solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy. The trials were all of low quality with the exception of two of the trials looking at glutamine supplementation. One small trial found that compared to EN, PN significantly increased weight (mean difference (MD) 4.12, 95% CI 1.91 to 6.33), serum albumin levels (MD 0.70, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.26), calorie intake (MD 22.00, 95% CI 5.12 to 38.88) and protein intake (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.15). One trial comparing peripheral PN and EN with central PN found that mean daily weight gain (MD -27.00, 95% CI -43.32 to -10.68) and energy intake (MD -15.00, 95% CI -26.81 to -3.19) were significantly less for the peripheral PN and EN group, whereas mean change in serum albumin was significantly greater for that group (MD 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, P = 0.008). Another trial with few participants found an increase in mean energy intake (% recommended daily amount) in children fed an energy dense feed compared to a standard calorie feed (MD +28%, 95% CI 17% to 39%). Three studies looked at glutamine supplementation. The evidence suggesting that glutamine reduces severity of mucositis was not statistically significant in two studies (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.2 and RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.1) and differences in reduction of infection rates were also not significant in two studies (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.4 and RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.51). Only one study compared olive oil based PN to standard lipid containing PN. Despite similar calorie contents in both feeds, the standard lipid formula lead to greater weight gain (MD -0.34 z-scores, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.00). A single study compared standard EN with fructooligosaccharide containing EN. There was no difference in weight gain between groups (mean difference -0.12, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.33), with adverse effects (nausea) occurring equally between the groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.74).

Authors' conclusions: There is limited evidence from individual trials to suggest that PN is more effective than EN in well-nourished children and young people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. The evidence for other methods of nutritional support remains unclear. Limited evidence suggests an energy dense feed increases mean daily energy intake and has a positive effect on weight gain. Evidence suggesting glutamine supplementation reduces incidence and severity of mucositis, infection rates and length of hospital stay is not statistically significant. Further research, incorporating larger sample sizes and rigorous methodology utilising valid and reliable outcome measures, is essential.

Conflict of interest statement

One of the authors of this review (Evelyn Ward) was also the principal investigator of an included study (Ward 2009). The data was extracted and checked independently by the other review authors.

Figures

1
1
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 1 Difference in mean change in body weight from start to end of study between trial groups.
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 2 Difference in mean skinfold thickness at end of study between trial groups.
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 3 Difference in mean change in serum albumin from start to end of study between trial groups.
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 4 Number of patients who developed an infection during study (positive blood culture, sepsis, UTI, pneumonia).
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 5 Number of patients who experienced nausea and vomiting during study.
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 6 Number of patients who developed diarrhoea during study.
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 7 Difference in mean calorie intake at end of study between trial groups.
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 8 Difference in mean protein intake at end of study between trial groups.
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 9 Number of deaths at end of study.
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 10 Number of patients who improved or maintained their performance status at follow up.
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Nasogastric enteral nutrition (EN) versus usual food intake enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 1 Mean mid‐upper arm circumference.
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Nasogastric enteral nutrition (EN) versus usual food intake enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 2 Number of patients who experienced recurrent vomiting during study.
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Nasogastric enteral nutrition (EN) versus usual food intake enteral nutrition (EN), Outcome 3 Number of deaths at end of study.
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 1 Difference in mean change in body weight from start to end of study between trial groups.
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 2 Mean daily weight gain at end of study.
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 3 Difference in mean change in triceps skinfold from start to end of study between trial groups.
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 4 Difference in mean change in subscapular skinfold from start to end of study between trial groups.
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 5 Difference in mean change in serum albumin from start to end of study between trial groups.
3.6. Analysis
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 6 Number of patients who developed an infection during study.
3.7. Analysis
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 7 Number of patients who developed diarrhoea during study.
3.8. Analysis
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 8 Difference in mean change in energy intake from start to end of study between trial groups [% healthy children].
3.9. Analysis
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 9 Mean energy intakes during study [% healthy children].
3.10. Analysis
3.10. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 10 Difference in mean change in protein intake from start to end of study between trial groups.
3.11. Analysis
3.11. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 11 Mean protein intake during the study [g protein/kg].
3.12. Analysis
3.12. Analysis
Comparison 3 Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) versus parenteral nutrition (PN), Outcome 12 Number of deaths at end of study.
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus fluid therapy (FT), Outcome 1 Number of patients who developed an infection during study.
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Energy dense vs. standard calorie enteral feeds, Outcome 1 Weight z‐score ≥ zero.
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Energy dense vs. standard calorie enteral feeds, Outcome 2 Mid‐upper arm circumference relative to reference population.
5.3. Analysis
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Energy dense vs. standard calorie enteral feeds, Outcome 3 Triceps skinfold thickness relative to reference population.
5.4. Analysis
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 Energy dense vs. standard calorie enteral feeds, Outcome 4 Biceps skinfold thickness relative to reference population.
5.5. Analysis
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 Energy dense vs. standard calorie enteral feeds, Outcome 5 Mean change in overall muscle arm area.
5.6. Analysis
5.6. Analysis
Comparison 5 Energy dense vs. standard calorie enteral feeds, Outcome 6 Mean energy intake.
5.7. Analysis
5.7. Analysis
Comparison 5 Energy dense vs. standard calorie enteral feeds, Outcome 7 Proportion of daily estimated feed requirement consumed.
5.8. Analysis
5.8. Analysis
Comparison 5 Energy dense vs. standard calorie enteral feeds, Outcome 8 Mean days of therapy‐related vomiting.
6.1. Analysis
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Additional fructooligosaccharides in enteral feeds, Outcome 1 Weight for height.
6.2. Analysis
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 Additional fructooligosaccharides in enteral feeds, Outcome 2 Mean increase in height‐for‐age z‐score.
6.3. Analysis
6.3. Analysis
Comparison 6 Additional fructooligosaccharides in enteral feeds, Outcome 3 Mean increase in weight‐for‐age z‐score.
6.4. Analysis
6.4. Analysis
Comparison 6 Additional fructooligosaccharides in enteral feeds, Outcome 4 Diarrhoea.
6.5. Analysis
6.5. Analysis
Comparison 6 Additional fructooligosaccharides in enteral feeds, Outcome 5 Nausea.
6.6. Analysis
6.6. Analysis
Comparison 6 Additional fructooligosaccharides in enteral feeds, Outcome 6 Abdominal pain.
7.1. Analysis
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 Glutamine supplementation of feeds, Outcome 1 Mid‐upper arm circumference.
7.2. Analysis
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 Glutamine supplementation of feeds, Outcome 2 Infection rates.
7.3. Analysis
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7 Glutamine supplementation of feeds, Outcome 3 Severe nausea and/or vomiting.
7.4. Analysis
7.4. Analysis
Comparison 7 Glutamine supplementation of feeds, Outcome 4 Duration of vomiting.
7.5. Analysis
7.5. Analysis
Comparison 7 Glutamine supplementation of feeds, Outcome 5 Severe diarrhoea.
7.6. Analysis
7.6. Analysis
Comparison 7 Glutamine supplementation of feeds, Outcome 6 Duration of diarrhoea.
7.7. Analysis
7.7. Analysis
Comparison 7 Glutamine supplementation of feeds, Outcome 7 Severe mucositis.
7.8. Analysis
7.8. Analysis
Comparison 7 Glutamine supplementation of feeds, Outcome 8 Treatment related mortality.
7.9. Analysis
7.9. Analysis
Comparison 7 Glutamine supplementation of feeds, Outcome 9 Maximum serum ammonia levels.
8.1. Analysis
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8 Alternative parenteral (PN) lipid formulations, Outcome 1 Change in mean weight z‐scores.
8.2. Analysis
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8 Alternative parenteral (PN) lipid formulations, Outcome 2 PN energy intake.
8.3. Analysis
8.3. Analysis
Comparison 8 Alternative parenteral (PN) lipid formulations, Outcome 3 PN protein intake.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi