Search

Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) is a reliable, non-invasive, objective, and cost-effective body composition assessment method, with high reproducibility. This scoping review aims to evaluate the current scientific and clinical evidence on BIA for body composition assessment in oncology patients, under active treatment. Literature search was conducted through MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases, following PRISMA-ScR Guidelines. Inclusion criteria comprised studies reporting the use of BIA for body composition evaluation in adults with cancer diagnosis. Studies including non-cancer pathology or only assessing nutritional status were excluded. This scoping review comprised a total of 36 studies: 25 were original studies including 18 prospective studies, six cross-sectional studies and one retrospective study and 11 were systematic reviews. Population size for the included original articles ranged from 18 to 1217 participants, comprising a total of 3015 patients with cancer with a mean baseline Body Mass Index (BMI) ranging from 20.3 to 30.0 kg/m 2 and mean age ranging between 47 and 70 years. Review articles included a total of 273 studies, with a total of 78,350 participants. The current review considered studies reporting patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) ( n = 8), breast cancer (BC) ( n = 4), esophageal cancer (EC) ( n = 2), liver cancer ( n = 2), pancreatic cancer (PC) ( n = 3), gastric cancer (GC) ( n = 3), colorectal cancer (CRC) ( n = 8), lung cancer (LC) ( n = 1), skin cancer (SK) ( n = 1) and multiple cancer types ( n = 6). BIA is a suitable and valid method for the assessment of body composition in oncology. BIA-derived measures have shown good potential and relevant clinical value in preoperative risk evaluation, in the reduction of postoperative complications and hospital stay and as an important prognostic indicator in persons with cancer. Future research on the diagnostic value and clinical applications of BIA and BIA-derived phase angle (PhA) should be conducted in order to predict its impact on patient survival and other clinical outcomes.

Background: Head and neck cancer patients have the second highest malnutrition prevalence, when compared with other oncological patients. They experience significant weight loss before diagnosis, during and after treatment, and even during the first year of follow-up. However, the prognostic value of weight loss depends on body mass index, and this may be associated with low skeletal muscle mass, masking its loss. Thus, weight loss itself poorly predicts outcome in head and neck cancer patients when compared with depleted skeletal muscle mass, illustrating the inadequacy of body mass index as an accurate method to reflect nutritional status. A synthesis is needed of the body composition changes occurring in head and neck cancer patients during treatment, as well as of the methods to assess it., Objective: The aim of this scoping review is to examine and map the body composition changes in head and neck cancer patients under oncological treatment with curative intent. A further objective is to determine which methods are used to assess body composition in these patients., Inclusion Criteria: Types of participants: The current review considered head and neck cancer patients, aged 18 years or older., Concept: This scoping review considered all studies that focused on the body composition changes., Context: This scoping review considered the studies that evaluated the body composition changes in the context of treatment with curative intent. Surgical treatment approach was excluded to avoid excess heterogeneity in the data. Types of sources: This scoping review considered only published studies, with abstract available., Search Strategy: A three-step search strategy was undertaken. This review was limited to studies published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese during 2000-2019., Data Extraction: The data extracted included author(s)/year of publication, aims and purpose of the study, sample size, study design, type of treatment, measurement points and component(s) of body composition evaluated, body composition assessment methods, and main results/findings., Presentation of Results: Head and neck cancer patients suffer from serious loss of lean body mass, skeletal muscle, or free fat mass, after treatment compared with baseline. Further, nutritional deterioration is evident and occurs up to 8-12 months after treatment. Bioelectrical impedance analysis is one of the body composition assessment tools that has the great advantage for being available on a regular basis for assessment of body composition in head and neck cancer patients. However, it cannot be recommended for clinical decision making until further validation., Conclusion: Head and neck cancer patients experience a significant depletion of lean body mass, fat-free mass, and skeletal muscle, accompanied by body fat mass, while undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy. This can be demonstrated either by triceps skinfold thickness, bioelectrical impedance analysis, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, or computed tomography. This loss has a remarkable impact on their survival, on their quality of life, and on the risk for post-operative complications and may result in a reduced response to cancer treatment. Thus, body composition assessment should become an integral component of the care of head and neck cancer patients, beyond weight and body mass index, and should be carried out at different times throughout treatment.

Objectives: Cancer cachexia is characterised by a progressive loss of muscle, resulting in functional impairment and shorter survival. Therefore, omega-3 has been studied for its role as an anti-cachectic therapy. This systematic review identified studies published on use of omega-3 in cancer cachexia in order to examine the potential benefit., Methods: A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and B-on databases was conducted to identify clinical trials published between 2000 and 2015, to evaluate the effect of n-3 PUFAs on nutritional features and Quality of Life in cancer cachexia. Of 140 publications, 7 were selected on the basis of their methodological quality, according to the Delphi List. The collected data was summarized and written in text format and in tables., Results: Only one study, made in pre-cachectic population, show statistically and clinically positive intervention. No benefits were observed with the 4 g EPA/day, but a potentially clinically relevant treatment effect with 2 g EPA/day. Lung tumours showed the highest CRP levels and while the weight of patients with gastrointestinal cancer increased significantly, patients with lung cancer showed no significant response., Conclusions: Future cachexia trials would likely benefit from studying a single tumour type with earlier stage disease, with probably different dosage depending on the cancer type and its inflammatory profile., (Copyright © 2018 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The objective of this review article is to present the most recent intervention studies with EPA on nutritional outcomes in cancer patients, e.g. nutritional status, weight & lean body mass., Methods: For this purpose a PubMed(®) and MedLine(®) search of the published literature up to and including January 2014 that contained the keywords: cancer, sarcopenia, EPA, ω-3 fatty acids, weight, intervention trial, muscle mass was conducted. The collected data was summarized and written in text format and in tables that contained: study design, patient' population, sample size, statistical significance and results of the intervention. The paper will cover malignancy, body composition, intervention with EPA, physiological mechanisms of action of EPA, effect of EPA on weight and body composition, future research., Results: In cancer patients deterioration of muscle mass can be present regardless of body weight or Body Mass Index (BMI). Thus, sarcopenia in cancer patients with excessive fat mass (FM), entitled sarcopenic obesity, has gained greater relevance in clinical practice; it can negatively influence patients' functional status, tolerance to treatments & disease prognosis. The search for an effective nutritional intervention that improves body composition (preservation of muscle mass and muscle quality) is of utmost importance for clinicians and patients. The improvement of muscle quality is an even more recent area of interest because it has probable implications in patients' prognosis. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) has been identified as a promising nutrient with the wide clinical benefits. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain EPA potential benefits on body composition: inhibition of catabolic stimuli by modulating pro-inflammatory cytokines production and enhancing insulin sensitivity that induces protein synthesis; also, EPA may attenuate deterioration of nutritional status resulting from antineoplastic therapies by improving calorie and protein intake as well., Conclusions: Indeed, cancer-related sarcopenia/cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome characterized by inflammation, anorexia, weight loss, and muscle/adipose tissue loss mediated by proinflammatory cytokines, e.g. TNF-α and IL-6, resulting in increased chemotherapy toxicity, costs, morbidity and mortality. With this review we found that EPA can reduce inflammation and has the potential to modulate nutritional status/body composition. In view of the modest survival benefits of chemotherapy/radiotherapy in some cancers, important issues for physicians are to optimize well-being, Quality of Life via nutritional status and adequate body composition. Thus, improvement in nutritional status is a central outcome., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the past few years, there has been a growing interest on body composition changes of cancer patients. Muscle mass and fat mass are pointed out as the most important compartments from a physiological point of view, as their changes are the ones with the most impact on disease. The excess of fat mass is related with increased risk of incidence and recurrence of some types of cancer, and some studies identify it as a major contributing factor for increased morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Weight loss in cancer is frequent and is associated with symptoms, circulating pro-cachectic substances produced by the tumour, and/or hypermetabolism states, not compensated with adequate intake. Muscle mass depletion is the most worrying, and has been associated with decreased functional capacity, increased toxicity of anti-neoplastic treatments, longer length of stay and higher risk of nosocomial infections. In end stage disease, some patients may develop cancer cachexia, an irreversible condition highly associated with mortality. Of note that, lean body mass depletion may occur with excess fat mass (sarcopenic obesity), a condition that combines the health risks of obesity and those of sarcopenia. The high prevalence of malnutrition in cancer patients justifies its relevance. Many patients point it as a cause for the reduction of physical, cognitive, emotional and social functions, as well as anorexia, fatigue, dyspnoea, insomnia, gastrointestinal symptoms and worse Quality of Life. Additionally, body composition may be affected by nutrition, lifestyles and physical activity; therefore, any approach to the patient should include all these dimensions, with special emphasis on individualised nutritional intervention. Therefore, nutritional therapy should be adjuvant to any treatment, as it is essential in all stages of the disease: for its development, during the treatment(s) and in the follow-up period. The aim of nutritional intervention is to promote changes in body composition, by maintaining or increasing lean body mass and keeping fat mass in healthy levels, which may have a positive impact on Quality of Life, response to treatment(s), prognosis and reduced health care costs.

Introduction: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients show a high risk of malnutrition due to the lifestyle habits adopted prior to the diagnosis as well as to the compromising impact of both the anatomical location of the tumor and the treatment modalities on food intake. Weight change, measurement of skinfold thickness, biochemical parameters, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MRI), or dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) are available techniques to evaluate nutritional status and/or body composition in the clinical practice. Evaluating body composition alterations in HNC patients is essential to be able to offer the best therapeutical interventions. In this paper, we review the existing literature regarding body composition evaluation in HNC patients to determine, which is the most suitable method for this population, regarding availability in the day-to-day practice, patient burden, cost, sensibility, and specificity. Methodology: A literature search for relevant papers indexed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Scielo was conducted, with no publication date restriction and for all published articles until the 31 January, 2019. All the papers written in English, with interventions in humans, exclusively considering HNC patients were selected. Results: A total of 41 studies with different methodologies were included in this review. In 15 studies BIA was the used assessment method and three of them also evaluated skinfold thickness and one was a bioelectric impedance vector analysis (BIVA). Body composition assessment was made with DXA in eight studies, one of which also included muscle biopsies. In two studies the chosen method was both BIA and DXA. CT/ positron emission tomography-CT was applied in 11 studies and one also included MRI. In two studies body composition was assessed with skinfold measurements alone and one study only used BIVA. Conclusions: Despite the different existing body composition assessment tools, it seems that skeletal muscle mass (SMM) measurement at the level of cervical spine C3 vertebra may be a reliable method for SMM assessment as it strongly correlates with cross-sectional area measures at the level of L3 and it allows a cost-effective body composition assessment without the need for additional radiation exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite being recognised that nutritional intervention is essential, nutritional support is not widely accessible to all patients. Given the incidence of nutritional risk and nutrition wasting, and because cachexia management remains a challenge in clinical practice, a multidisciplinary approach with targeted nutrition is vital to improve the quality of care in oncology. Methods: A literature search in PubMed and Cochrane Library was performed from inception until 26 March. The search consisted of terms on: cancer, nutrition, nutritional therapy, malnutrition, cachexia, sarcopenia, survival, nutrients and guidelines. Key words were linked using "OR" as a Boolean function and the results of the four components were combined by utilizing the "AND" Boolean function. Guidelines, clinical trials and observational studies written in English, were selected. Seminal papers were referenced in this article as appropriate. Relevant articles are discussed in this article. Results: Recent literature supports integration of nutrition screening/assessment in cancer care. Body composition assessment is suggested to be determinant for interventions, treatments and outcomes. Nutritional intervention is mandatory as adjuvant to any treatment, as it improves nutrition parameters, body composition, symptoms, quality of life and ultimately survival. Nutrition counselling is the first choice, with/without oral nutritional supplements (ONS). Criteria for escalating nutrition measures include: (1) 50% of intake vs. requirements for more than 1–2 weeks; (2) if it is anticipated that undernourished patients will not eat and/or absorb nutrients for a long period; (3) if the tumour itself impairs oral intake. N-3 fatty acids are promising nutrients, yet clinically they lack trials with homogeneous populations to clarify the identified clinical benefits. Insufficient protein intake is a key feature in cancer; recent guidelines suggest a higher range of protein because of the likely beneficial effects for treatment tolerance and efficacy. Amino acids for counteracting muscle wasting need further research. Vitamins/minerals are recommended in doses close to the recommended dietary allowances and avoid higher doses. Vitamin D deficiency might be relevant in cancer and has been suggested to be needed to optimise protein supplements effectiveness. Conclusions: A proactive assessment of the clinical alterations that occur in cancer is essential for selecting the adequate nutritional intervention with the best possible impact on nutritional status, body composition, treatment efficacy and ultimately reducing complications and improving survival and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]