Search

Summary: Background and aim: Patients with cancer are at high risk of malnutrition, yet relevant ICD-10 codes for malnutrition are underutilized in cancer clinics. Understanding oncologists' perspectives is crucial for optimizing malnutrition diagnosis codes and enhancing nutritional practices to improve patient care. This study aims to explore oncologists' perspectives on the use and feasibility of the ICD-10 codes for malnutrition. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted, consisting of four focus group interviews with oncologists (n=14) from three Norwegian hospitals. A semi-structured interview guide, covering five main topics, guided the discussions. Results: Few oncologists were familiar with the malnutrition diagnosis codes. The codes were considered inapplicable in clinical practice, partly due to complex diagnostic criteria. None used the codes systematically, instead relying on inquiries about patients' weight, weight loss, food intake, and appetite. Oncologists prioritized identifying patients in need of nutritional treatment, considering diagnosis codes unnecessary for providing quality care. Proposals for increased code utilization included economic incentives, enhanced collaboration with clinical dietitians, and digital systems for automated coding. Conclusion: The oncologists expressed that they prevent and treat malnutrition in patients with cancer, but not systematically. They do not utilize ICD-10 codes for malnutrition, citing both complex diagnostic criteria and the codes’ lack of relevance to nutritional treatment as limiting factors.

Abstract Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) presents significant challenges in clinical management due to its heterogeneity and variable response to treatment. In this study, we conducted comprehensive small RNA (sRNA) sequencing analyses to identify sRNA biomarkers associated with survival and treatment response in mCRC patients. We measured serum sRNAs before and after chemotherapy treatment in a discovery cohort of 189 mCRC patients. Our analysis revealed 25 microRNAs (miRNA) as significantly associated with overall survival at baseline. We found that 11 of the 25 significant miRNAs were also significant in an independent validation cohort of 20 mCRC patients, including the top five miRNAs from the discovery cohort. Importantly, all but four of the 25 significant miRNAs from the discovery cohort had hazard ratios in the same direction in the validation cohort. Among the 25 significant miRNAs, we identified the miR-320 family of miRNAs as the strongest independent prognostic marker, with high baseline levels correlating with poor survival outcomes. Furthermore, post-treatment levels of the same miRNAs were even more predictive of overall survival, emphasizing the prognostic value of serum changes in miRNA levels before and after treatment. Moreover, we observed significant changes in serum miRNAs and other sRNAs when comparing samples before and after chemotherapy, with distinct expression patterns between responders and non-responders. Leveraging these differential expression patterns, we established a serum sRNA signature that accurately predicts response to chemotherapy with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8. In summary, our study highlights the prognostic and predictive potential of sRNA biomarkers in mCRC, offering valuable insights into patient stratification and personalized treatment approaches.

Abstract The use of patient‐reported outcomes (PROMs) of quality of life (QOL) is common in cachexia trials. Patients' self‐report on health, functioning, wellbeing, and perceptions of care, represent important measures of efficacy. This review describes the frequency, variety, and reporting of QOL endpoints used in cancer cachexia clinical trials. Electronic literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (1990–2023). Seven thousand four hundred thirty‐five papers were retained for evaluation. Eligibility criteria included QOL as a study endpoint using validated measures, controlled design, adults (>18 years), ≥40 participants randomized, and intervention exceeding 2 weeks. The Covidence software was used for review procedures and data extractions. Four independent authors screened all records for consensus. Papers were screened by titles and abstracts, prior to full‐text reading. PRISMA guidance for systematic reviews was followed. The protocol was prospectively registered via PROSPERO (CRD42022276710). Fifty papers focused on QOL. Twenty‐four (48%) were double‐blind randomized controlled trials. Sample sizes varied considerably (n = 42 to 469). Thirty‐nine trials (78%) included multiple cancer types. Twenty‐seven trials (54%) featured multimodal interventions with various drugs and dietary supplements, 11 (22%) used nutritional interventions alone and 12 (24%) used a single pharmacological intervention only. The median duration of the interventions was 12 weeks (4–96). The most frequent QOL measure was the EORTC QLQ‐C30 (60%), followed by different FACIT questionnaires (34%). QOL was a primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoint in 15, 31 and 4 trials respectively, being the single primary in six. Statistically significant results on one or more QOL items favouring the intervention group were found in 18 trials. Eleven of these used a complete multidimensional measure. Adjustments for multiple testing when using multicomponent QOL measures were not reported. Nine trials (18%) defined a statistically or clinically significant difference for QOL, five with QOL as a primary outcome, and four with QOL as a secondary outcome. Correlation statistics with other study outcomes were rarely performed. PROMs including QOL are important endpoints in cachexia trials. We recommend using well‐validated QOL measures, including cachexia‐specific items such as weight history, appetite loss, and nutritional intake. Appropriate statistical methods with definitions of clinical significance, adjustment for multiple testing and few co‐primary endpoints are encouraged, as is an understanding of how interventions may relate to changes in QOL endpoints. A strategic and scientific‐based approach to PROM research in cachexia trials is warranted, to improve the research base in this field and avoid the use of QOL as supplementary measures.

Abstract Regulatory agencies require evidence that endpoints correlate with clinical benefit before they can be used to approve drugs. Biomarkers are often considered surrogate endpoints. In cancer cachexia trials, the measurement of biomarkers features frequently. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. A comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990–2023) was completed. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), prospective design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a biomarker(s) as an endpoint. Biomarkers were defined as any objective measure that was assayed from a body fluid, including scoring systems based on these assays. Routine haematology and biochemistry to monitor intervention toxicity were not considered. Data extraction was performed using Covidence, and reporting followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 studies were assessed, of which 52 trials (total participants = 6522) included biomarkers as endpoints. Most studies (n = 29, 55.7%) included a variety of cancer types. Pharmacological interventions (n = 27, 51.9%) were most evaluated, followed by nutritional interventions (n = 20, 38.4%). Ninety‐nine different biomarkers were used across the trials, and of these, 96 were assayed from blood. Albumin (n = 29, 55.8%) was assessed most often, followed by C‐reactive protein (n = 22, 42.3%), interleukin‐6 (n = 16, 30.8%) and tumour necrosis factor‐α (n = 14, 26.9%), the latter being the only biomarker that was used to guide sample size calculations. Biomarkers were explicitly listed as a primary outcome in six trials. In total, 12 biomarkers (12.1% of 99) were used in six trials or more. Insulin‐like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP‐3) and insulin‐like growth factor 1 (IGF‐1) levels both increased significantly in all three trials in which they were both used. This corresponded with a primary outcome, lean body mass, and was related to the pharmacological mechanism. Biomarkers were predominately used as exploratory rather than primary endpoints. The most commonly used biomarker, albumin, was limited by its lack of responsiveness to nutritional intervention. For a biomarker to be responsive to change, it must be related to the mechanism of action of the intervention and/or the underlying cachexia process that is modified by the intervention, as seen with IGFBP‐3, IGF‐1 and anamorelin. To reach regulatory approval as an endpoint, the relationship between the biomarker and clinical benefit must be clarified.

Abstract Significant variation exists in the outcomes used in cancer cachexia trials, including measures of body composition, which are often selected as primary or secondary endpoints. To date, there has been no review of the most commonly selected measures or their potential sensitivity to detect changes resulting from the interventions being examined. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the frequency and diversity of body composition measures that have been used in cancer cachexia trials. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched between January 1990 and June 2021. Eligible trials examined adults (≥18 years) who had received an intervention aiming to treat or attenuate the effects of cancer cachexia for >14 days. Trials were also of a prospective controlled design and included body weight or at least one anthropometric, bioelectrical or radiological endpoint pertaining to body composition, irrespective of the modality of intervention (e.g., pharmacological, nutritional, physical exercise and behavioural) or comparator. Trials with a sample size of

Abstract There is no consensus on the optimal endpoint(s) in cancer cachexia trials. Endpoint variation is an obstacle when comparing interventions and their clinical value. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate endpoints used to assess appetite and dietary intake in cancer cachexia clinical trials. A search for studies published from 1 January 1990 until 2 June 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies examined cancer cachexia treatment versus a comparator in adults with assessments of appetite and/or dietary intake as study endpoints, a sample size ≥40 and an intervention lasting ≥14 days. Reporting was in line with PRISMA guidance, and a protocol was published in PROSPERO (2022 CRD42022276710). This review is part of a series of systematic reviews examining cachexia endpoints. Of the 5975 articles identified, 116 were eligible for the wider review series and 80 specifically examined endpoints of appetite (65 studies) and/or dietary intake (21 studies). Six trials assessed both appetite and dietary intake. Appetite was the primary outcome in 15 trials and dietary intake in 7 trials. Median sample size was 101 patients (range 40–628). Forty‐nine studies included multiple primary tumour sites, while 31 studies involved single primary tumour sites (15 gastrointestinal, 7 lung, 7 head and neck and 2 female reproductive organs). The most frequently reported appetite endpoints were visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) (40%). The appetite item from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30/C15 PAL (38%) and the appetite question from North Central Cancer Treatment Group anorexia questionnaire (17%) were also frequently applied. Of the studies that assessed dietary intake, 13 (62%) used food records (prospective registrations) and 10 (48%) used retrospective methods (24‐h recall or dietary history). For VAS/NRS, a mean change of 1.3 corresponded to Hedge's g of 0.5 and can be considered a moderate change. For food records, a mean change of 231 kcal/day or 11 g of protein/day corresponded to a moderate change. Choice of endpoint in cachexia trials will depend on factors pertinent to the trial to be conducted. Nevertheless, from trials assessed and available literature, NRS or EORTC QLQ C30/C15 PAL seems suitable for appetite assessments. Appetite and dietary intake endpoints are rarely used as primary outcomes in cancer cachexia. Dietary intake assessments were used mainly to monitor compliance and are not validated in cachexia populations. Given the importance to cachexia studies, dietary intake endpoints must be validated before they are used as endpoints in clinical trials.

Abstract In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function endpoints may be needed alongside other measures. However, it is not clear which physical function endpoints should be used. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. Following a comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990–2021), records were retrieved. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), controlled design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a physical function endpoint. Physical function measures were classified as an objective measure (hand grip strength [HGS], stair climb power [SCP], timed up and go [TUG] test, 6‐min walking test [6MWT] and short physical performance battery [SPPB]), clinician assessment of function (Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group‐Performance Status [ECOG‐PS]) or patient‐reported outcomes (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires [EORTC QLQ‐C30 or C15]). Data extraction was performed using Covidence and followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 potential studies were examined and 71 were eligible. Pharmacological interventions were assessed in 38 trials (54%). Of these, 11 (29%, n = 1184) examined megestrol and 5 (13%, n = 1928) examined anamorelin; nutritional interventions were assessed in 21 trials (30%); and exercise‐based interventions were assessed in 6 trials (8%). The remaining six trials (8%) assessed multimodal interventions. Among the objective measures of physical function (assessed as primary or secondary endpoints), HGS was most commonly examined (33 trials, n = 5081) and demonstrated a statistically significant finding in 12 (36%) trials (n = 2091). The 6MWT was assessed in 12 trials (n = 1074) and was statistically significant in 4 (33%) trials (n = 403), whereas SCP, TUG and SPPB were each assessed in 3 trials. KPS was more commonly assessed than the newer ECOG‐PS (16 vs. 9 trials), and patient‐reported EORTC QLQ‐C30 physical function was reported in 25 trials. HGS is the most commonly used physical function endpoint in cancer cachexia clinical trials. However, heterogeneity in study design, populations, intervention and endpoint selection make it difficult to comment on the optimal endpoint and how to measure this. We offer several recommendations/considerations to improve the design of future clinical trials in cancer cachexia.

Abstract Background Patients with metastatic cancer to the brain have a poor prognosis. In clinical practice, MRI is used to delineate, diagnose and plan treatment of brain metastases. However, MRI alone is limited in detecting micro-metastases, delineating lesions and discriminating progression from pseudo-progression. Combined PET/MRI utilises superior soft tissue images from MRI and metabolic data from PET to evaluate tumour structure and function. The amino acid PET tracer 18F-FACBC has shown promising results in discriminating high- and low-grade gliomas, but there are currently no reports on its use on brain metastases. This is the first study to evaluate the use of 18F-FACBC on brain metastases. Case presentation A middle-aged female patient with brain metastases was evaluated using hybrid PET/MRI with 18F-FACBC before and after stereotactic radiotherapy, and at suspicion of recurrence. Static/dynamic PET and contrast-enhanced T1 MRI data were acquired and analysed. This case report includes the analysis of four 18F-FACBC PET/MRI examinations, investigating their utility in evaluating functional and structural metastasis properties. Conclusion Analysis showed high tumour-to-background ratios in brain metastases compared to other amino acid PET tracers, including high uptake in a very small cerebellar metastasis, suggesting that 18F-FACBC PET can provide early detection of otherwise overlooked metastases. Further studies to determine a threshold for 18F-FACBC brain tumour boundaries and explore its utility in clinical practice should be performed.

Abstract Objective Physical rehabilitation programs hold the potential to mitigate deterioration in health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with head and neck cancer. The objective was to assess development in relevant domains of HRQoL following a physical exercise and nutrition intervention administrated during or after treatment. Methods In a pilot study, 41 patients were randomized to resistance training and oral nutritional supplements during (EN‐DUR, n = 20) or after (EN‐AF, n = 21) radiotherapy. Global health status/QoL (GHS) and physical functioning (PF) were measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire at baseline, week 6, and week 14. Differences between the groups were assessed by analysis of covariance. A difference of ≥10 points in GHS and PF was interpreted as clinically relevant. Results No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups; however, clinically relevant changes and differences in GHS and PF were observed. From baseline to week 6, GHS decreased 9 points in the EN‐DUR group and 23 points in the EN‐AF group and PF decreased 13 points and 21 points, respectively. From week 6 to week 14, GHS increased 14 points in the EN‐DUR group and 26 points EN‐AF group and PF did not change (0 points) in the EN‐DUR group and increased 16 points in the EN‐AF group. Conclusion The findings from the present pilot study are promising and indicate that a physical rehabilitation program may have a positive impact on HRQoL during treatment and enhance recovery after treatment. A definitive randomized trial is warranted. Level of Evidence 1b—Individual randomized controlled trial.

Abstract Background Early intervention against cachexia necessitates a predictive model. The aims of this study were to identify predictors of cachexia development and to create and evaluate accuracy of a predictive model based on these predictors. Methods A secondary analysis of a prospective, observational, multicentre study was conducted. Patients, who attended a palliative care programme, had incurable cancer and did not have cachexia at baseline, were amenable to the analysis. Cachexia was defined as weight loss (WL) > 5% (6 months) or WL > 2% and body mass index

Summary: Background & aims: The aim of this study was to test how well the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) question about food intake correlates with a well-established measurement of food intake. Furthermore, we wanted to examine if there were any associations between the patients ratings to the question and weight change. Methods: Data at baseline and after 4–6 weeks was drawn from two studies which combined provided a sample of 85 patients with lung and pancreatic cancer; one of the studies were an intervention study, the other a prospective, observational study. All patients completed the PG-SGA questionnaire, and rated their food intake the past month as unchanged, increased or less than usual. Energy and protein intake was estimated based upon a 24-h dietary recall. Results: Patients reporting a food intake less than usual had a lower energy (24.2 vs 30.3 kcal/kg/day, p = 0.02) and protein (1.0 vs 1.2 g/kg/day, p = 0.07) intake at baseline compared to patients reporting unchanged or increased food intake. After comparison at 4–6 weeks, patients reporting a food intake less than usual, had a lower energy (24.5 vs 31.7 kcal/kg/day, p = 0.07) and protein (0.9 vs 1.3 g/kg/day, p = 0.003) intake. Patients reporting a food intake less than usual the past month lost more weight than patients with an unchanged or increased intake (−2.6 kg versus 0.7 kg respectively, p

Background: New clinical trials in cancer cachexia are essential, and outcome measures with high responsiveness to detect meaningful changes are crucial. This secondary analysis from a multimodal intervention trial estimates sensitivity to change and between treatment effect sizes (ESs) of outcome measures associated with body composition, physical function, metabolism, and trial intervention.Methods: The study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized pilot study investigating the feasibility of a 6-week multimodal intervention [exercise, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and oral nutritional supplements containing polyunsaturated fatty acids (n−3 PUFAs)] vs. standard cancer care in non-operable non-small-cell lung cancer and advanced pancreatic cancer. Body composition measures from computerized tomography scans and circulating biomarkers were analyzed.Results: Forty-six patients were randomized, and the analysis included 22 and 18 patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively. The between-group ESs were high for body weight (ES = 1.2, p < 0.001), small for body composition and physical function [handgrip strength (HGS)] measures (ES < 0.25), moderate to high for n-3 PUFAs and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH vitamin D) (ES range 0.64–1.37, p < 0.05 for all), and moderate for serum C-reactive protein (ES = 0.53, p = 0.12). Analysis within the multimodal treatment group showed high sensitivity to change for adiponectin (ES = 0.86, p = 0.001) and n-3 PUFAs (ES > 0.8, p < 0.05 for all) and moderate for 25-OH vitamin D (ES = 0.49, p = 0.03). In the control group, a moderate sensitivity to change for body weight (ES = −0.84, p = 0.002) and muscle mass (ES = −0.67, p = 0.016) and a high sensitivity to change for plasma levels of 25-OH vitamin D (ES = −0.88, p = 0.002) were found.Conclusion: Demonstrating high sensitivity to change and between treatment ES and body composition measures, body weight still stands out as a clinical and relevant outcome measure in cancer cachexia. Body composition and physical function measures clearly are important to address but demand large sample sizes to detect treatment group differences.Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01419145.

Cancer cachexia is characterized by the impairment of glucose and lipid homeostasis, the acceleration of processes promoting the mobilization of energy-rich compounds (e.g., insulin resistance, gluconeogenesis, and lipolysis) and the simultaneous activation of highly energy-demanding processes (e.g., systemic inflammation and activation of brown adipose tissue). We hypothesized that these processes might themselves change during cancer cachexia progression, such that plasma levels of glucose and lipids might be used to distinguish between the non-malignant state, pre-cachexia and cachexia. We performed an initial cross-sectional study including 60 treatment naïve cancer patients (38 with cancer cachexia and 22 with cancer pre-cachexia) and 61 patients without malignancy (21 with metabolic syndrome and 40 controls). Differences in lipids (total cholesterol, LDL and HDL cholesterol) and plasma fasting glucose were analyzed across various group configurations, with adjustments to age and antidiabetic or lipid-lowering drugs. Our study showed that levels of LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol might indicate cachexia stages irrespective of the presence of metabolic syndrome or lipid-lowering medication. High levels of plasma glucose were only seen in cachectic cancer patients on antidiabetics. These observations indicate that markers of metabolic dysregulation associated with cachexia progression might be exploited for early detection of malignancy.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the effects of nutritional and physical exercise interventions and interventions combining these interventions during radiotherapy treatment for patients with head and neck cancer on body composition, objectively measured physical function and nutritional status. Systematic electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed interface), EMBASE (Ovid interface), CINAHL (EBSCO interface) and Cochrane Library (Wiley interface). We identified 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included 858 patients. For body composition, using only nutrition as intervention, a significant difference between treatment and control group were observed (SMD 0.42 (95CI 0.23–0.62), p < 0.001). Only pilot RCTs investigated combination treatment and no significant difference between the treatment and control groups were found (SMD 0.21 (95CI −0.16–0.58), p = 0.259). For physical function, a significant difference between treatment and control group with a better outcome for the treatment group were observed (SMD 0.78 (95CI 0.51–1.04), p < 0.001). No effects on nutritional status were found. This meta-analysis found significantly positive effects of nutrition and physical exercise interventions alone in favor of the treatment groups. No effects in studies with combined interventions were observed. Future full-scaled RCTs combining nutrition and physical exercise is warranted.