This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bozzetti, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bozzetti, F. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Review: Effects of Artificial Nutrition on the Nutritional Status of Cancer Patients

Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Milan, Italy

The paper critically analyzes available data on the nutritional and metabolic effects of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and enteral nutrition (EN) in cachectic cancer patients. Only papers dealing with adult cancer patients and providing data regarding type of tumor, duration of the nutritional support, and administration rate of calories and amino acids, validated by statistical analysis of the results, are included. The main conclusions are the following: (1) No nutritional variable worsened in cancer patients receiving TPN or EN, in conditions in which progressive deterioration of the nutritional status is the rule. (2) The nutritional variables improved by TPN and EN were body weight, fat mass, and some indicators of lean body mass (nitrogen balance and whole body potassium). Thyroxin-binding prealbumin and retinol-binding protein increased only with TPN, whereas some immunologic indexes (complement factors and lymphocytes) improved only with EN. (3) The daily regimens which improved lean body mass and visceral proteins ranged from 35 to 55 kcal/ kg and from 1.2 to 2.0 g of amino acids/kg for TPN; for EN it was 35 kcal/kg and 1.3 g of amino acids/kg. However, the enteral regimen capable of improving some immune responses included at least 42 kcal/kg and 2.3 g of amino acids/kg. (4) Only three randomized studies were performed to compare TPN and EN, and conflicting results were obtained. Only TPN showed some significant advantages with regard to weight gain, nitrogen balance, maintenance of serum albumin levels and some mineral balances. However, the advantage of TPN was not clear enough to recommend its indiscriminate use. The choice between TPN and EN should always consider the functionality of the GI tract, the need for hospitalization to start a TPN regimen, and the higher cost of intravenous feeding. (5) When comparing TPN to a standard oral diet, the following variables improved with the nutritional support: body weight, nitrogen balance, 3-methylhistidine, urinary excretion, and serum levels of transferrin, cholinesterase, thyroxin-binding prealbumin, and retinol-binding protein. (6) When comparing TPN with glucose vs TPN with glucose-lipids, no major difference was found with regard to most nutritional variables. In conclusion, nutritional support alone probably has a small role in managing a limited number of advanced cancer patients dying primarily because of malnutrition or mainly suffering from nutritional deterioration. It can also have a "permissive" role in those patients potentially candidate to an oncologic treatment which cannot be delivered because of a poor nutritional status. In this category of patients the risk/benefit ratio should be carefully evaluated in protocols in which a poor performance status and cachexia represent the limiting factors for performing adequate treatment. (Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 13:406-420, 1989)

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 13, No. 4, 406-420 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607189013004406


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. A. DiMaria-Ghalili Changes in Nutritional Status and Postoperative Outcomes in Elderly CABG Patients Biol Res Nurs, October 1, 2002; 4(2): 73 - 84. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Barrera Nutritional Support in Cancer Patients JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, September 1, 2002; 26(5_suppl): S63 - S71. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Thoresen, I. Fjeldstad, K. Krogstad, S. Kaasa, and U. G. Falkmer Nutritional status of patients with advanced cancer: the value of using the subjective global assessment of nutritional status as a screening tool Palliative Medicine, January 1, 2002; 16(1): 33 - 42. [Abstract] [PDF]

				American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrit Guidelines for the Use of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition in Adult and Pediatric Patients JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, January 1, 2002; 26(1_suppl): 1SA - 138SA. [PDF]

				F. Bozzetti, C. Gavazzi, R. Miceli, N. Rossi, L. Mariani, L. Cozzaglio, G. Bonfanti, and S. Piacenza Perioperative Total Parenteral Nutrition in Malnourished, Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients: A Randomized, Clinical Trial JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, January 1, 2000; 24(1): 7 - 14. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Hyltander Invited Review: Intravenous Feeding Kinetics and Its Effects on Energy and Nitrogen Metabolism Nutr Clin Pract, April 1, 1994; 9(2): 51 - 57. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Stallion, T. Foley-Nelson, W. T. Chance, F.-S. Zhang, and J. E. Fischer Parenteral vs Enteral Nutrition in Tumor-Bearing Rats JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, March 1, 1994; 18(2): 148 - 153. [Abstract] [PDF]

				V. Bussy, F. Marechal, and S. Nasca Microbial Contamination of Enteral Feeding Tubes Occurring During Nutritional Treatment JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, November 1, 1992; 16(6): 552 - 557. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Bozzetti, P. Bignami, and L. Cozzaglio Subcutaneous Jejunostomy JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, May 1, 1992; 16(3): 286 - 288. [Abstract] [PDF]