• Intervention
    Is there a relationship between the use of parenteral nutrition vs. control to reduce symptoms and support recovery and the reduction of symptoms associated with inpatient treatment for hematopoietic cell transplant for breast cancer patients?
    • Conclusion

      One neutral quality RCT found that while prophylactic PN preserved nutritional status and lean body mass better than oral diet in well-nourished breast cancer patients undergoing auto-HCT, there were no differences found in LOS or survival between the two groups.   The researchers concluded that well-nourished breast cancer patients who have no major complications or prolonged poor oral intake will probably not benefit from PN while undergoing auto-HCT.  Because of its expense and risk for infectious complications, PN should be used in appropriate breast cancer patients only. 

       

    • Grade: III
      • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
      • Grade II is Fair;
      • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
      • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
      • Grade V is Not Assignable.
      • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
      • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
      • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
      • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
      • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
    • Search Plan and Results: HCT: Calories, Protein, Lipids, Nutritional Intake, EN/PN 2006