EAL

ONC: Medical Nutrition Therapy and Nutrition Intervention in Adult Oncology Patients (2011)

Citation:

Isenring E, Capra S, Bauer J, Davies PS. The impact of nutrition support on body composition in cancer outpatients receiving radiotherapy. Acta Diabetol. 2003 Oct; 40 Suppl 1: S162-S164.

PubMed ID: 14618461

Study Design:

Randomized Controlled Trial

Class:

A - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.

Quality Rating:

POSITIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.

Research Purpose:

The purpose of the research was to compare the change in body composition in ambulatory cancer outpatients receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck area with groups receiving nutrition intervention (NI) or usual care (UC).

Inclusion Criteria:

Ambulatory adult patient
Receiving potentially curative radiotherapy for tumors of the head and neck.

Exclusion Criteria:

Exclusion criteria were not mentioned.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Subjects were recruited over an 18-week period
Informed consent was obtained from all study participants
Ethical approval was given by the Queensland University of Technology and the Wesley Hospital.

Design

Subjects were randomized to either a nutrition intervention group (NI) or a usual care group (UC)
The NI group received individualized, regular, intensive nutrition counseling by a registered dietitian
- A predetermined, standard nutrition care protocol was used to counsel patients
  - Protocol used was the American Dietetic Association Medical Nutrition Therapy (Cancer-Radiation Oncology) Protocol
- The protocol followed recommended guidelines, but did allow for individualization of the nutrition regimen according to the patient's unique needs
- Oral nutrition supplementation was provided on a case-by-case basis
- Patients were seen weekly for six weeks; then every two weeks thereafter
The UC group received nutrition advice from nursing staff, along with a booklet provided by the Cancer Council of Australia
- Oral nutrition supplement samples were provided if deemed necessary
Total body water (TBW) was predicted using foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedence (BIA)
- Fat-free mass was estimated using standard equations
Body weight was measured.

Blinding used

Not mentioned; however, because of the nature of the intervention, blinding this study would have been difficult.

Intervention

Individualized, regular, intensive nutrition counseling by a registered dietitian, using American Dietetic Association MNT protocol for oncology nutrition care.

Statistical Analysis

Results were analyzed using SPSS Version 10.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Body weight and composition were measured at beginning of study and at three months after initiation of treatment.

Dependent Variables

Variable 1:
- Body weight
Variable 2:
- Change in fat-free mass
- Estimated by standard equations
Variable 3:
- Change in fat mass
- TBW measured by foot-to-foot BIA.

Independent Variables

Individualized nutrition support provided by a registered dietitian

Control Variables

Usual nutrition care

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: N=36
- NI (n=15; 13 male, one female)
- UC (n=21; 16 male, two female)
Attrition (final N): Final N=36 (four subjects lost to follow-up)
- NI (final n=14)
- UC (final n=18)
Age: Mean age=63±15 years
Ethnicity: Not mentioned, but subjects were Australian
Anthropometrics: There were no significant differences between groups in gender, age, height, weight, BMI, fat mass, fat-free mass, and TBW at initiation of the study
Location: A radiotherapy clinic on the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

Summary of Results:

Variables	NI Group Measures and confidence intervals	UC Group Measures and confidence intervals	Statistical Significance of Group Difference
Change in body weight, in kg	-1.1±3.0	-4.3±5.0	P=0.019
Change in fat-free mass, in kg	-0.3±1.0	-2.2±2.9	P=0.029
Change in fat mass	-0.8±2.9	-2.1±4.0	P=0.349

Other Findings

The UC group lost significantly more body weight than the NI group
- Mean loss, UC group, was 6.1% body weight
- Mean loss, NI group, was 1.1% body weight
The UC group lost significantly more fat-free mass than the NI group
The UC group lost more fat mass than the NI group, but the difference was not significantly significant.

Author Conclusion:

The authors concluded that:

Early, intensive nutrition intervention by a registered dietitian minimizes the loss of weight and fat-free mass when compared with UC for cancer patients receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck area
Nutrition interventions which preserve fat-free mass promise improved outcomes for cancer patients
BIA provides more information than weight alone, and is useful in individualizing nutrition interventions
Further study is needed to establish the usefulness of BIA as a within-person measure over time.

Funding Source:

University/Hospital:

Wesley Research Institute

Reviewer Comments:

This is an important study which demonstrates positive patient outcomes related to nutrition intervention by a registered dietitian, using American Dietetic Association protocols
No exclusion criteria were mentioned
Data were not analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis; data for study participants lost to follow-up was not included in statistical analysis.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
	1.	Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)	Yes
	1.	Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)	Yes
	2.	Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?	Yes
	2.	Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice?	Yes
	3.	Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice?	Yes
	4.	Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)	Yes
	4.	Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)	Yes

Validity Questions
	1.	Was the research question clearly stated?	Yes
1.	Was the research question clearly stated?		Yes
	1.1.	Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified?	Yes
	1.1.	Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified?	Yes
	1.2.	Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated?	Yes
	1.2.	Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated?	Yes
	1.3.	Were the target population and setting specified?	Yes
	1.3.	Were the target population and setting specified?	Yes
	2.	Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?	Yes
2.	Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?		Yes
	2.1.	Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study?	Yes
	2.1.	Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study?	Yes
	2.2.	Were criteria applied equally to all study groups?	Yes
	2.2.	Were criteria applied equally to all study groups?	Yes
	2.3.	Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described?	Yes
	2.3.	Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described?	Yes
	2.4.	Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population?	???
	2.4.	Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population?	???
	3.	Were study groups comparable?	Yes
3.	Were study groups comparable?		Yes
	3.1.	Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT)	No
	3.1.	Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT)	No
	3.2.	Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline?	Yes
	3.2.	Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline?	Yes
	3.3.	Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.)	Yes
	3.3.	Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.)	Yes
	3.4.	If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis?	N/A
	3.4.	If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis?	N/A
	3.5.	If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.)	N/A
	3.5.	If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.)	N/A
	3.6.	If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")?	N/A
	3.6.	If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")?	N/A
	4.	Was method of handling withdrawals described?	Yes
4.	Was method of handling withdrawals described?		Yes
	4.1.	Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups?	Yes
	4.1.	Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups?	Yes
	4.2.	Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.)	Yes
	4.2.	Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.)	Yes
	4.3.	Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for?	No
	4.3.	Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for?	No
	4.4.	Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups?	???
	4.4.	Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups?	???
	4.5.	If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study?	N/A
	4.5.	If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study?	N/A
	5.	Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?	???
5.	Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?		???
	5.1.	In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate?	???
	5.1.	In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate?	???
	5.2.	Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.)	???
	5.2.	Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.)	???
	5.3.	In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded?	N/A
	5.3.	In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded?	N/A
	5.4.	In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status?	N/A
	5.4.	In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status?	N/A
	5.5.	In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results?	N/A
	5.5.	In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results?	N/A
	6.	Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?	Yes
6.	Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?		Yes
	6.1.	In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied?	Yes
	6.1.	In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied?	Yes
	6.2.	In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described?	N/A
	6.2.	In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described?	N/A
	6.3.	Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect?	Yes
	6.3.	Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect?	Yes
	6.4.	Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured?	Yes
	6.4.	Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured?	Yes
	6.5.	Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described?	Yes
	6.5.	Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described?	Yes
	6.6.	Were extra or unplanned treatments described?	No
	6.6.	Were extra or unplanned treatments described?	No
	6.7.	Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups?	Yes
	6.7.	Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups?	Yes
	6.8.	In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient?	N/A
	6.8.	In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient?	N/A
	7.	Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?	Yes
7.	Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?		Yes
	7.1.	Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question?	Yes
	7.1.	Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question?	Yes
	7.2.	Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern?	Yes
	7.2.	Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern?	Yes
	7.3.	Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur?	Yes
	7.3.	Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur?	Yes
	7.4.	Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures?	Yes
	7.4.	Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures?	Yes
	7.5.	Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision?	Yes
	7.5.	Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision?	Yes
	7.6.	Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes?	???
	7.6.	Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes?	???
	7.7.	Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups?	Yes
	7.7.	Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups?	Yes
	8.	Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?	Yes
8.	Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?		Yes
	8.1.	Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately?	Yes
	8.1.	Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately?	Yes
	8.2.	Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated?	Yes
	8.2.	Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated?	Yes
	8.3.	Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals?	Yes
	8.3.	Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals?	Yes
	8.4.	Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)?	No
	8.4.	Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)?	No
	8.5.	Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)?	???
	8.5.	Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)?	???
	8.6.	Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported?	???
	8.6.	Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported?	???
	8.7.	If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error?	N/A
	8.7.	If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error?	N/A
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?	Yes
9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?		Yes
	9.1.	Is there a discussion of findings?	Yes
	9.1.	Is there a discussion of findings?	Yes
	9.2.	Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed?	No
	9.2.	Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed?	No
	10.	Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely?	Yes
10.	Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely?		Yes
	10.1.	Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described?	???
	10.1.	Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described?	???
	10.2.	Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest?	???
	10.2.	Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest?	???