• Assessment
    Are the measured energy needs of head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation therapy different from estimated needs?
    • Conclusion

      One neutral quality prospective, time-series study found that the HBE underestimated the REE of head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation therapy when compared with indirect calorimetry.  The researchers found that REE as measured by indirect calorimetry formed a U-shaped curve, with higher measures before, at end, and after treatment.  Resting energy expenditure as estimated by the HBE decreased throughout the study period.  The researchers concluded that the HBE is unsuitable for use in determining the REE of advanced head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation therapy, and suggested that indirect calorimetry should be used.  This study was limited by small sample size.   Further research is needed to determine the energy needs of head and neck cancer patients.

    • 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: Calorie needs vs RDA: Radiation Therapy 2006
       
    Are the measured energy needs of lung cancer patients receiving radiation therapy different from estimated needs?
    • Conclusion

      No studies were identified that compared measured and estimated energy needs of patients with lung cancer receiving radiotherapy.  Research is needed to establish the accuracy of predictive energy equations for this population.


       

    • Grade: V
      • 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: Calorie needs vs RDA: Radiation Therapy 2006
       
    Are the measured energy needs of pelvic cancer patients receiving radiation therapy different from estimated needs?
    • Conclusion

      Two (2) time-series studies (1 quality rating neutral, 1 quality rating positive) found that, prior to receiving radiation therapy, the measured resting energy expenditure [REE] of patients receiving pelvic radiation for gynecological cancer averaged 125% of REE as predicted by the Harris-Benedict equation [HB].  One of the studies found that after five weeks of radiation therapy, patients' measured REE declined significantly (1673 + 488 kcals/day at initiation of radiation therapy, 1585 + 275 kcals/day after five weeks' radiation therapy; p<0.05) in association with weight loss.  Another study from the same research group, using a similar patient population, found that after five weeks' radiation therapy, measured REE declined to 1.21 + 0.16 times HB, and that at two-year followup, REE had declined to 0.92 + 0.06 HB, associated with increases in weight and fat mass.  Studies demonstrated that, at initial assessment, measured energy needs were higher than estimated needs; at two-year follow-up, estimated needs were higher than measured needs.  These studies were limited by small sample sizes.  Further research is needed to determine the accuracy of predictive equations in this population.

    • 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: Calorie needs vs RDA: Radiation Therapy 2006
       
    Do patients with rectal cancer undergoing radiotherapy have different caloric needs than the RDA?
    • Conclusion

      No studies were identified that compared dietary intake of rectal cancer patients with the RDA.    Research is needed to establish the energy needs of this population.

    • Grade: V
      • 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: Calorie needs vs RDA: Radiation Therapy 2006