ONC: Interleukin Therapy (2006)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
  • To compare the energy intake of patients receiving a normal diet and patients receiving TPN during interleukin-2 (IL-2) treatment and to establish whether total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is useful in improving nitrogen balance.
  • To investigate the effect of TPN on biochemical abnormalities typically seen during IL-2 therapy.
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Metastatic or unresectable melanoma or renal cell cancer
  • Pathologic confirmation of tumor histology
  • Measurable disease
  • Patients received high-dose IL-2 therapy via intravenous bolus
  • Karnofsky performance status of >70%
  • Normal stress multiple uptake gated acquisition or thallium scans
  • Normal pulmonary, bone marrow, renal and liver function
  • Patients from the General Clinical Research Center of the University of Utah Medical Center
  • Informed consent was obtained from all patients participating in these studies.
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Pregnancy
  • Active infection (including HIV)
  • Steroid therapy
  • Prior IL-2 therapy
  • Organ allografts
  • Brain metastases
  • Prior malignancies
  • No concurrent antineoplastic therapy was permitted.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

  • Sequential patients with metastatic or unresectable melanoma or renal cell carcinoma who received high-dose intravenous bolus IL-2 therapy in the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) of the University of Utah Medical Center were used in this retrospective cohort analysis. 39 charts were reviewed with data from 37 patients evaluated for this study: 21 in the control group and 16 in the group who received TPN. The study was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. 

Design

  • Retrospective cohort analysis. The first cohort of 21 patients received a normal diet during IL-2 therapy. The second cohort of 16 patients received TPN during IL-2 therapy.

Intervention

  • TPN included a 1:1 admixture of a standard crystalline amino acid solution of 8.5% with 50% dextrose at 80-100 ml/h, depending on the estimated caloric needs of each patient. Caloric need were estimated using 30 kcal/kg body weight. Ideal body weight was used if the patient had a body mass index of ≥30. Each liter of TPN was supplemented with a standard electrolyte solution. One bottle of TPN each day was supplemented with multivitamins and trace minerals. Twice a week, patients received 250 ml of 10% intravenous fat emulsion.

  • The control group received continuous intravenous infusions of D5/0.45NS, with 20mEq KCl added at 100-150 ml/h. Exogenous supplementation of potassium, magnesium and calcium was administered to both groups as required, based on lab changes.

Statistical Analysis

  • T-test was used when clinical and demographic characteristics of both groups were compared
  • X2-test for categorical variables
  • A repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to determine whether the TPN significantly modified IL-2-induced changes in 11 laboratory values during the first seven days of IL-2 treatment
  • Fisher's exact test was performed to compare the proportions of patients with abnormal test results in the TPN and the control groups on days one, five, and seven
  • Time to progression and survival were calculated from the beginning of IL-2 treatment using Kaplan-Meier analysis 
  • All analyses were performed using the Statistical Analysis System
  • Significance was considered at P=0.0167 to control for a 5% type 1 error rate.
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Only data for the first seven days of treatment protocol were analyzed in the current study, since patients received almost all scheduled doses of IL-2 during this interval (mean number of doses, 12±2 of 14 planned doses in the TPN and control groups).

Daily measurements:

  • Laboratory testing
  • Complete blood count
  • Electrolytes
  • BUN
  • Serum creatinine
  • Glucose 
  • Calorie counts for calorie and protein intake, analyzed by the Nutrition Care Services staff and the GCRC nursing staff. Patients were allowed to eat as tolerated. The American Diabetic Exchange List was used to estimate the amount of oral calories and protein consumed and daily protein and energy requirements were estimated.

Every-other-day assessments:

  • A multiphasic chemistry screen (SMA 20) including a panel for liver function, calcium, phosphorus and cholesterol.

Pretreatment and posttreatment assessments:

  • Measurement of tumor size for evaluation of clinical response
  • Survival or relapse-free evaluations.

Dependent Variables

  • Protein intake 
  • Caloric intake 
  • Potassium
  • Calcium
  • Carbon Dioxide
  • Magnesium
  • Albumin
  • BUN
  • Total bilirubin
  • Direct bilirubin
  • Phosphorus
  • Glucose
  • Creatinine.

Independent Variables

  • TPN or normal diet.

Control Variables

  • High dose intravenous bolus IL-2 treatment.

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N

  • 39 patients.

Attrition (final N)

  • 37 patients

    • TPN: 16 (six women, 10 men)

    • Control: 21 (14 women, seven men).

Age

  • TPN: 46±12 years

  • Control: 45±15 years.

Ethnicity

  • Not specified.

Other relevant demographics

  • None

  • No significant differences between groups, except the greater proportion of women in the control group.

Treatment

  • The IL-2 treatment regimen consisted of 600,000 IU IL-2/kg every eight hours on Days One through Five (priming course). A second identical course of IL-2 was administered on Days 11 through 15. Doses of IL-2 were skipped for NCI Common Toxicity Criteria grade III-IV toxicity (generally hypotension, renal dysfunction, pulmonary or neurologic toxicity). Some patients also received LAK cells on Days 11 through 15.

  • To avoid differences in groups (LAK or not and differences in group size secondary to toxicity), only data from the first seven days was used in this analysis.

  • All patients received 650mg of acetaminophen every four hours, 25 to 50 mg of indomethacin every eight hours and 150 mg of ranitidine every 12 hours as premedications as well as hydroxyzine and intravenous meperidine, as needed.

Anthropometrics

  • Weight (kg)
    • TPN: 70.6±14
    • Control: 73.4±14.7.
  • Height (cm)
    • TPN: 171.5±7.6
    • Control: 167.3±8.0.
  • Percentage of Ideal Body Weight
    • TPN: 105±21
    • Control: 117±14.

Location

  • The General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) of the University of Utah Medical Center.

Summary of Results:

Caloric intake During IL-2 Treatment

 

TPN
(Oral kcal/day)

TPN
(Total kcal/day)

Control
(Oral/total kcal/day)

Day One 483±514 1,782±828 178±434
Day Five 117±140 2,038±377 202±518
Day Seven 299±447 1,882±412 282±443

  • Mean energy intake declined as early as the first 24 hours of IL-2 treatment and remained low throughout the experimental period.
  • Control patients had a mean dietary intake of 2.5 kcal/kg (Day One) and 2.8 kcal/kg during the period of IL-2 administration (Day Five)
  • Experimental group had an energy intake of 25 kcal/kg (Day One) and 29 kcal/kg (Day Five)
  • Negative mean daily energy (-1,159 kcal/day over seven days) in controls, compared to estimated needs of 1,825±450 kcal/day, while the TPN group has a positive energy balance (+206 kcal/day over seven days) compared to 1,775±375 kcal daily requirement
  • Protein nutrition was affected in a similar fashion, with patients receiving TPN having a greater protein intake than controls at Day One (1.02 vs. 0.12g/kg). Control patients had a mean dietary protein intake of 8±20 g/day (Day One), 6±17 g/day (Day Five) and 11±18 g/day (Day Seven). In contrast, patients receiving TPN had a protein intake of 72±33 g/day (Day One), 80±15 g/day (Day Five) and 78±21 g/day (Day Seven).
  • Decrease in oral intake was found in both groups.

Protein intake During IL-2 Treatment

 

TPN
Oral g protein/day

TPN
Total g protein/day

Control
Oral/total g protein/day

Day One 22±27 72±33 8±20
Day Five 3±5 80±15 6±17
Day Seven 13±23 78±21 11±18

  • TPN group had higher protein intake than controls (1.02 g/kg vs. 0.12 g/kg at Day One and 1.10 g/kg vs. 0.08 g/kg at Day Five)
  • Negative protein (-47 g/day) balance in control patients compared a positive balance (+22 g/day) balance over the seven day analyzed period.

Weight changes

  • There was no significant difference in maximal weight gain 5.6±2.4 vs. 4.9±2.2 kg) between TPN treated and control groups.

Survival

  • No statistical difference between groups was noted in time to progression or in overall survival.

Biochemical analysis

  • No significant difference between groups for all measurements at pretreatment
  • Serum albumin dropped substantially in both groups following the onset of IL-2 treatment, but was not significantly different between groups at any timepoint. The decrease in serum albumin is a known consequence of IL-2 administration. The decrease in serum albumin was not altered by TPN administration.
  • Serum calcium was significantly higher in TPN vs. controls on Days Five and Seven (P<0.01 and P<0.001, respectively), exact levels not provided
  • On Day Five, 72% TPN group had WNL calcium levels vs. 29% controls (P<0.037)
  • Control patients required at least 2 g calcium gluconate replacement, while TPN did not (P<0.0001)
  • Serum potassium levels were not significantly different between groups during IL-2 treatment. However, on Day Seven, during diuresis seen in recovery, 32% of the controls developed hypokalemia, while none of the TPN group did, with the TPN group maintaining normal potassium levels (4.3 mmol/L), compared to 3.85 mmol/L seen in the controls (P<0.0006).
  • Serum magnesium levels were also lower in controls (2.05 mg/dl), compared to TPN patients (2.31 mg/dl) (significance not provided) during recovery, despite magnesium supplementation in both groups.
  • BUN and creatinine were higher in the TPN group, but did not impact renal recovery. Differences in BUN were not statistically significant between groups at any timepoint. Creatinine was higher on Day Seven (P<0.001). Exact values not provided. 
  • Serum phosphorus dropped in both group, as suspected from IL-2 treatment. On Day Five, however, phosphorus was significantly lower in the TPN group (1.66 mg/dl), compared to controls (2.51 mg/dl).
  • As suspected, serum glucose levels were higher in the TPN group.
Author Conclusion:
  • Their analysis revealed that protein and oral intake were markedly depressed in patients receiving IL-2 therapy.
  • Compared to RDA of 58 g/day protein, controls only consumed average 11 g/day protein.
  • Compared to est needs of 1825 kcal/day, controls only consumed average of 266 kcal/day.
  • Similar pattern for caloric and protein intake was observed for the 2nd part of IL-2 treatment (details not recorded in manuscript) leading the authors to conclude that p.o. intake alone for a 2-3 week treatment period during IL-2 treatment is not adequate to prevent protein/calorie malnutrition.
  • Nutrition was markedly improved over the period of IL-2 administration by TPN administration.
  • They concluded that their study had demonstrated that TPN during high-dose intravenous IL-2 therapy provides short term benefit in overcoming severe protein and energy malnutrition induced by this treatment.
  • As a result of the electrolyte replacement in the TPN group, less hypocalcemia during and following treatment and higher levels of magnesium and potassium during recovery was seen.
  • TPN administration resulted in less incidence of cholestatic jaundice typically seen during IL-2 treatment. The authors feel that this may be a result of TPN improving hepatic glutathione synthesis which in turn caused improved hepatic function.
  • TPN did not have an impact on survival.
Funding Source:
Government: NIH
University/Hospital: University of Utah
Not-for-profit
0
Foundation associated with industry:
Reviewer Comments:
  • The retrospective analysis is a limitation in itself. The authors could choose the best data to analyze for improved outcomes.
  • Did not exclude for malabsorption disorders
  • Evaluation of caloric and protein intake using diabetic exchange lists a bit unreliable
  • No information on staging of disease for groups
  • Small sample size
  • Phosphorus decrease in TPN group could be a result of refeeding syndrome
  • A larger randomized controlled trial is needed.
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
  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
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? 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
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? 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? 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) 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.) No
  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? Yes
  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
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? ???
  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%.) N/A
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? 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? No
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? No
  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.) No
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? No
  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
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? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? 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
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? Yes
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? 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
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
  7.2. 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? ???
  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
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? N/A
  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
  8.1. 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
  8.3. 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)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  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
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? N/A
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes