ONC: Chemotherapy (2007)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
To determine whether continuous intravenous nutrition (at hospital and home) could protect normal body composition during chemotherapy and thereby improve body functions measured as respiratory gas exchanges and exercise capacity.
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Testicular carcinoma
Exclusion Criteria:
Not described
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment Not described

 

Design Randomized clinical trial

 

Blinding used (if applicable) Not described

 

Intervention (if applicable)

  • Subjects randomized prior to chemotherapy according to a computerized stratification algorithm including age, weight, weight loss, tumor stage, hostological classification of the tumor, surgical procedure and tumor markers to one of the following:
    • TPN plus spontaneous oral intake
    • Spontaneous oral intake (control group)
  • All subjects were admitted to the hospital for nutritional assessment prior to chemotherapy
  • Medical intervention
    • All subjects received cisplatinum, vinblastine/etoposide and bleomycin every three weeks
    • Subjects spent weeks 1, 4, 7, and in some cases, 10 in the hospital where chemotherapy was administered during Monday-Friday.
      • Ten subjects received chemotherapy for 8 weeks (4 in the TPN group, 6 in the control group)
      • 23 subjects received chemotherapy for 10 weeks (15 in the TPN group, 8 in the control group
    • Bleomycin was administered each Wed throughout the entire course at 30 mg
    • Cisplatinum was given IV (20 mg/m2 body surface area) days 1-5.
    • Vinblastine (0.15 mg/kg body weight) was given days 1-2 to four subjects in the TPN group and five in the control group
    • Due to neurological side effects, etoposide (100 mg/m2 days 1-5) was given instead of vinblastine to 15 subjects in the TPN group and to 9 in the control group.
    • Central venous catheters were used for chemotherapy and infusions in all subjects.
  • Study procedures
    • Dietary intake
      • All subjects were asked to record their daily spontaneous oral food intake during the whole chemotherapy period (56-70 days). Records were analyzed by a dietitian.
      • During the hospital stay all subjects were served ordinary hospital food (48% carbohydrate, 34% fat,  18% protein).
    • Biochemical tests and blood transfusions
    • Body composition
    • Exercise capacity

 

Statistical Analysis

  • Values are given as mean ± SD.
  • Alterations before and after treatment within groups were tested by a paired t-test, while mean values between groups were tested by Student's t-test.

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  •  Baseline
    • Predicted REE calculated according to the Harris Benedict equation
  • Before and after
    • REE
    • Resting heart rate
    • Triceps skinfold
    • Arm muscle circumference
    • Tumor markers
    • Urine creatinine
    • Plasma thyroid hormone levels
    • Plasma lactate
  • Weekly
    • Weight
    • Hemoglobin: routine hospital measurement
    • Blood leukocytes: routine hospital measurement
    • Thrombocytes: routine hospital measurement 
    • Total body potassium
    • Total body nitrogen
    • Serum albumin

 

Dependent Variables

  • Body composition
    • Total body potassium was measured in a total body counter
    • Total body nitrogen was measured by a whole body neutron activation technique
    • Total body water was measured by an isotope dilution technique with tritiated water as tracer
    • Anthropometrics
      • Triceps skinfold
      • Arm muscle circumference 
  • Exercise capacity
    • Maximum physical exercise capacity was measured on a bed mounted cycle ergometer under standardized conditions.
    • Oxygen uptake and measurement of blood lactate concentrations were measured at maximum and submaximal exercise.
    • The cycle ergometer was constructed to deliver a constant load (watts) irrespective of the ergometer speed within a certain range as continuously shown to the patient on a speedmeter in front of the patient during exercise.
    • To determine maximal exercise capacity, subjects started to cycle at 60 watts for 3 min. The work load was increased by 10 watts every following minute until the subject stopped exercising due to exhaustion.
    • Heart rate was continuously monitored by EKG equipment.
    • Submaximal exercise started for 3 min without any load applied. Without interruption, a load was applied from the computer unit and the subject continued to cycle for 5-7 min at 20 watts followed by a 5 min rest period. The procedure was then r epeated at 35 and 50 watts, respectively.
    • Pulse rate and respiratory frequency were registered immediately before, during and after exercise as well as after the 5 min rest period.

 

Independent Variables

  • TPN from day 1 for the duration of chemotherapy
    • Daily infusion with non-protein calories corresponding to 150% of REE determined by indirect calorimetry
    • Nitrogen: 0.2 kg/body weight/day
      • Amino acids were administered as a crystalline amino acid solution
    • Non-protein calories were comprised of 30% fat (Intralipid 20%) and 70% glucose 
    • Fat and water soluble vitamins and trace elements were added according to basal needs.
    • TPN was administered via an all in one system for 12-16 hours during the night
      • Specially trained nurses administered TPN in the home setting
    • Unrestricted oral intake

Control Variables

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:

 

Initial N: 33 males

  • TPN group: N=19
  • Spontaneous oral intake: N=14

Attrition (final N): N=33

Age: 34 ± 4 years

Ethnicity: not described

Other relevant demographics: not described

Anthropometrics

  • Height (cm): 181±2
  • Weight reduction (kg): 4±1
  • Weight index (ratio between actual vs expected weight): 0.86±0.02
  • Weight (kg): 74.5±2.1
  • Total body potassium (mmol): 4175±131
  • Total body potassium index (ratio between actual vs expected body potassium): 1.0±0.02
  • Total body nitrogen (kg): 1.90±0.1
  • Triceps skinfold (mm): 10.1±1.0
  • Arm muscle circumference (cm): 27.4±0.4
  • Urine creatinine (mmol/24 hr): 15.1±0.9
  • Albumin (g/l): 39.1±1
  • Other information:
    • None had any impairment of the gastrointestinal tract.
    • Clinical staging performed by CT-scan or laparotomy.
    • None had been operated upon (testicular ablation and staging) within 6 weeks before treatment.

Location: University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

 

Summary of Results:

 Total Dose of Chemotherapy. Mean ± SE

  TPN Control
Weeks of Treatment 10.5±0.2 10.1±0.3
Tumor stage (1-4) (median) 3 3
Cisplatinum total dose (mg) 797±28 741±47
Vinblastine total dose (mg) 3782±259* 2633±472
Etoposide total dose (mg) 75±5 74±7
Bleomycin dose (mg) 257±14 259±12

*P<0.05 vs control group

  1.  Chemotherapeutic treatment became comparable between the two groups, although there was a larger dose of Vinblastine given to the TPN subjects.
  2. A difference in ß-HCG between the groups was due to one subject in the TPN group with extremely high levels. Recalculation of the results without this subject does not change any of the results of the study and gives a ß-HCG cocnentration of 19.8±14.7 IU/L beofre and 3.0±0.3 IU/L after treatment, respectively.

Tumor Markers and Blood Cell Concentrations (Mean±SE)

  TPN   Control  
  Before After Before After
Alpha fetoprotein (IU/ml) 110±72 6±1 7±2 6±1

ß-HCG (IU/l)

666±452 1681±1164 214±202 3±1
Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (mm/h) 32±10 47±11 27±12 33±5
Hemoglobin (g/l) 137±5 100±4§ 143±5 110±5§
WBC (x109/l) 7.7±0.6 3.0±0.4§ 7.7±0.7 3.8±0.9§
Thrombocyte blood count (x109/l) 297±23 132±19*§ 329±35 224±26

 * P<0.05 TPN vs control after treatment

§ P<0.05 before vs after treatment within the groups

  1. Both groups showed similar toxic reaction to the bone marrow with reduction in WBC and thrombocyte blood count.
  2. The groups had similar sedimentation rates before and after treatment.

 

Body Composition (Mean±SE)

  TPN   Control  
  Before After Before After
Weight Index 0.86±0.02 0.88±0.02* 0.85±0.03 0.80±0.02
Weight (kg) 74.5±2.1 76.0±2.1§ 73.8±3.2 69.6±3.2§
Total body potassium (mmol) 4175±131 3857±171§ 4339±168 3873±223§
Total body potassium index 1.0±0.02 0.96±0.03§ 1.0±0.04 0.93±0.05§
Total body nitrogen (kg) 1.90±0.1 1.57±0.1§ 2.10±0.1 1.72±0.1§
Distribution volume of body water 44.0±1.7 44.8±3.01 45.6±3.1 41.1±2.21
Triceps Skinfold (mm) 10.1±1.0 13.1±1.5*§ 9.9±0.8 8.5±0.8§
Arm muscle circumference (cm) 27.4±0.4 26.5±0.4§ 27.3±0.7 25.6±0.9§
Urine creatinine (mmol/24 hr) 15.1±0.9 14.1±0.9 13.6±1.1 11.8±1.8
Albumin (g/L) 39±1 37±1§ 39±2 39±1

 Body weight index and total body potassium index are the ratio between actual vs expected weight and body potassium.

* P<0.05 TPN vs control after treatment

§ P <0.05 before vs after treatment within groups

  1. TPN group gained 2.3±1.0 kg and the control group lost 4.2±1.1 kg body weight which corresponded to 3±1 and 6±1%, respectively.
  2. TPN group showed increased subcutaneous fat (TSF) by 31±9%, while the control group showed a decrease around 10%.
  3. Fat was the only essential contribution to weight gain in the TPN group, since both groups showed comparable reductions in whole body protein content measured directly as total body nitrogen, and indirectly as total body potassium, arm muscle circumference and creatinine excretion.

 

Plasma Thyroid Hormone Concentrations and Energy Expenditure (mean ± SE)

  TPN   Control  
  Before Afte Before After
T4 (nmol/L) 17±2 15±1 16±1 17±1
T3 (nmol/L 1.9±0.08 2.3±0.1§ 1.8±0.1 2.2±0.1§
Free T4 (pmol/L) 86±6 114±6§ 92±5 126±10§
Free T3 (pmol/L) 6.1±0.3 6.2±0.4 5.8±0.6 5.9±0.6
Reversed T3 (nmol/L) 0.36±0.04 0.39±0.05 0.35±0.02 0.41±0.06
TSH (nmol/L) 1.8±2 1.8±0.1 1.9±0.2 1.6±0.2
Plasma lactate (mmol/L) Rest 1.1±0.08 1.4±0.2 1.1±0.1 1.1±0.1
Plasma lactate (mmol/L) after submaximal exercise 6.7±0.9 5.7±0.4 6.9±1.2 6.4±1.4
Resting heart rate (beats/min) 73±2 80±3 76±2 79±3
Maximal exercise capacity (watts/kg LBM) 4.9±0.2 4.2±0.2** 5.2±0.4 4.8±0.3***
REE (kcal/day) 1779±37 1650±85* 1624±61 1401±75§
Predicted REE (kcal/day) 1735±37 1777±42§ 1759±62 1706±66§
Whole body oxygen uptake        
(µmol/kg min) 155±5 132±5§ 152±8 143±5
ml/kg min 3.47±0.11 2.96±0.11§ 3.40±0.17 3.20±0.11
Respiratory quotient 0.77±0.01 0.79±0.02 0.80±0.01 0.79±0.02

* P<0.05 TPN vs control after treatment

§ P<0.05 before vs after treatment within the groups

  1. REE was significantly higher in the TPN group after treatment.
  2. Predicted energy expenditure calculated according to Harris-Benedict overestimated the enrngy expenditure at the end of treatment in both groups.
  3. Plasma lactate concentrations were not different between the groups at rest or after submaximal exercise.
  4. The reduction in maximum working capacity (watts) was identical between the groups at the end of chemotherapy (P<0.001), but the relationship between oxygen uptake and submaximal work was not significantly influenced by themotherapy or TPN in either of the two groups.
  5. The decrease in maximal exercise ability (watts/kg LBM) was significant in the TPN group (P<0.01) but not in the control group (P<0.06).
  6. The heart rate at maximum exercise did not differ between the groups before and after chemotherapy. The heart rate at the various levels of submaximal work loads was the same in both groups.

Other Findings

  1. Average spontaneous oral caloric intake was 1014±153 kcal/day in the TPN group and 1484±200 kcal/day in the control group (P<0.07).
  2. Average spontaneous oral protein intake was 35±5 g/day in the TPN group and 51.6±6 g/day in the control group (P<0.06).
    • TPN group: average total protein intake was around 1.7 g/kg/day (TPN + oral)
    • Control group: average total protein intake was around 0.7g/kg/day
  3. Eleven subjects in the TPN group and 9 subjects in the control group provided complete food intake data.
  4. TPN group was in energy balance as confirmed by maintained or increased body weight, while the control group was in overall negative energy balance.
    • It is estimated that energy balance was +850 kcal/day in the TPN group (mean total energy expenditure was 2286 kcal/day) and -532 kcal/day in the control group (mean total energy expenditure was 2016 kcal/day). The authors assumed that the activity related expenditure  was 125% of the REE.
  5. Four septic episodes occurred (one in the control group, 3 in the TPN group) all of which were successfully treated with antibiotics after the catheter was withdrawn and  replaced after 3-4 days.

 

 

Author Conclusion:
  • This study demonstrates that TPN is insufficient to protect either body composition, whole body nitrogen sparing or working capacity when given daily for more than 8 weeks as adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with oral food intake reduced by 25-30%.
  • Fat accumulation was the only measurable benefit.
  • It is proposed that this is another example of the inefficiency of artificial nutrition to protect lean body mass in various groups of patients with upcoming or established undernutrition.
Funding Source:
Government: Swedish Medical Research Council
Not-for-profit
0
Foundation associated with industry:
Reviewer Comments:

Little information provided re: inclusion/exclusion criteria, although randomization scheme seems to account for some of this.

Attrition/intention to treat: All subjects completed chemotherapy so assuming all subjects completed study. Not stated in the paper or the tables.

Measurement of triceps skinfold depends on the skill of the technician. No info provided on the measurement process or the skill of the individual(s) performing measurement.

No sample size calculation. Small sample.

No information provided regarding compliance to TPN regimen. Compliance presented for food record intake and unsure whether this include volume of TPN received.

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? No
  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? ???
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.) 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
  3.5. 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? No
  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%.) No
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? ???
  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
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  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.) Yes
  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
  5.5. 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? Yes
  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
  6.4. 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? No
  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
  7.4. 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? 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
  8.1. 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)? ???
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? No
  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? No
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? Yes
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