Nutrition therapy in esophageal cancer-Consensus statement of the Gastroenterological Society of Taiwan.
Chen M-J,Wu I-C,Chen Y-J,Wang T-E,Chang Y-F,Yang C-L,Huang W-C,Chang W-K,Sheu B-S,Wu M-S,Lin J-T,Chu C-H
Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus
A number of clinical guidelines on nutrition therapy in cancer patients have been published by national and international societies; however, most of the reviewed data focused on gastrointestinal cancer or non-cancerous abdominal surgery. To collate the corresponding data for esophageal cancer (EC), a consensus panel was convened to aid specialists from different disciplines, who are involved in the clinical nutrition care of EC patients. The literature was searched using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the ISI Web of Knowledge. We searched for the best evidence pertaining to nutrition therapy in the case of EC. The panel summarized the findings in 3 sections of this consensus statement, based on which, after the diagnosis of EC, an initial distinction is made between the patients, as follows: (1) Assessment; (2) Therapy in patients with resectable disease; patients receiving chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy prior to resection, and patients with unresectable disease, requiring chemoradiotherapy or palliative therapy; and (3) Formula. The resulting consensus statement reflects the opinions of a multidisciplinary group of experts, and a review of the current literature, and outlines the essential aspects of nutrition therapy in the case of EC. The statements are: Patients with EC are among one of the highest risk to have malnutrition. Patient generated suggestive global assessment is correlated with performance status and prognosis. Nutrition assessment for patients with EC at the diagnosis, prior to definitive therapy and change of treatment strategy are suggested and the timing interval can be two weeks during the treatment period, and one month while the patient is stable. Patients identified as high risk of malnutrition should be considered for preoperative nutritional support (tube feeding) for at least 7-10 days. Various routes for tube feedings are available after esophagectomy with similar nutrition support benefits. Limited intrathoracic anastomotic leakage postesophagectomy can be managed with intravenous antibiotics and self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) or jejunal tube. Enteral nutrition in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiation provides benefits of maintaining weight, decreasing toxicity, and preventing treatment interruption. Tube feeding or SEMS can offer nutrition support in patients with unresectable esophageal cancer, but SEMS is not recommended for those with neoadjuvant chemoradiation before surgery. Enteral immunonutrition may preserve lean body mass and attenuates stress response after esophagectomy. Administration of glutamine may decrease the severity of chemotherapy induced mucositis. Enteral immunonutrition achieves greater nutrition status or maintains immune functions during concurrent chemoradiation.
Enteral nutrition in esophageal cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a Chinese expert consensus 2018.
Lyu Jiahua,Li Tao,Xie Conghua,Li Jie,Xing Ligang,Zhang Xiaozhi,Shen Liangfang,Zhao Kuaile,Zhao Ren,Yang Daoke,Li Xia,Zhu Shuchai,Sun Wei,Shi Hanping,
Future oncology (London, England)
Esophageal cancer (EC) patients receiving radiotherapy are at a high risk of malnutrition, which can increase the side effects of radiotherapy, reduce the accuracy and sensitivity of radiotherapy and decrease treatment effect. Therefore, timely and correct nutritional treatment is crucial. To date, however, neither consensus nor guidelines on enteral nutrition (EN) specifically for EC patients receiving radiotherapy exist. Accordingly, an expert consensus conference was held to establish consensus on the use of EN in EC patients receiving radiotherapy. It reflected the opinions of a multidisciplinary group of experts and a review of the current literature, and established common guidelines for nutritional screening and assessment, nutrition counseling, indication for EN, access and formulas of EN, effect evaluation, nutrition plan adjustment, and home enteral nutrition.
Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Esophagectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations.
Low Donald E,Allum William,De Manzoni Giovanni,Ferri Lorenzo,Immanuel Arul,Kuppusamy MadhanKumar,Law Simon,Lindblad Mats,Maynard Nick,Neal Joseph,Pramesh C S,Scott Mike,Mark Smithers B,Addor Valérie,Ljungqvist Olle
World journal of surgery
INTRODUCTION:Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a format for multidisciplinary care and has been shown to predictably improve short term outcomes associated with surgical procedures. Esophagectomy has historically been associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality and as a result routine application and audit of ERAS guidelines specifically designed for esophageal resection has significant potential to improve outcomes associated with this complex procedure. METHODS:A team of international experts in the surgical management of esophageal cancer was assembled and the existing literature was identified and reviewed prior to the production of the guidelines. Well established procedure specific components of ERAS were reviewed and updated with changes relevant to esophagectomy. Procedure specific, operative and technical sections were produced utilizing the best current level of evidence. All sections were rated regarding the level of evidence and overall recommendation according to the evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS:Thirty-nine sections were ultimately produced and assessed for quality of evidence and recommendations. Some sections were completely new to ERAS programs due to the fact that esophagectomy is the first guideline with a thoracic component to the procedure. CONCLUSIONS:The current ERAS society guidelines should be reviewed and applied in all centers looking to improve outcomes and quality associated with esophageal resection.
Enteral immunonutrition versus enteral nutrition for patients undergoing oesophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Li Xiao-Kun,Zhou Hai,Xu Yang,Cong Zhuang-Zhuang,Wu Wen-Jie,Luo Jing,Jiang Zhi-Sheng,Shen Yi
Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery
OBJECTIVES:According to retrospective studies, oesophageal carcinoma is the second deadliest gastrointestinal cancer after gastric cancer. Enteral immunonutrition (EIN) has been increasingly used to enhance host immunity and relieve the inflammatory response of patients undergoing oesophagectomy; however, conclusions across studies remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effect of EIN on the clinical and immunological outcomes of patients undergoing oesophagectomy. METHODS:Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) were used to search articles in peer-reviewed, English-language journals. The mean difference, relative risk or standard mean difference with 95% confidence interval were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochran's Q test and I2 statistic combined with the corresponding P-value. The analysis was carried out with RevMan 5.3. RESULTS:Six articles were finally included, with a total of 320 patients with oesophageal cancer. The meta-analysis results showed that EIN did not improve clinical outcomes (such as infectious complications, pneumonia, surgical site infection, anastomotic leak and postoperative hospital stay) or immune indices [referring to C-reactive protein, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, tumour necrosis factor-α]. Descriptive analysis suggested that EIN also increased the serum concentrations of IgG and the percentage of the B-cell fraction. Thus, its impact on IL-8 and IL-6 remains inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS:The early-stage impact of EIN on immunological status in patients undergoing oesophagectomy is still unclear. According to the results of this meta-analysis, whether EIN could improve the clinical outcomes or biological status after oesophagectomy compared to standard enteral nutrition is uncertain. Since the impact of EIN is unclear, current guidelines that strongly advise the use of EIN should be changed, as the utility of EIN is very uncertain. More appropriately powered clinical studies are warranted to confirm its effectiveness.