Validity of dietary intake methods in cancer cachexia.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Trude R Balstad, Marianne Bråtveit, Tora S Solheim, Lisa Heide Koteng, Asta Bye, Rasmus Dahl Jakobsen, Bente Schødt-Osmo, Siv Hilde Fjeldstad, Marianne Erichsen, Ola Magne Vagnildhaug, Ingvild Paur, Inger Ottestad
{"title":"Validity of dietary intake methods in cancer cachexia.","authors":"Trude R Balstad, Marianne Bråtveit, Tora S Solheim, Lisa Heide Koteng, Asta Bye, Rasmus Dahl Jakobsen, Bente Schødt-Osmo, Siv Hilde Fjeldstad, Marianne Erichsen, Ola Magne Vagnildhaug, Ingvild Paur, Inger Ottestad","doi":"10.1097/SPC.0000000000000709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Accurate assessment of dietary intake, especially energy and protein intake, is crucial for optimizing nutritional care and outcomes in patients with cancer. Validation of dietary assessment methods is necessary to ensure accuracy, but the validity of these methods in patients with cancer, and especially in those with cancer cachexia, is uncertain. Validating nutritional intake is complex because of the variety of dietary methods, lack of a gold standard method, and diverse validation measures. Here, we review the literature on validations of dietary intake methods in patients with cancer, including those with cachexia, and highlight the gap between current validation efforts and the need for accurate dietary assessment methods in this population.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>We analyzed eight studies involving 1479 patients with cancer to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of 24-hour recalls, food records, and food frequency questionnaires in estimating energy and protein intake. We discuss validation methods, including comparison with biomarkers, indirect calorimetry, and relative validation of dietary intake methods.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Few have validated dietary intake methods against objective markers in patients with cancer. While food records and 24-hour recalls show potential accuracy for energy and protein intake, this may be compromised in hypermetabolic patients. Additionally, under- and overreporting of intake may be less frequent, and the reliability of urinary nitrogen as a protein intake marker in patients with cachexia needs further investigation. Accurate dietary assessment is important for enhancing nutritional care outcomes in cachexia trials, requiring validation at multiple time points throughout the cancer trajectory.</p>","PeriodicalId":48837,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000709","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: Accurate assessment of dietary intake, especially energy and protein intake, is crucial for optimizing nutritional care and outcomes in patients with cancer. Validation of dietary assessment methods is necessary to ensure accuracy, but the validity of these methods in patients with cancer, and especially in those with cancer cachexia, is uncertain. Validating nutritional intake is complex because of the variety of dietary methods, lack of a gold standard method, and diverse validation measures. Here, we review the literature on validations of dietary intake methods in patients with cancer, including those with cachexia, and highlight the gap between current validation efforts and the need for accurate dietary assessment methods in this population.

Recent findings: We analyzed eight studies involving 1479 patients with cancer to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of 24-hour recalls, food records, and food frequency questionnaires in estimating energy and protein intake. We discuss validation methods, including comparison with biomarkers, indirect calorimetry, and relative validation of dietary intake methods.

Summary: Few have validated dietary intake methods against objective markers in patients with cancer. While food records and 24-hour recalls show potential accuracy for energy and protein intake, this may be compromised in hypermetabolic patients. Additionally, under- and overreporting of intake may be less frequent, and the reliability of urinary nitrogen as a protein intake marker in patients with cachexia needs further investigation. Accurate dietary assessment is important for enhancing nutritional care outcomes in cachexia trials, requiring validation at multiple time points throughout the cancer trajectory.

癌症恶病质中膳食摄入方法的有效性。
综述目的:准确评估膳食摄入量,尤其是能量和蛋白质摄入量,对于优化癌症患者的营养护理和治疗效果至关重要。为确保准确性,有必要对膳食评估方法进行验证,但这些方法在癌症患者,尤其是癌症恶病质患者中的有效性尚不确定。由于膳食方法多种多样,缺乏金标准方法,验证措施也多种多样,因此营养摄入量的验证非常复杂。在此,我们回顾了有关癌症患者(包括恶病质患者)膳食摄入方法验证的文献,并强调了当前验证工作与该人群对准确膳食评估方法的需求之间的差距:我们分析了涉及 1479 名癌症患者的 8 项研究,以评估 24 小时回忆、食物记录和食物频率问卷在估算能量和蛋白质摄入量方面的准确性和可靠性。我们讨论了验证方法,包括与生物标记物、间接热量计的比较,以及膳食摄入方法的相对验证:很少有人将膳食摄入量方法与癌症患者的客观指标进行验证。虽然食物记录和 24 小时回忆显示了能量和蛋白质摄入量的潜在准确性,但这可能会影响高代谢患者的摄入量。此外,少报和多报摄入量的情况可能较少发生,尿氮作为恶病质患者蛋白质摄入量标记的可靠性需要进一步研究。准确的膳食评估对提高恶病质试验中的营养护理效果非常重要,需要在癌症病程的多个时间点进行验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care
Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: A reader-friendly resource, Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care provides an up-to-date account of the most important advances in the field of supportive and palliative care. Each issue contains either two or three sections delivering a diverse and comprehensive coverage of all the key issues, including end-of-life management, gastrointestinal systems and respiratory problems. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care is an indispensable journal for the busy clinician, researcher or student.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信