{"title":"Validity of dietary intake methods in cancer cachexia.","authors":"","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":" ","pages":"292"},"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.
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.