{"title":"评估乳腺癌病程中能量需求的预测公式:比较研究","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.clnu.2024.07.032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background & aims</h3><p>Accurately estimating resting energy requirements is crucial for optimizing energy intake, particularly in the context of patients with varying energy needs, such as individuals with cancer. We sought to evaluate the agreement between resting energy expenditure (REE) predicted by 40 equations and that measured by reference methods in women undergoing active breast cancer treatment stage (I-IV) and post-completion (i.e., survivors).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data from 4 studies were combined. REE values estimated from 40 predictive equations identified by a systematic search were compared with REE assessed by indirect calorimetry (IC) using a metabolic cart (MC-REE N = 46) or a whole-room indirect calorimeter (WRIC-REE N = 44). Agreement between methods was evaluated using Bland–Altman and Lin's concordance coefficient correlation (Lin's CCC).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Ninety participants (24 % survivors, 61.1% had early-stage breast cancer I or II, mean age: 56.8 ± 11 years; body mass index: 28.7 ± 6.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) were included in this analysis. Mean MC-REE and WRIC-REE values were 1389 ± 199 kcal/day and 1506 ± 247 kcal/day, respectively. Limits of agreement were wide for all equations compared to both MC and WRIC (∼300 kcal for both methods), including the most commonly used ones, such as Harris–Benedict and Mifflin ST. Jeor equations; none had a bias within ±10% of measured REE, and all had low agreement per Lin's CCC analysis (<0.90). The Korth equation exhibited the best performance against WRIC and the Lvingston-Kohlstadt equation against MC. Similar patterns of bias were observed between survivors and patients and between patients with stages I-III versus IV cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Most equations failed to accurately predict REE at the group level, and none were effective at the individual level. This inaccuracy has significant implications for women with or surviving breast cancer, who may experience weight gain, maintenance, or loss due to inaccurate energy needs estimations. Therefore, our research underscores the need for further efforts to improve REE estimation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10517,"journal":{"name":"Clinical nutrition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561424002590/pdfft?md5=f3e547f5f12235c83e6d7a95e654c8c6&pid=1-s2.0-S0261561424002590-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating predictive equations for energy requirements throughout breast cancer trajectory: A comparative study\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clnu.2024.07.032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background & aims</h3><p>Accurately estimating resting energy requirements is crucial for optimizing energy intake, particularly in the context of patients with varying energy needs, such as individuals with cancer. We sought to evaluate the agreement between resting energy expenditure (REE) predicted by 40 equations and that measured by reference methods in women undergoing active breast cancer treatment stage (I-IV) and post-completion (i.e., survivors).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data from 4 studies were combined. REE values estimated from 40 predictive equations identified by a systematic search were compared with REE assessed by indirect calorimetry (IC) using a metabolic cart (MC-REE N = 46) or a whole-room indirect calorimeter (WRIC-REE N = 44). Agreement between methods was evaluated using Bland–Altman and Lin's concordance coefficient correlation (Lin's CCC).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Ninety participants (24 % survivors, 61.1% had early-stage breast cancer I or II, mean age: 56.8 ± 11 years; body mass index: 28.7 ± 6.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) were included in this analysis. Mean MC-REE and WRIC-REE values were 1389 ± 199 kcal/day and 1506 ± 247 kcal/day, respectively. Limits of agreement were wide for all equations compared to both MC and WRIC (∼300 kcal for both methods), including the most commonly used ones, such as Harris–Benedict and Mifflin ST. Jeor equations; none had a bias within ±10% of measured REE, and all had low agreement per Lin's CCC analysis (<0.90). The Korth equation exhibited the best performance against WRIC and the Lvingston-Kohlstadt equation against MC. Similar patterns of bias were observed between survivors and patients and between patients with stages I-III versus IV cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Most equations failed to accurately predict REE at the group level, and none were effective at the individual level. This inaccuracy has significant implications for women with or surviving breast cancer, who may experience weight gain, maintenance, or loss due to inaccurate energy needs estimations. Therefore, our research underscores the need for further efforts to improve REE estimation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical nutrition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561424002590/pdfft?md5=f3e547f5f12235c83e6d7a95e654c8c6&pid=1-s2.0-S0261561424002590-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561424002590\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561424002590","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景&amp; 目的准确估算静息能量需求对于优化能量摄入至关重要,尤其是在癌症患者等能量需求各不相同的情况下。我们试图评估 40 个方程预测的静息能量消耗(REE)与参考方法测量的静息能量消耗(REE)之间的一致性。将通过系统搜索确定的 40 个预测方程估算出的 REE 值与使用代谢车(MC-RE N = 46)或全室间接热量计(WRIC-RE N = 44)的间接热量计(IC)评估的 REE 值进行比较。结果 90 名参与者(24% 为幸存者,61.1% 患有早期乳腺癌 I 或 II 期,平均年龄:56.8±11 岁;体重指数:28.7±6.4 kg)的热量损失率为 0.5%,其中有 1.1%的人患有早期乳腺癌 I 或 II 期,平均年龄:56.8±11 岁;体重指数:28.7±6.4 kg)的热量损失率为 0.5%,其中有 1.1%的人患有早期乳腺癌 II 期:平均年龄:56.8 ± 11 岁;体重指数:28.7 ± 6.4 kg/m2)。MC-REE 和 WRIC-REE 的平均值分别为 1389 ± 199 千卡/天和 1506 ± 247 千卡/天。与 MC 和 WRIC 相比,所有方程的一致性界限都很宽(两种方法均为∼300 千卡),包括最常用的方程,如 Harris-Benedict 和 Mifflin ST.根据 Lin 的 CCC 分析,所有方程的一致性都很低(<0.90)。Korth 公式在与 WRIC 比较时表现最佳,而 Lvingston-Kohlstadt 公式在与 MC 比较时表现最佳。在幸存者与患者之间,以及 I-III 期癌症患者与 IV 期癌症患者之间,观察到了类似的偏倚模式。这种不准确性对乳腺癌女性患者或存活者有重大影响,她们可能会因能量需求估计不准确而导致体重增加、维持或减轻。因此,我们的研究强调了进一步改进 REE 估算的必要性。
Evaluating predictive equations for energy requirements throughout breast cancer trajectory: A comparative study
Background & aims
Accurately estimating resting energy requirements is crucial for optimizing energy intake, particularly in the context of patients with varying energy needs, such as individuals with cancer. We sought to evaluate the agreement between resting energy expenditure (REE) predicted by 40 equations and that measured by reference methods in women undergoing active breast cancer treatment stage (I-IV) and post-completion (i.e., survivors).
Methods
Data from 4 studies were combined. REE values estimated from 40 predictive equations identified by a systematic search were compared with REE assessed by indirect calorimetry (IC) using a metabolic cart (MC-REE N = 46) or a whole-room indirect calorimeter (WRIC-REE N = 44). Agreement between methods was evaluated using Bland–Altman and Lin's concordance coefficient correlation (Lin's CCC).
Results
Ninety participants (24 % survivors, 61.1% had early-stage breast cancer I or II, mean age: 56.8 ± 11 years; body mass index: 28.7 ± 6.4 kg/m2) were included in this analysis. Mean MC-REE and WRIC-REE values were 1389 ± 199 kcal/day and 1506 ± 247 kcal/day, respectively. Limits of agreement were wide for all equations compared to both MC and WRIC (∼300 kcal for both methods), including the most commonly used ones, such as Harris–Benedict and Mifflin ST. Jeor equations; none had a bias within ±10% of measured REE, and all had low agreement per Lin's CCC analysis (<0.90). The Korth equation exhibited the best performance against WRIC and the Lvingston-Kohlstadt equation against MC. Similar patterns of bias were observed between survivors and patients and between patients with stages I-III versus IV cancer.
Conclusion
Most equations failed to accurately predict REE at the group level, and none were effective at the individual level. This inaccuracy has significant implications for women with or surviving breast cancer, who may experience weight gain, maintenance, or loss due to inaccurate energy needs estimations. Therefore, our research underscores the need for further efforts to improve REE estimation.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Nutrition, the official journal of ESPEN, The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, is an international journal providing essential scientific information on nutritional and metabolic care and the relationship between nutrition and disease both in the setting of basic science and clinical practice. Published bi-monthly, each issue combines original articles and reviews providing an invaluable reference for any specialist concerned with these fields.