Dataset Information

Study protocol for an open labelled randomised controlled trial of perioperative oral nutrition supplement in breast and colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

ABSTRACT:

Background

While it is well established that perioperative use of oral nutrition supplement (ONS) improves nutrition status among severely malnourished surgical cancer patients, the evidence requires further substantiation for non-severely malnourished patients with cancer. This protocol paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of preoperative as well as an extended 90-day postoperative use of ONS on nutritional and clinical outcomes among patients undergoing elective surgery for breast and colorectal cancer.

Methods

Patients with primary breast and colorectal cancer undergoing elective surgery are recruited from two tertiary hospitals. Eligible patients are assigned into one of the three intervention arms: (i) Group SS will receive ONS in addition to their normal diet up to 14 days preoperatively and postoperatively up to discharge; (ii) Group SS-E will receive ONS in addition to their normal diet up to 14 days preoperatively, postoperatively up to discharge and for an extended 90 days after discharge; and (iii) Group DS will receive ONS in addition to their normal diet postoperatively up to discharge from the hospital. The ONS is a standard formula fortified with lactium to aid in sleep for recovery. The primary endpoints include changes in weight, body mass index (BMI), serum albumin and prealbumin levels, while secondary endpoints are body composition (muscle and fat mass), muscle strength (handgrip strength), energy and protein intake, sleep quality, haemoglobin, inflammatory markers (transferrin, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), stress marker (saliva cortisol), length of hospital stay and postoperative complication rate.

Discussion

This trial is expected to provide evidence on whether perioperative supplementation in breast and colorectal cancer patients presenting with high BMI and not severely malnourished but undergoing the stress of surgery would be beneficial in terms of nutritional and clinical outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04400552. Registered on 22 May 2020, retrospectively registered

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05716-5.

SUBMITTER: Wong T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8565021 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set.MethodsWe identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years.ResultsWe identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results.ConclusionsIn this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.