Cancers are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and the number of new cases is expected to rise significantly over the next decades. At the same time, all types of cancer treatment, such as surgery, radiation therapy, and pharmacological therapies are improving in sophistication, precision and in the power to target specific characteristics of individual cancers. Thus, while many cancers may still not be cured they may be converted to chronic diseases. All of these treatments, however, are impeded or precluded by the frequent development of malnutrition and metabolic derangements in cancer patients, induced by the tumor or by its treatment. These evidence-based guidelines were developed to translate current best evidence and expert opinion into recommendations for multi-disciplinary teams responsible for identification, prevention, and treatment of reversible elements of malnutrition in adult cancer patients. The guidelines were commissioned and financially supported by ESPEN and by the European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), an EU level initiative. Members of the guideline group were selected by ESPEN to include a range of professions and fields of expertise. We searched for meta-analyses, systematic reviews and comparative studies based on clinical questions according to the PICO format. The evidence was evaluated and merged to develop clinical recommendations using the GRADE method. Due to the deficits in the available evidence, relevant still open questions were listed and should be addressed by future studies. Malnutrition and a loss of muscle mass are frequent in cancer patients and have a negative effect on clinical outcome. They may be driven by inadequate food intake, decreased physical activity and catabolic metabolic derangements. To screen for, prevent, assess in detail, monitor and treat malnutrition standard operating procedures, responsibilities and a quality control process should be established at each institution involved in treating cancer patients. All cancer patients should be screened regularly for the risk or the presence of malnutrition. In all patients - with the exception of end of life care - energy and substrate requirements should be met by offering in a step-wise manner nutritional interventions from counseling to parenteral nutrition. However, benefits and risks of nutritional interventions have to be balanced with special consideration in patients with advanced disease. Nutritional care should always be accompanied by exercise training. To counter malnutrition in patients with advanced cancer there are few pharmacological agents and pharmaconutrients with only limited effects. Cancer survivors should engage in regular physical activity and adopt a prudent diet.

Background: This practical guideline is based on the current scientific ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Methods: ESPEN guidelines have been shortened and transformed into flow charts for easier use in clinical practice. The practical guideline is dedicated to all professionals including physicians, dieticians, nutritionists and nurses working with patients with cancer. Results: A total of 43 recommendations are presented with short commentaries for the nutritional and metabolic management of patients with neoplastic diseases. The disease-related recommendations are preceded by general recommendations on the diagnostics of nutritional status in cancer patients. Conclusion: This practical guideline gives guidance to health care providers involved in the management of cancer patients to offer optimal nutritional care.

BackgroundCancer cachexia is a syndrome of weight loss (including muscle and fat), anorexia, and decreased physical function. It has been suggested that the optimal treatment for cachexia should be a multimodal intervention. The primary aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and safety of a multimodal intervention (n‐3 polyunsaturated fatty acid nutritional supplements, exercise, and anti‐inflammatory medication: celecoxib) for cancer cachexia in patients with incurable lung or pancreatic cancer, undergoing chemotherapy.MethodsPatients receiving two cycles of standard chemotherapy were randomized to either the multimodal cachexia intervention or standard care. Primary outcome measures were feasibility assessed by recruitment, attrition, and compliance with intervention (>50% of components in >50% of patients). Key secondary outcomes were change in weight, muscle mass, physical activity, safety, and survival.ResultsThree hundred and ninety‐nine were screened resulting in 46 patients recruited (11.5%). Twenty five patients were randomized to the treatment and 21 as controls. Forty‐one completed the study (attrition rate 11%). Compliance to the individual components of the intervention was 76% for celecoxib, 60% for exercise, and 48% for nutritional supplements. As expected from the sample size, there was no statistically significant effect on physical activity or muscle mass. There were no intervention‐related Serious Adverse Events and survival was similar between the groups.ConclusionsA multimodal cachexia intervention is feasible and safe in patients with incurable lung or pancreatic cancer; however, compliance to nutritional supplements was suboptimal. A phase III study is now underway to assess fully the effect of the intervention.

The role of the systemic inflammatory response in predicting outcomes in patients with advanced inoperable cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 116, pp. 134-146. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.

The prevalence, associations, and natural history of pain in multiple sclerosis (MS) are poorly understood. The objective of this work was to study the prevalence of pain syndromes in MS both cross-sectionally, and longitudinally during the MS disease course. We systematically identified prospective studies detailing pain prevalence in definite MS. We used pooled prevalence estimates, explored heterogeneity using meta-regression, and analysed prevalence during the disease course using both estimates at disease milestones and longitudinal studies. Twenty-eight articles (7101 subjects) describing overall pain, or pain syndromes, met inclusion criteria. Pooled overall pain prevalence (17 studies, 5319 subjects) was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55-70%). Marked heterogeneity in this estimate was not significantly explained by selected study design variables (use of outpatient sample, timeframe prior to study over which pain was assessed) or sample demographic variables (mean Expanded Disability Status Scale, mean disease duration, proportion of female sex, and proportion with progressive MS). We quantified prevalence of headache (43%; 95% CI 33-52%), neuropathic extremity pain (26%; 95% CI 7-53%), back pain (20%; 95% CI 13-28%), painful spasms (15%; 95% CI 8.5-23%), Lhermitte sign (16%; 95% CI 10-25%), and trigeminal neuralgia (3.8%; 95% CI 2-6%) in included studies. Prevalence of pain at MS disease milestones (prior to onset, at onset, and at relapse) and during longitudinal follow-up was poorly described. Pain is common in MS, as are specific pain syndromes. The clinical associations and natural history of pain in MS require clarification. Future study could be enhanced by standardised study design.

Oncology has come a long way in addressing patients' quality of life, together with developing surgical, radio-oncological and medical anticancer therapies. However, the multiple and varying needs of patients are still not being met adequately as part of routine cancer care. Supportive and palliative care interventions should be integrated, dynamic, personalised and based on best evidence. They should start at the time of diagnosis and continue through to end-of-life or survivorship. ESMO is committed to excellence in all aspects of oncological care during the continuum of the cancer experience. Following the 2003 ESMO stand on supportive and palliative care (Cherny N, Catane R, Kosmidis P. ESMO takes a stand on supportive and palliative care. Ann Oncol 2003; 14(9): 1335-1337), this position paper highlights the evolving and growing gap between the needs of cancer patients and the actual provision of care. The concept of patient-centred cancer care is presented along with key requisites and areas for further work.

Purpose: In advanced cancer, oncological treatment is influenced by performance status (PS); however, this has limitations. Biomarkers of systemic inflammation may have prognostic value in advanced cancer. The study compares key factors in prognosis (performance status, patient-reported outcomes; PRO) with an inflammation-based score (Glasgow Prognostic Score, mGPS). A new method of prognosis in advanced cancer (combining performance status and mGPS) is tested and then validated.Experimental Design: Two international biobanks of patients with advanced cancer were analyzed. Key prognostic factors [performance status, PROs (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30), and mGPS (using C-reactive protein and albumin concentrations)] were examined. The relationship between these and survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods, in a test sample before independent validation.Results: Data were available on 1,825 patients (test) and 631 patients (validation). Median survival ranged from 3.2 months (test) to 7.03 months (validation). On multivariate analysis, performance status (HR 1.62-2.77) and mGPS (HR 1.51-2.27) were independently associated with, and were the strongest predictors of survival (P < 0.01). Survival at 3 months varied from 82% (mGPS 0) to 39% (mGPS 2) and from 75% (performance status 0-1) to 14% (performance status 4). When used together, survival ranged from 88% (mGPS 0, PS 0-1) to 10% (mGPS 2, performance status 4), P < 0.001.Conclusion: A systemic inflammation-based score, mGPS, and performance status predict survival in advanced cancer. The mGPS is similar to performance status in terms of prognostic power. Used together, performance status and mGPS act synergistically improving prognostic accuracy. This new method may be of considerable value in the management of patients with advanced cancer.

Various prognostic tools have been validated but vary in their complexity, subjectivity, and therefore clinical utility. The Glasgow Prognostic Score would seem the most favorable as it uses only two parameters (both objective) and has prognostic value complementary to the gold standard measure, which is performance status. Further studies comparing all proved prognostic markers in a single cohort of patients with advanced cancer are needed to determine the optimal prognostic tool.