During RT, nutritional interventions positively influenced outcomes, and counseling was of similar/higher benefit; in the medium term, only counseling exerted a significant impact on patient outcomes.

During radiotherapy, both interventions positively influenced outcomes; dietary counseling was of similar or higher benefit, whereas even 3 months after RT, it was the only method to sustain a significant impact on patient outcomes.

Background: In our published randomized trial in colorectal cancer, group 1 (n = 37) received individualized nutritional counseling and education about regular foods, group 2 (n = 37) received dietary supplements and consumed their usual diet of regular foods, and group 3 (n = 37) consumed their usual diet of regular foods. Neither group 2 nor group 3 received individualized counseling. Early nutritional counseling during radiotherapy was highly effective at reducing acute radiotherapy toxicity and improving nutritional intake/status and quality of life (QoL). Efficacy persisted for 3 mo after the intervention. Objective: The objective was to perform long-term follow-up in survivors of that clinical trial to specifically evaluate survival, late toxicity, QoL, and nutritional variables. Design: Medical data were collected from patients' records, and prescheduled interviews were conducted by dietitians for individualized evaluations. Analyses and comparisons between groups (adjusted for stage) were performed after a median follow-up of 6.5 (range: 4.9-8.1) y.

No abstract

No abstract

Radiotherapy is a widely used treatment option in cancer. However, recent evidence suggests that doses of ionizing radiation (IR) delivered inside the tumor target volume, during fractionated radiotherapy, can promote tumor invasion and metastasis. Furthermore, the tissues that surround the tumor area are also exposed to low doses of IR that are lower than those delivered inside the tumor mass, because external radiotherapy is delivered to the tumor through multiple radiation beams, in order to prevent damage of organs at risk. The biological effects of these low doses of IR on the healthy tissue surrounding the tumor area, and in particular on the vasculature remain largely to be determined. We found that doses of IR lower or equal to 0.8 Gy enhance endothelial cell migration without impinging on cell proliferation or survival. Moreover, we show that low-dose IR induces a rapid phosphorylation of several endothelial cell proteins, including the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Receptor-2 and induces VEGF production in hypoxia mimicking conditions. By activating the VEGF Receptor-2, low-dose IR enhances endothelial cell migration and prevents endothelial cell death promoted by an anti-angiogenic drug, bevacizumab. In addition, we observed that low-dose IR accelerates embryonic angiogenic sprouting during zebrafish development and promotes adult angiogenesis during zebrafish fin regeneration and in the murine Matrigel assay. Using murine experimental models of leukemia and orthotopic breast cancer, we show that low-dose IR promotes tumor growth and metastasis and that these effects were prevented by the administration of a VEGF receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor immediately before IR exposure. These findings demonstrate a new mechanism to the understanding of the potential pro-metastatic effect of IR and may provide a new rationale basis to the improvement of current radiotherapy protocols.

In the present study, we aimed to validate the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for routine nutritional screening in the radiation oncology setting, thus enabling timely and adequate referrals of patients at risk for individualised or advanced intervention. Towards this objective, we conducted a prospective cross-sectional study in 450 non-selected cancer patients (18-95 years) referred for radiotherapy. The following were the nutritional parameters: BMI (categorised by WHO's age/sex criteria), weight loss >5 % in the previous 3-6 months, Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA - validated/specific for oncology) and nutritional risk by MUST. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and concordance were calculated to validate MUST v. PG-SGA and compare single parameters v. PG-SGA/MUST. BMI v. PG-SGA showed a negligible capacity to detect undernutrition: 0.27 sensitivity, 0.23 specificity, 0.35 positive predictive value and 0.31 negative predictive value. Conversely, percentage weight loss v. PG-SGA was highly effective: 0.76 sensitivity, 0.85 specificity, 0.79 positive predictive value and 0.85 negative predictive value. MUST v. PG-SGA successfully detected patients at risk: 0.80 sensitivity, 0.89 specificity, 0.87 positive predictive value and 1.0 negative predictive value; percentage weight loss v. MUST proved able to identify patients likely to be at risk: 0.85 sensitivity, 0.91 specificity, 0.90 positive predictive value and 1.0 negative predictive value. This is the first study in the radiation oncology setting to validate MUST: a simple and quick method applicable by any health professional, with a high validity for early screening, ideally to antedate a comprehensive nutritional assessment and guide for intervention. In this study, percentage weight loss in the previous 3-6 months does seem valid to predict nutritional risk, and may be the minimum in a busy routine.

Although cancer stage was the major determinant of patients' QoL globally, there were some diagnoses for which the impact of nutritional deterioration combined with deficiencies in nutritional intake may be more important than the stage of the disease process.