No abstract

Mobility in advanced cancer patients is a major health care concern and is often lost in advanced metastatic cancers. Erosion of mobility is a major component in determining quality of life but also starts a process of loss of muscle and bone mass that further devastates patients. In addition, treatment options become limited in these advanced cancer patients. Loss of bone and muscle occurs concomitantly. Advanced cancers that are metastatic to bone often lead to bone loss (osteolytic lesions) but may also lead to abnormal deposition of new bone (osteoblastic lesions). However, in both cases there is a disruption to normal bone remodeling and radiologic evidence of bone loss. Many antitumor therapies can also lead to loss of bone in cancer survivors. Bone loss releases cytokines (TGFβ) stored in the mineralized matrix that can act on skeletal muscle and lead to weakness. Likewise, loss of skeletal muscle mass leads to reduced bone mass and quality via mechanical and endocrine signals. Collectively these interactions are termed bone‐muscle cross‐talk, which has garnered much attention recently as a prime target for musculoskeletal health. Pharmacological approaches as well as nutrition and exercise can improve muscle and bone but have fallen short in the context of advanced cancers and cachexia. This review highlights our current knowledge of these interventions and discusses the difficulties in treating severe musculoskeletal deficits with the emphasis on improving not only bone mass and muscle size but also functional outcomes. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

No abstract

Funding informationAvon Breast Cancer Crusade K E Y W O R D S : breast cancer, exercise, metastatic, mHealth, physical function, quality of life, technology-based interventions

No abstract

Our objectives are to assess (1) the acceptability and feasibility of dietary interventions for patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT), and (2) the impact of dietary interventions on patient reported outcomes, toxicities, and survival. Methods: A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to include articles that evaluate adding dietary interventions to patients receiving RT. Acceptability was defined as (# accepting/# approached); feasibility was (# completing/# approached). Patient-reported outcomes were reported based on questionnaires used in each study and survival was measured from the date of diagnosis until death in each study. Level of evidence was assessed with Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) criteria. Results: Sixteen articles were included; among these, 2027 patients were approached regarding the intervention, and 1661 accepted (81.9%); of these, 1543 (92.9%) completed the prescribed diet + RT course. The most common cancers included were gynecological, head and neck, and gastrointestinal. For patients with pelvic cancers, a high fiber diet may improve diarrhea (CEBM level 1b). Enteral nutrition formula, including formulas with proteins such as L-arginine, lipids such as eicosapentaenoic acids, glucids, and ribonucleotides, may help prevent of malnutrition in head and neck cancer patients undergoing RT (level 2b). Vitamin C and b-carotene may reduce of xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients; however, the studies evaluating these vitamins included vitamin E; which increases all-cause mortality (level 2b). No dietary intervention for cancer patients receiving RT has been shown to improve survival. Conclusion: There are limited data to support safe and efficacious use of dietary interventions during RT.

No abstract

No abstract