Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:On 24th of February 2022, Ukrainian cancer patients had to face a new war. Here we describe an experience of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology Branch Krakow in providing cancer care for Ukrainian refugees during the initial 6 weeks of war. We present patients' characteristic, point out the main challenges and share initiatives undertaken. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:For this cross-sectional analysis, we have gathered demographic and clinical data together with date of crossing the Polish-Ukrainian border for 112 Ukrainian refugees with cancer who had their first-time oncology consultation between 24th February and 8th April 2022. We have also implemented national guidelines and created local procedures, interventions and policies to manage this situation. RESULTS:The peak of patient inflow was the third week of War and refugees accounted for 13% of all first-time patients within that period of time. The majority of refugees were women (86%), treated radically (57%) with breast cancer (43%). Most of the patients required systemic treatment (67%). Amongst the main challenges at the time were differences in the reimbursement system, communication issues, lack of patients' documentation or tissue samples, prolonged diagnostic or treatment interruptions, increased risk of COVID-19 infections, chemotherapy side effects, and lack of procedures. Legal, procedural and organizational steps implemented at the local and national level were described. CONCLUSIONS:The Russian invasion on Ukraine forced an unexpectedly high number of Ukrainian cancer patients to seek help abroad, leading to the straining of the health care system in Poland.

OBJECTIVES:For many years, immunonutrition was believed to reduce postoperative complications in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. However, recent studies questioned that belief. Moreover, the perioperative intake of proteins has gained more and more attention and has shown clinical value. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the clinical effect of immunomodulating (IM) plus high-protein (HP) and pure HP supplements during the preoperative period. METHODS:Between January 2011 and December 2020, 299 well-nourished patients (130 female and 169 male; mean age: 60.8 y) undergoing major abdominal surgery at two surgical centers were randomized to receive either preoperative IM or HP oral supplements for 7 d after surgery. In all patients, an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol was applied. Outcome measures of the intend-to-treat analysis were number and type of complications, length of hospitalization, and mortality. RESULTS:Both groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, and type of surgery. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 8 d (range, 6-12 d) in the IM group and 7 d (range, 6-10 d) in the HP group (P = 0.153). Postoperative complications were observed in 29 patients (21.3%) in the IM group and 28 (17.8%) in the HP group (P = 0.442) The risk of readmission was comparable (5.1% vs 4.9%; P = 0.924) for IM and HP supplements, respectively. Postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred in 21 patients in the IM group (15.4%) and 17 patients in the HP group (10.4%; P = 0.195). No difference in gastrointestinal function evaluated with time to first flatus was observed (P = 0.272) CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated no difference between preoperative IM + HP and HP supplements in surgical patients. Therefore, the routine preoperative use of IM supplements in all surgical patients cannot be recommended.

BACKGROUND & AIMS:Ensuring patients have adequate physiological reserves to meet the demands of major surgery may necessitate nutritional prehabilitation and perioperative medical nutrition therapy (MNT). Parenteral nutrition (PN) via central or peripheral routes is indicated when requirements cannot be met orally or enterally. While patients undergoing major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery are at high nutritional and catabolic risk, guidance on PN is limited in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. This survey-based study characterized MNT practices among GI surgeons, and the challenges and opportunities for MNT within the context of ERAS. METHODS:This on-line survey comprised questions and attitudinal statements centred on MNT, particularly PN, for major GI surgery patients, and encompassed the spectrum of the surgical pathway (prehabilitation to postoperative care). GI surgeons in Europe were invited to complete the survey. Respondents described their current clinical practices, while their perceptions, unmet needs, and opportunities to improve nutritional management were explored via Likert-scale responses to statements. RESULTS:GI surgeons (N = 130) from different centres in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain completed the survey. Enhanced recovery protocols (75%) and multidisciplinary nutritional care teams (72%) were established in the centres of most respondents; surgeons, dieticians/nutritionists, and nurses were most frequently involved in MNT. Nutritional risk screening was common in the centres surveyed prior to surgery (range: 62% in Italy to 96% in Poland) and undertaken less frequently postoperatively (range: 19% in Poland to 54% in Germany) with varied screening methods. Enteral nutrition insufficiency was the most common reason for prescribing PN (83%) and 56% of surgeons prescribed PN when enteral nutrition (EN) was not feasible. Overall, 71% of respondents agreed that peripherally administered PN (PPN), which does not require a central access route, lessens invasive procedures and benefits selected patients who are in a catabolic state, malnourished, or at nutritional/metabolic risk when oral intake/EN is insufficient. However, only 35% of surgeons used PPN in this scenario and only 47% utilized PPN when a central venous catheter is not available. Most surgeons (69%) agreed that PPN is in line with the ERAS concept of using minimally invasive approaches. The respondents raised a need for increasing awareness of PPN indications (81%), inclusion of PPN recommendations in clinical guidelines (79%), implementation of nutritional support teams (79%), and increased PPN-trained personnel (78%) to improve PPN delivery. CONCLUSIONS:PPN is perceived by surgeons (with ≥10 patients per month who receive PN) as a favourable strategy to support timely nutritional support in selected patients undergoing major GI surgery. However, from this clinical practice survey it seems PPN is underutilized in nutritional care practices. Findings from this survey of GI surgeons in Europe emphasize the need to improve early identification of patients who are malnourished or at nutritional/metabolic risk and integrate PPN into ERAS GI surgical pathways, within the framework of minimally invasive approaches.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer with a high risk of recurrence and poor prognosis. The treatment of locally advanced disease involves surgery and radiotherapy. To analyze real-life treatment patterns and clinical outcomes, we conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 161 MCC patients treated with curative intent in four oncological centers in Poland. The median age at diagnosis was 72 years (30-94); 49.7% were male. Lymph node (LN) involvement at diagnosis was found in 26.9% of patients. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was performed in 36.5% of patients (positive in 10.5%), and 51.9% of patients received perioperative treatment. The relapse rate was 38.3%. With the median follow-up of 2.3 years, the median disease-free survival (DFS) was not reached, and the 1-year rate was 65%. The negative independent risk factors for DFS were male gender, metastases in LN at diagnosis, no SLNB in patients without clinical nodal metastases, and no perioperative radiotherapy. The estimated median overall survival (OS) was 6.9 years (95% CI 4.64-9.15). The negative independent risk factors for OS were male gender, age above 70, metastases in LN at diagnosis, and no SLNB in patients without clinical nodal metastases. Our results confirm that the MCC treatment should be conducted in an experienced multidisciplinary team; however, the outcomes are still unsatisfactory.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most commonly used access for long-term enteral nutrition. Only a few studies report the prevalence and epidemiology of PEG placements. No previous data concentrated on the healthcare system issues influencing the qualification rates and professional nutritional support for individuals with PEG. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a retrospective nationwide analysis of PEG placements in Poland from 2010 to 2020. The central data on ICD-10 coding of adult patients with PEG reported to the insurance company were used for the analysis of general and regional prevalence, age, and primary and secondary diseases. Rates of patients with home enteral nutrition (HEN) were calculated with a special focus on patients with cancer. A secondary aim was to determine the causes of regional disparities among administrative regions. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total number of 90,182 PEGs were placed during the observation period. The number was increasing each year with statistical significance. Malnutrition, dysphagia, and cardiorespiratory/metabolic diseases were the most frequently reported primary diseases. A total of 11.98% of all patients were diagnosed with cancer; 49.9% of oncological patients suffered from head and neck cancer (HNC) and 19.9% from esophageal cancer. In total, 6.61% of HNC and 27.46% of patients with esophageal cancer from the Polish National Cancer Registry (NCR) had PEG. The rates of patients in more advanced ages (65-74 and over 85 years) were growing and decreased in younger groups (18-24, 45-54, and 55-64 years). Overall, 27.6% of all (11.86% of cancer) patients with PEG were reimbursed HEN. A high number of patients in nursing care facilities, lower education of citizens, and lower number of hospital beds were associated with more PEG insertions in the administrative regions. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The number of PEG placements has been increasing, particularly in the elderly. Systemic solutions must be found to address the problems of regional disparities in PEG's prevalence as well as the lack of inclusion criteria for nutritional support.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Enteral nutrition (EN) with foods for special medical purposes (FSMP) is recommended for most patients on home enteral nutrition (HEN). Although there are disease-specific guidelines for energy, protein, and micronutrient provision, only a few studies are showing real-life experience in the long-term use of FSMP. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:In a multicenter study, the influence of the FSMP composition and administration technique (bolus vs. continuous) on protein and energy provision in HEN was analyzed. Provision of vitamins and minerals was compared to recommended daily allowance (RDA) and upper tolerable limit (UL). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:). Significant number of patients received less than 100% RDA of vitamin D (50.5%), vitamin B3 (49%), vitamin K (21.8%), vitamin B5 (64.3%), vitamin B9 (60%). Majority of the patients received less than 100% RDA of sodium (80.2%), potassium (99%), chloride (98%), calcium (67%), magnesium (87%), fluoride (99%), and iodine (43%). Approximately, 43.63% of cancer and 49.9% of neurological patients received less than 1 g/kg/day of protein and 51.7% of cancer and 55.5% of neurological patients received less than 25 kcal/kg/day. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Awareness of the available compositions of FSMP and advantageous profiles of specific diets may lead to the implementation of recommendations for EN. HEN professionals need to analyze all the patient's needs and requirements to provide more tailored matching of nutritional support.

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues raised in Dr Lauro's and Ropoli's letter, to clarify aspects of our methodology in relation to these concerns [...].