食管癌患者采用手术、内窥镜或放射技术进行营养支持后的患者报告结果:系统回顾

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Current oncology Pub Date : 2024-10-14 DOI:10.3390/curroncol31100460
Filipa Fontes, Davide Fernandes, Ana Almeida, Inês Sá, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro
{"title":"食管癌患者采用手术、内窥镜或放射技术进行营养支持后的患者报告结果:系统回顾","authors":"Filipa Fontes, Davide Fernandes, Ana Almeida, Inês Sá, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro","doi":"10.3390/curroncol31100460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several techniques exist to maintain oral and/or enteral feeding among esophageal cancer (EC) patients, but their impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of nutritional support techniques on PROs in EC patients. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete from inception to 3 April 2024. Eligible studies included those evaluating EC patients, reporting PROs using standardized measures, and providing data on different nutritional support techniques or comparing them to no intervention. The reference lists of the included studies were also screened for additional eligible articles. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Of the 694 articles identified from databases and 224 from backward citation, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies evaluated the overall quality of life (QoL), four assessed pain, and one evaluated depression. Among those submitted to esophagectomy, jejunostomy may be associated with higher QoL scores and less postoperative pain, compared to a nasojejunal tube, but no significant differences were found when compared to no intervention. For patients undergoing chemotherapy or receiving palliative/symptomatic treatment, expandable metal stents (SEMSs) were associated with higher levels of emotional functioning when compared with laparoscopic gastrostomy. Moreover, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or SEMSs were associated with a higher QoL compared with nasogastric tubes. This review underscores the importance of considering PRO measures when evaluating nutritional support techniques in cancer patients, though further robust evidence is needed to fully understand these associations.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"31 10","pages":"6171-6190"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11505681/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-Reported Outcomes after Surgical, Endoscopic, or Radiological Techniques for Nutritional Support in Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Filipa Fontes, Davide Fernandes, Ana Almeida, Inês Sá, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/curroncol31100460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Several techniques exist to maintain oral and/or enteral feeding among esophageal cancer (EC) patients, but their impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of nutritional support techniques on PROs in EC patients. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete from inception to 3 April 2024. Eligible studies included those evaluating EC patients, reporting PROs using standardized measures, and providing data on different nutritional support techniques or comparing them to no intervention. The reference lists of the included studies were also screened for additional eligible articles. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Of the 694 articles identified from databases and 224 from backward citation, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies evaluated the overall quality of life (QoL), four assessed pain, and one evaluated depression. Among those submitted to esophagectomy, jejunostomy may be associated with higher QoL scores and less postoperative pain, compared to a nasojejunal tube, but no significant differences were found when compared to no intervention. For patients undergoing chemotherapy or receiving palliative/symptomatic treatment, expandable metal stents (SEMSs) were associated with higher levels of emotional functioning when compared with laparoscopic gastrostomy. Moreover, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or SEMSs were associated with a higher QoL compared with nasogastric tubes. This review underscores the importance of considering PRO measures when evaluating nutritional support techniques in cancer patients, though further robust evidence is needed to fully understand these associations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current oncology\",\"volume\":\"31 10\",\"pages\":\"6171-6190\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11505681/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100460\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100460","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前有多种技术可维持食管癌(EC)患者的口服和/或肠内喂养,但它们对患者报告结果(PROs)的影响仍不明确。本系统性综述旨在评估营养支持技术对食管癌患者PROs的影响。我们检索了 Medline、Web of Science 和 CINAHL Complete 从开始到 2024 年 4 月 3 日的内容。符合条件的研究包括那些对心血管疾病患者进行评估、使用标准化测量方法报告PROs、提供不同营养支持技术数据或将其与无干预措施进行比较的研究。我们还对纳入研究的参考文献目录进行了筛选,以寻找更多符合条件的文章。混合方法评估工具(Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool)用于评估纳入研究的质量。在从数据库中找到的 694 篇文章和从后向引用中找到的 224 篇文章中,有 11 项研究符合纳入标准。九项研究评估了整体生活质量(QoL),四项评估了疼痛,一项评估了抑郁。在接受食管切除术的患者中,与鼻空肠置管相比,空肠造口术可能与较高的 QoL 评分和较少的术后疼痛有关,但与无干预相比,没有发现显著差异。对于接受化疗或姑息/无症状治疗的患者,与腹腔镜胃造口术相比,可扩张金属支架(SEMS)与较高的情绪功能相关。此外,与鼻胃管相比,经皮内镜胃造口术或 SEMS 与更高的 QoL 相关。这篇综述强调了在评估癌症患者营养支持技术时考虑PRO测量的重要性,尽管要充分了解这些关联还需要进一步的有力证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Patient-Reported Outcomes after Surgical, Endoscopic, or Radiological Techniques for Nutritional Support in Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Several techniques exist to maintain oral and/or enteral feeding among esophageal cancer (EC) patients, but their impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of nutritional support techniques on PROs in EC patients. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete from inception to 3 April 2024. Eligible studies included those evaluating EC patients, reporting PROs using standardized measures, and providing data on different nutritional support techniques or comparing them to no intervention. The reference lists of the included studies were also screened for additional eligible articles. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Of the 694 articles identified from databases and 224 from backward citation, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies evaluated the overall quality of life (QoL), four assessed pain, and one evaluated depression. Among those submitted to esophagectomy, jejunostomy may be associated with higher QoL scores and less postoperative pain, compared to a nasojejunal tube, but no significant differences were found when compared to no intervention. For patients undergoing chemotherapy or receiving palliative/symptomatic treatment, expandable metal stents (SEMSs) were associated with higher levels of emotional functioning when compared with laparoscopic gastrostomy. Moreover, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or SEMSs were associated with a higher QoL compared with nasogastric tubes. This review underscores the importance of considering PRO measures when evaluating nutritional support techniques in cancer patients, though further robust evidence is needed to fully understand these associations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current oncology
Current oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
664
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease. We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.
期刊最新文献
Sex-Related Differences in Immunotherapy Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Sociocultural and Clinical Determinants of Sexual Dysfunction in Perimenopausal Women with and Without Breast Cancer. Electrochemotherapy in the Locoregional Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review. Exploiting Integrin-αVβ3 to Enhance Radiotherapy Efficacy in Medulloblastoma via Ferroptosis. Fostering the Conversation About Complementary Medicine: Acceptability and Usefulness of Two Communication-Supporting Tools for Patients with Cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1