Đánh giá ht omega carlo plus

University of Portsmouth, School of Health Sciences & Social Work, James Watson Hall (West), 2 King Richard 1st Road, PortsmouthUK, PO1 2FR

Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal South Hants Hospital, Cancer Care Directorate, St Mary's Road, SouthamptonHampshireUK

University of Portsmouth, Department of Mathematics, Lion Gate Building, Lion Terrace, Portsmouth, HampshireUK, PO1 3HF

Mountbatten Hospice, Isle of Wight NHS Trust, Halbery Lane, NewportIsle of WightUK

Abstract

Background

Cancer cachexia is a distressing weight loss syndrome commonly seen in advanced cancer patients. It is associated with reduced quality of life and shorter survival time. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) is a long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid found naturally in some fish which has been used to decrease weight loss, promote weight gain and increase survival times in patients affected with cancer cachexia.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of EPA in relieving symptoms associated with the cachexia syndrome in patients with advanced cancer.

Search methods

Studies were sought through an extensive search of a range of electronic databases. Hand searching was conducted on selected journals and reference lists as well as contact made with investigators, manufacturers and experts. The most recent electronic search was conducted in February 2005.

Selection criteria

Studies were included in the review if they assessed oral EPA compared with placebo or control in randomised controlled trials of patients with advanced cancer and either a clinical diagnosis of cachexia or self‐reported weight loss of 5% or more.

Data collection and analysis

Both methodological quality evaluation of potential trials and data extraction were conducted by two independent review authors.

Main results

Five trials (involving 587 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Three trials compared EPA at different doses with placebo with two outcomes, nutritional status and adverse events comparable across two of the three included trials. In addition, two trials compared different doses of EPA with an active matched control. It was possible to compare the outcomes of weight, quality of life and adverse events across these two trials. There were insufficient data to define the optimal dose of EPA.

Authors' conclusions

There were insufficient data to establish whether oral EPA was better than placebo. Comparisons of EPA combined with a protein energy supplementation versus a protein energy supplementation (without EPA) in the presence of an appetite stimulant (Megestrol Acetate) provided no evidence that EPA improves symptoms associated with the cachexia syndrome often seen in patients with advanced cancer.

Plain language summary

Using an omega‐3 fatty acid made from fish oils to treat cancer related weight loss

There was insufficient evidence to support the use of oral fish oil (on its own or in the presence of other treatments) for the management of the weight loss syndrome often seen in patients with advanced cancer. Many people with advanced cancer develop a distressing weight loss syndrome. To date, treatment of associated symptoms has proved difficult. More recently, novel approaches have included the use of oral fish oils that can contain the omega‐3 fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (or EPA) to stabilise weight loss and promote weight gain. This review of trials found that in weight losing persons with advanced pancreatic cancer, an EPA nutritional supplement was no better than a non EPA nutritional supplement. However, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about its use in patients who have cancer of other tumour types.

Background

Cancer cachexia is a debilitating weight loss syndrome characterised by disease‐induced starvation and wasting (). Whilst there is no universally accepted definition of cachexia, the clinical signs that form the hallmark of cancer associated cachexia are anorexia and extreme weight loss. Although a 10% weight loss (from pre‐illness weight) is often considered to be severe, the rate of the weight loss can also be of primary importance in the definition of cachexia. Categories of severe weight loss have been defined as more than 2% in one week, 5% in one month and 10% in six months (). Other clinical features include abnormalities in carbohydrate, fat, protein and energy metabolism which lead to weakness, lethargy, malaise and the loss of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue (). Patients have a "starved" or "cachetic" appearance and are often described as "looking ill" (). Cachexia is seen in approximately half of all terminally ill cancer patients and is particularly associated with solid cancer tumours of the stomach, lung and pancreas. The literature suggests that cachexia rates for these particular cancers can be more than 80% in pancreatic and gastric cancer (). Cachectic patients have shorter survival time when compared to other terminally ill cancer patients without extreme weight loss (). Such severe weight loss has also been associated with reduced quality of life, impaired respiratory muscle function, fatigue and poor self‐image have all been cited (). Profound muscle weakness may lead to loss of physical function and deterioration of performance status. Associated fatigue and weakness may impair a patient's ability to perform even simple activities of daily life such as dressing, preparing and eating meals. In addition physical fatigue coupled with dramatic weight loss can give rise to a change in body image which, in turn, can lead to the patient perceiving that they are progressively looking more ill and may contribute to depression and decreased social interactions ().

The exact cause of cachexia is unknown, but it is likely to be multi‐fold and can be grouped into three interrelated categories to include:

• biochemical and metabolic disturbances caused by systemic tumour related effects of some cancer tumour types;
• mechanical obstruction of the cancer tumour itself; or
• a consequence of cancer treatment induced toxicity.

Specific proteolysis and lipolysis tumour products have been identified (; ; ) but comparative studies of these factors which have been isolated have yet to be reported.

Past attempts to improve the patient's nutritional status using conventional oral nutritional supplements or parenteral nutrition have proved unsuccessful (; ). Although reduced appetite is often associated with cachexia, increasing calorific intake has not been shown to alter its progression. Corticosteroids, including prednisolone have been used successfully to temporarily increase the patient's appetite, but this has not improved nutritional status (). More recently, novel approaches have included the use of fish oils which may have an anti‐cachectic effect after a period of three weeks or more to produce significant weight gain, performance status and increased appetite in patients with cancer cachexia (). Fish oils contain the long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). In animal studies, using mice, EPA was found to stabilise weight loss in tumour induced cachexia. A similar anticachectic effect was not reproduced by the use of DHA alone (). The biological rationale for using EPA is that it has been shown to inhibit tumour induced lipolysis and muscle protein degradation, probably by the suppression of the cytokine IL‐6 and by decreasing the presence of a tumour specific product, a proteolysis‐inducing factor (or PIF) (). EPA is found naturally in some seafood, including salmon, sardines and tuna. In its manufactured form, EPA is available in fish oil preparations over‐the‐counter, without prescription, in both a soft gelatin capsule or liquid form. Outside of clinical trials, commercially available over‐the‐counter products may vary in EPA concentration and quality since, to date, it is not compulsary for manufacturers to accurately record the EPA content on product labels. Generally, its use has raised few concerns regarding side effects and has been shown to be non‐toxic, well tolerated and free of significant side effects in all but high dosage trials. In patients with pancreatic cancer the dosage tolerated was limited by a sensation of fullness, cramping abdominal pain, fatty stools and nausea ().

Evidence from non‐randomised trials, trials without a control group and randomised controlled trials suggest that there is some therapeutic use of EPA taken for at least a four week period to reverse cancer cachexia by decreasing weight loss or improving weight gain, or both, to increase survival time in patients with cancer cachexia (; ; ). Many of these trials have been small, using variable dosage rates and inadequate study design which may have over emphasised evidence of effect. Since the best evidence of effectiveness of health interventions comes from results of well‐conducted randomised controlled trials, a systematic review of quality assessed randomised controlled trials, with a meta‐analysis, may help to synthesise such data.

Objectives

The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of the omega‐3 fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) to alleviate cachexia and related symptoms in patients with incurable or advanced cancer.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were double blind, single blind or unblinded were included providing they met the methodological quality assessment process. Both inpatient and outpatient study settings were included. It was anticipated that we would include only trials with a minimum of three weeks after randomisation into the study in order that any meaningful weight change would be recorded. However, it was decided that instead, as there were few studies that met the methodological quality assessment threshold, all well conducted studies, including those of short duration, would be included.

Types of participants

Trials of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of incurable or advanced cancer and either a reported weight loss of 5% and above or a clinical diagnosis of cachexia (independent of gender, age or race) were included.

Types of interventions

This review focuses on the following treatment comparisons:

• oral fish oil supplementation (containing EPA) regardless of type (i.e., capsules or liquid supplementation) or dosage (in terms of level of EPA) versus placebo;
• oral fish oil supplementation (containing EPA) regardless of type and at any dose versus active matched control (without EPA).

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes

The primary outcome measures assessed were:

• weight gain,
• body composition,
• median survival.

Secondary outcomes

The secondary outcome measures assessed were:

• functional or performance status,
• improvement in quality of life,
• energy expenditure,
• reduction in fatigue,
• nutritional status,
• compliance rates,
• side effects,
• adverse events.

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

A search strategy (using both free text and MeSH terms and without methodological terms as filters) was designed for identifying studies from the following databases:

• The Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4, 2003;
• MEDLINE (1966 to 28/08/2004);
• EMBASE (1986 to 28/07/2004);
• CINAHL (1986 to 23/07/2004);
• SIGLE (1980 to 22/02/2005);
• Dissertations Abstracts On Line (1980 to 10/11/2004);
• National Research Trials Register (20/10/2003).

As recommended by the Cochrane Handbook, searching was carried out without using filters in order to maximise retrieval of as many studies as possible. Study reports were retrieved regardless of whether these were full publications, abstracts or letters to the editor. The search strategy was adapted as necessary to search different databases using the relevant Boolean and truncation terms for each database, as required. Please see for the MEDLINE search strategy.

Studies were not excluded on the basis of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press and in progress). Full text translations of all relevant non‐English articles were obtained.

Searching electronic databases identified:

• 363 articles in MEDLINE (from 1966 to 2004);
• 134 articles in EMBASE (from 1966 to 2004);
• 30 articles in CINAHL (from 1986 to 2004);
• two articles from Dissertations on Line (1980 to 2004);
• 22 articles The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2004);
• 26 articles from SIGLE (1980 to 2005);
• 97 articles from Web of Science (search date November 2004);
• nine articles from Google (search date December 2003).

Searching other resources

Hand searching

The following journals were identified as being important to be hand searched for this review and searched as follows:

• Nutrition (1976 to 1981, 1997 to 1998, 2000 to 2003) Gut (1999 to 2003). We were unable to handsearch Nutrition & Cancer (1998 to 2003) as originally identified as we were unable to trace locally available copies;
• the bibliography of all relevant randomised trials, non‐controlled trials and review articles obtained from the above search were hand searched to identify other potentially relevant trials missed by electronic searching;
• appropriate conference proceedings were also searched;
• scanning of own files.

Hand searching of secondary references revealed 50 potential articles. Contact with experts revealed 16 potential trials, and manufacturer's information revealed six potential trials. Hand searching of conference proceedings revealed a further four potential trials. Hand searching of specified, relevant journals revealed no new potential trials.

Personal contact

• We made personal contact with relevant trialists, palliative care organisations, experts and other groups working with this field who may have access to relevant research material and unpublished data
• The authors of all identified relevant studies were contacted. We requested unpublished data for three trials and obtained unpublished data for two of the three trials.
• Pharmaceutical manufacturers of oral forms of nutritional supplements containing eicosapentaenoic acid were contacted to find out if further published or unpublished data were available.

Data collection and analysis

Study selection

From the title, abstract or descriptors, one review author (AD) reviewed the literature searches to identify potentially relevant trials for the review. Searches of bibliographies and texts were conducted to identify additional studies. Trials to be included were determined independently by two review authors (AD and BH) and assessed for inclusion in the review. Duplicate trials using the same participants but different outcomes were included only once.

Study quality

Two review authors (AD and BH and where necessary TD) independently carried out quality assessment as follows:

1. the methodological quality of the studies were evaluated using the Oxford Quality Scale, a validated scale published by Jadad et al (). Justification for exclusion was documented. The scale includes an evaluation of the randomisation procedure, blinding and patient attrition. The scale uses a zero to five point rating scale ranging from one (low quality) to five (high quality) ‐ the maximum score attainable. The three‐item scale is applied as follows:

• is the study randomised? (if 'yes' add one point) An additional one point is given if randomisation was described and appropriate/or one point is deducted if the method of randomisation is inappropriate.
• is the study described as double blind? (if 'yes' add one point). An additional one point is given if described and appropriate/one point is deduced if the method of blinding is inappropriate.
• are withdrawals and dropouts described? Description to include the number and reasons for drop‐outs / withdrawals for each of the treatment groups. One point to be added if adequately described.

2. the Cochrane Concealment Assessment criteria where the following scale can be applied:

• A = adequate concealment,
• B = uncertain,
• C = clearly inadequate.

Data extraction

Using a specially designed data extraction form, two review authors (AD and BH) extracted data on patients, methods, interventions, outcomes and results. Differences in data extraction were resolved by initial referral back to the original article, followed by discussion and consensus between the two review authors (AD and BH). Where necessary, missing information or clarification was sought from the authors of the primary study.

Correspondence with authors

Three of the included studies either did not report all of the desired outcomes of interest or presented them in a format unsuitable for inclusion in the meta‐analysis. An e‐mail or letter requesting missing information was sent.

Data analysis

Where appropriate outcome data was entered using Cochrane Review Manager software (version 4.2) for statistical analysis to obtain an estimate of treatment effect. Tests for heterogeneity were also performed on the data. Dichotomous data was expressed as the odds ratio (OR) and results presented with 95% confidence intervals using a fixed‐effect analysis. Continuous outcomes were compared using weighted mean differences in a fixed effects analysis. There were an insufficient number of trials to conduct any meaningful sensitivity analysis.

The type of analysis for each trial was recorded as follows:

1. entry to trial

• baseline weight,
• estimated weight loss on entry to trial (kilograms).

2. outcome data

• weight,
• body composition,
• survival,
• quality of life,
• energy expenditure,
• reduction in fatigue,
• functional/performance status,
• nutritional status,
• appetite status,
• compliance rates,
• tolerance.

Results

Description of studies

Although, 759 articles were located, we found many of the citations were replicated across the three databases or referred to review articles. We located 59 potential trials for inclusion in the review. However, many of these studies did not fully meet the inclusion criteria or quality assessment threshold. Reasons for rejecting individual studies are detailed in the 'Characteristics of Excluded Studies' table. In addition we located one unpublished trial () led by the chief investigator, Professor KC Fearon from the Department of Clinical and Surgical Sciences at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK. This trial is currently undergoing peer review prior to publication. It is hoped that at the review date of this systematic review we will be able to include the data from this trial (see '' table) ().

A total of five trials fully met the inclusion criteria for this review and provided data for analysis (; ; ; ; ).

Effects of interventions

The five trials meeting the inclusion criteria involved a total of 587 patients. Three trials compared EPA at different doses with placebo (; and ). Two trials (; ) compared different doses of EPA versus matched active control (but without EPA).

Patient characteristics

randomised 91 patients (46 to fish oil and 45 to placebo) with the following characteristics: advanced cancer (defined by locally recurrent or metastatic disease) more than 5% pre‐illness weight loss (time period of weight loss not specified), presence of anorexia but the ability to maintain oral food intake over the two‐week study period) as well as normal cognitive status. Cancer types included: genitourinary, breast, gastrointestinal, lung, hematologic, head and neck and sarcoma tumours. At baseline, there was no significant difference between arms.

randomised 64 patients with generalised solid tumour of the following cancer types: breast, gastrointestinal, lung, liver and pancreas. Each arm was then sub‐divided into the following two subgroups, those considered to be in a good nutritional state or well nourished (WN) and malnourished (MN). Patients in the well‐nourished (WN) subgroups in both arms included patients who had a less than 10% weight loss over the previous six months, serum albumin of more than 30 g/L, serum transferrin of more than 2.0 g/L and a Karnofsky Performance status of more than 60. Patients in the malnourished (MN) subgroups of both arms included patients that had a weight loss of more than 10% during the previous six months, serum albumin of less than 30 g/L, serum transferrin of less than 2.0 g/L and Karnofsky Performance status of less than 60. In addition a group of 15 healthy individuals served as controls.

randomised 17 patients with different cancer tumour types including: gastrointestinal tract, pancreatic, rectal, renal, breast, oesophageal, lung, mesothelioma, cervical, carcinoid and adenocarcinoma of unknown primary site. All but one patient in the fish oil arm had metastatic disease or locoregional relapse, or both. Weight loss ranged from 5.3% to 18.1% in the preceding six months. Baseline characteristics appear to be similar although despite randomisation, energy intake at baseline was significantly higher in the EPA arm compared to the placebo arm. Sixteen healthy subjects acted as controls.

randomised 200 unresectable pancreatic cancer patients who had lost more than 5% of pre‐illness weight over the previous six months. The trial was included with patients having a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or more and a life expectancy of greater than two months. The average pre‐illness weight loss was 17%. At baseline there was no significant difference between the treatment arms in terms of sex, performance status and quality of life characteristics. In the EPA arm there was a greater proportion of stage IV disease patients (52%) than in the placebo arm (41%).

randomised 421 patients with incurable cancer; lung, gastrointestinal and others. All patients had associated weight loss defined as a self‐reported two‐month weight loss of at least 2.3 kgs or physician estimated calorific intake of less than 20 calories/kg of body weight/day, or both. At baseline, there was no significant difference found between the three treatment arms of patient groups in terms of Eastern Cooperative oncology group performance status, Karnofsky score physician estimate of survival, patient reported appetite or medical centre of enrolment. In addition, there were no significant difference on the basis of stratification factors:

1. cancer type (gastrointestinal versus thoracic versus other,
2. severity of weight loss: less than 4.6 kg versus more than 4.6 kg in the preceding two‐months,
3. planned concurrent chemotherapy versus none, and
4. age: less than 50 years versus more than 50 years. The stratification process used was a minimization algorithm that balanced the marginal distributions.

In summary the five trials that met the inclusion criteria involved a total of 587 patients. The mean age of patients included in the treatment arms across all trials was 66.4 years compared to a mean age of 65.6 in the control arms. The ratio of males to females in the treatment arms was 172M/117F compared to 174M/124F in the control arms. In terms of study size the trial was the smallest (n = 17) with trial recruiting the largest number of patients (n = 421).

The majority of trials included patients with a variety of tumours. Only the trial was limited to patients with pancreatic cancer.

Use of steroids

Only one study () excluded patients taking any dosage of corticosteroids. Three studies stated that patients were included if taking corticosteroids, but in the study only short term dexamethasone (dose unstated) with chemotherapy was permitted and in study patients taking long term low dose steroids for chronic benign conditions (such as asthma) and not for physiological replacement were included. In the study patients continued with corticosteroids for the two‐weeks trial (n = 8) but no details of dosage were provided. In the study there is no mention of steroids being included or excluded and despite repeated efforts to contact the authors we were unsuccessful in gaining information for clarification.

Adjunct chemotherapy and/radiotherapy

Three studies stated that they excluded patients who were undergoing current chemotherapy (; ; ). The study allowed chemotherapy (n = 5) and antineoplastic hormone therapy (n = 4) and the study allowed concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Interventions

Comparison one ‐ EPA versus placebo

Three trials (; and ) compared EPA at different doses with placebo as follows: In the trial, 60 patients with mixed cancer tumour types were randomised to receive 18 gelatin capsules of 1000 mgs of fish oil (each containing: 180 mg EPA, 120 DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) with the addition of 1 mg of Vitamin E); or 1000 mgs of a placebo capsule (olive oil). After random assignment of 19 patients (nine fish oil and ten placebo) high level of complaints of vomiting in approximately ten patients (in both arms) suggested that these patients were unable to tolerate 18 capsules/day. The trial protocol was amended to six capsules/day with encouragement to take up to 18 capsules/day. The trial lasted two weeks with assessments (subjective and objective measurements) performed at baseline and on day 14.

• In the trial, 64 patients with mixed cancer tumour types were randomised to receive either 18 g of fish oil capsules (each containing: 170 mg EPA and 115 mg DHA) or placebo (sugar tablets). The supplements were taken as six capsules three times daily. Patients in the fish oil arm also received 200 mgs of Vitamin E daily. The rationale for the addition of Vitamin E was "to compensate for the oxidative effect of omega‐3 PUFA" (). The trial lasted for 40 days. Assessment took place at the end of the 40 days study period.
• In the trial, 17 patients with mixed cancer tumour types and 16 healthy subjects were randomised to receive either 6 g of EPA ethyl ester capsules or placebo capsules (containing 6 g of oleic acid ethyl ester capsules). The supplements were provided in 0.5 capsules and taken as four capsules three times daily. The trial lasted for one week with assessment (subjective and objective measurements) performed at baseline, day two and seven.

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus matched active treatment control

Two trials ( and ) compared different doses of EPA versus matched active control.

1. In the trial, 200 patients with pancreatic cancer were randomised to receive either two cans of an oral nutritional supplement which provided 2.2 g EPA (each can providing 1.1 g EPA, plus antioxidants Vitamin A, E, C and selenium, 310 kcal, 16 g protein and 6 g fat) or two cans of an identical supplement, but without the addition of EPA and enhanced antioxidants. The trial lasted for eight weeks with assessment (both subjective and objective measurements) performed at baseline, four and eight weeks.
2. In the trial, 421 patients with mixed cancer tumour types were randomised to one of three arms as follows:
3. Arm one ‐ received a twice daily EPA supplement (providing 1.09 g per can) plus placebo liquid suspension (instead of Megestrol Acetate liquid suspension);
4. Arm two ‐ received Megestrol acetate (MA) liquid suspension (600 mg/day) plus twice daily a matched nutritional supplement (without EPA);or,
5. Arm three ‐ received a combination of MA plus the same twice daily EPA supplement as Arm one.

The median number of days on the study was slightly more than three months for the arms as a whole. All patients were assessed weekly for four weeks and then monthly with patients continuing treatment as long as both the patient and treating oncologist considered it beneficial, or acceptable, to the patient.

Compliance

Two trials reported details on compliance. In the trial, patients in the EPA arm took a mean (SD) of 9.8 +/‐ 4 capsules per day compared to those in the placebo arm who took a mean (SD) of 9.2 +/‐ 3 capsules (P = not significant). In the EPA arm this resulted in patients consuming an average of 1.8 g EPA/day.

In the trial, patients in both arms consumed an average of 1.4 cans (equivalent to 40 kcal, 21 g protein/day). In the EPA arm this resulted in patients consuming an average of 1.5 g EPA/day.

No details were given for compliance for three trials (; ; ).

Withdrawals and dropouts

All five trials reported the total number of dropouts and withdrawals but the trial failed to give specific details for each arm of the trial. reported four withdrawals due to poor compliance, but details of which arm patients belonged to were not recorded.

For four trials (; ; and ) total numbers of patient withdrawal and dropout was 64 in the EPA arms and 62 in the control arms. None of the trials reported that withdrawals were due to lack of efficacy of treatment (see 'Additional Tables', Table one, for individual trial details of withdrawals and dropouts).

Tolerance

The patient's ability to tolerate the supplements was measured in relation to side effects and adverse events. These included gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g. mild abdominal discomfort, transient diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting) particularly in the higher dosage trials. In addition, there was a higher incidence of impotence in the study in those patients receiving MA, although such patient‐reported symptoms were not assessed at baseline. Only one of the trials () found there were significantly fewer adverse events in the EPA arm compared with the active control arm. The other four trials showed a tendency towards fewer adverse events in the EPA arm, but the differences were not significant. Combining data on adverse events from Comparison one (EPA versus placebo) and Comparison two (EPA versus active treatment control group) in a meta‐analysis of all the trials supported 's findings that there were significantly fewer adverse events. A plausible explanation of this finding is that these adverse events were due to the patient's deteriorating condition and not the action of EPA, placebo or active control.

Results

As this review focuses on specific outcomes measured using validated tools, the results reflect these criteria. Whilst some trials also reported results (such as immune status) these have not been incorporated in the present work.

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus matched active treatment control

Two trials looked at EPA versus matched active treatment control. For each of these included studies the control used a matched active treatment as follows:

1. in the study an EPA nutritional supplement was compared with a matched nutritional supplement (without EPA) in the control arm;
2. in the study, three comparison arms were incorporated in the study design:
3. Arm one ‐ patients received an EPA supplement twice daily, containing 1.09 g; EPA plus placebo liquid suspension (instead of the appetite stimulant, Megestrol Acetate liquid suspension);
4. Arm two ‐ patients received the appetite stimulant Megestrol Acetate (or MA) in a liquid suspension which provided 600 mgs/day plus twice daily a matched nutritional supplement as that in Arm one (without EPA);
5. Arm three ‐ patients received a combination of the same appetite stimulant, MA plus the same twice daily EPA supplement as Arm one.

For the purpose of this systematic review, however, we have selected two of the three comparisons (Arm two and Arm three) so that the only difference between these two arms of the study was the addition of EPA. In this way, we were able to compare some of the relevant outcome measures, namely: weight, Quality of Life and adverse events.

Although planned meta‐analysis of data for both comparisons were not conducted for the majority of reported outcomes due to the lack of common measures, a narrative summary provides an indication of the likely benefits and harms of the remaining outcomes of interest.

Primary outcomes

1. Weight gain

Comparison one ‐ EPA versus placebo

Only one of the three included studies, (Assessment based on 60 patients) reported weight gain. In this trial, although there was a slight increase in weight gain for patients in the EPA arm the results were not significant.

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus matched active treatment control

• In study patients in both arms receiving either nutritional supplements (with or without EPA) had a statistically significant increase in overall weight gain. In addition, Fearon et al. conducted post‐hoc analysis using Pearson's parametric test of correlation to examine possible dose‐response relationships in either arm of the study over the eight week period. found there was a significant positive correlation in the EPA arm between daily supplement intake and increase in body weight (expressed as Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.50, P < 0.001). Maximum weight was achieved in the EPA arm with an intake which provided 1.5 to 2.2 g of EPA. There was no such correlation in the control arm. However, although interesting, it should be noted that this was exploratory analysis using post‐hoc data analysis which is fraught with hazard.
• In the study, the primary end point was a 10% weight gain above baseline. When weight gain was evaluated with increments of more than 10% weight increase, patient‐reported weight gained showed 5%, 13% and 7% in the EPA treated, MA treated and combined treatment arms respectively, but the results were not statistically significant (P = 0.08). We requested clarification from the authors and obtained actual weight gain figures (rather than percentage).
• Combining data from these two included studies ( and ) showed there was no significant benefit of EPA for weight gain (P = 0.63). Indeed, the combination of EPA with MA (versus MA alone) resulted in the combined therapy being worse.

2. Body composition

Body composition refers to assessment of subcutaneous fat and muscle tissue and can be more useful to assess the patient's nutritional status than gross body weight which may be complicated by fluid retention if patients develop oedema or ascites. The use of techniques such as bioelectrical impedance analysis or anthropometry can provide a more accurate description of the nature of tissue loss. Bioelectrical impedance analysis is a non‐invasive method of determining body composition based on the measurement of reactance and resistance to electrical flow (). The most commonly used anthropometric measures are triceps skin fold thickness (or TSF) and mid‐upper arm circumference (or MAC) which are combined to provide an indirect determinate of mid‐arm muscle area (or MAMA). Other more specialised techniques such as dual‐energy X‐ray absorption and computer tomography can be used although both techniques involve high capital investment and may not be suitable for use in the clinical setting ().

Comparison one ‐ EPA versus placebo

Of the three included studies, only one study () reported body composition. Using anthropometry, lean body mass was estimated using anthropometric measurements carried out on days one and 14, but were not statistically significant difference for patients in the EPA treatment arm compared with those in the placebo arm.

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus matched active treatment control

Of the two included studies, only the study measured lean body mass which was measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis. When compared to rate of loss at baseline there was a significant attenuation of lean body mass in both of the study arms (EPA and Control) at four and eight weeks (P < 0.001 for all within group comparisons). However, there was no significant difference between groups (P = 0.88). Again, although not the primary outcome of the study, conducted post‐hoc analysis to examine for a potential dose‐response relationship in either arm (EPA or Control). This post‐hoc analysis showed a significant positive increase in the EPA arm between daily supplement intake and increase in lean body mass (r = 0.33, P = 0.036). The correlation between intake and lean body mass gain was significantly greater in the EPA arm than in the control arm (P = 0.0043).

3. Survival

Comparison one ‐ EPA versus placebo

Of the three included studies, only the provided survival data. Actual numbers for survival days were not provided and we were unable to confirm these figures. Survival days have been estimated from the published diagram. This data suggests that all patients in the EPA arm (n = 30) had a statistically significant (P = < 0.025) increase in survival compared with the placebo arm. In the EPA arm, well‐nourished (WN) patients survived 870 days and malnourished (MN) patients survived 600 days compared to all patients (n = 30) in the placebo arm (WN = 480 days, MN = 242 days). In addition, best survival was noted for the group of WN patients in the EPA arm compared to the MN patients in the placebo arm (870 days compared to MN = 242 days).

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus matched active treatment control

Although both included studies (; ) reported some data on survival there were insufficient data available to combine in a meta‐analysis.

• In the study there was no significant difference in median duration of survival between the two arms: EPA arm (Median 142 days) compared to Control arm (Median 128 days).
• In the study there was no significant difference (P = 0.82) in median duration of survival across the three arms: EPA arm (Median 147 days), Megestrol arm (Median 128 days) and Combined EPA/Megestrol arm (Median 151 days).

Secondary Outcomes

4. Quality of life

Comparison one ‐ EPA versus placebo

• Only one of the three included studies () reported the patient's overall sensation of well being which was measured using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (zero to 100 mm where 0 mm = best and 100 mm worst). This study reported that there was no significant improvement in the treatment arm compared to that of the placebo arm.

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus matched active treatment control

• There were two studies ( and ) that reported quality of life measures using different validated questionnaires: in the study, quality of life was measured using two quality of life self‐administered questionnaires, the EQ‐5D which is a generic quality of life measure that provides a single index score, and the EORTC Q30 questionnaire which is a multi‐dimensional cancer specific questionnaire.
• Only the overall scores on physical performance and global health status components were reported.
• In the study, a single item Uniscale quality of questionnaire which measured the global quality of life was reported in the published data.
• In the study post‐hoc analysis to examine potential dose‐response relationships in either the treatment or control, revealed that intake of the treatment supplement correlated positively with quality of life as measured by the EQ‐5D questionnaire, but that there was no similar statistically significant correlation observed in the control arm.
• A meta‐analysis was performed on the quality of life outcomes for these two studies (; ) which provided no evidence to suggest that quality of life in the treatment arm was significantly improved compared with that of the control arm (P = 0.45).

5. Energy expenditure

None of the included studies for either comparisons measured energy expenditure.

6. Reduction in fatigue

Comparison one ‐ EPA versus placebo

• Of the three included studies, only one study () measured fatigue or tiredness using a VAS (zero to 100 mm where 0 mm = best, 100 mm = worst). Where negative numbers indicated an improvement in VAS rating, there was a trend for improvement for patients, in both arms of the study, but there was no significant improvement in reduction of tiredness in either arm.

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus active treatment control

• None of the studies measured reduction in fatigue.

7. Functional or performance status

Functional or performance status refers to the patient's ability to function independently and includes the patient's ability to work and to be active. There are a number of validated, quick and simple to use performance tools (such as the Karnofsky Performance Scale and the World Health Organisation Scale) which have been used with cancer patients.

Comparison one ‐ EPA versus placebo

• Although two studies reported performance status (; ) there were insufficient data available to be combined in a meta‐analysis;
• In the , performance status was measured using both the Karnofsky Performance Scale and the Edmonton Functional Assessment Test, but there was no significant difference in the functioning status for patients in the treatment arm compared with placebo;
• In the study performance status was measured using the Karnofsky performance scale. This study reported a statistically significant increase (P = 0.01) in performance status 51+/‐3 to 72 +/‐4 (expressed as Mean with SD) in the group of malnourished cancer patients' treatment arm, compared to the control arm. However, there were no published or unpublished details available on the Karnofsky performance status for either the well nourished cancer patients of the treatment group or both malnourished and well nourished cancer patients in the control arm.

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus matched active treatment control

• Only one of the two included studies () assessed functional or performance status using the Karnofsky Performance Scale and reported that there was no significant differences between the arms, but there were no published data given.

8. Nutritional status

A variety of subjective and objective methods may be used to assess nutritional status. As well as gross weight and lean body mass which have already been included in the systematic review as separate outcomes, other measurements of nutritional status may include administration of nutritional assessment questionnaires as well as assessment of dietary intake and changes in laboratory values related to nutritional status. Only data on dietary intake was available from three of the included studies as follows.

Comparison one ‐ EPA versus placebo

Two studies (; ) measured total energy intake as calorific intake per day () and kilo joules/day ().

• In the study patients recorded dietary intake by estimating food quantities with reference to standard portions or household measures. Data were collected for three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the 14 day treatment period. Food items were coded and the nutrient content estimated using a computer programme (Food Processor II nutrient analysis program).
• In the study patients recorded their own dietary intake before and during supplementation (baseline, day two and seven).
• For the purpose of the meta‐analysis, calorific intake has been converted to kilo joules/day. Combination of the results from these two studies provided no evidence to suggest that total energy intake was significantly improved compared to that of the control arm (P = 0.55).

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus matched active treatment control

Of the two included studies, one study () assessed nutritional status by measuring total calorific and protein intake per day. At baseline, patients in both arms of the study were consuming insufficient intakes of energy and protein to maintain body weight. Although spontaneous intake was partially reduced, when patients in both the EPA Control arm consumed an average 1.4 cans of oral supplement (equivalent to 420 kcal and 21 g protein/day) oral supplementation in both arms provided a net gain in total energy and protein intake.

9. Appetite status

Comparison one ‐ EPA versus placebo

Only the () study measured appetite status which was measured using a VAS (zero to 100 mm where 0 mm = best and 100 mm = worse) and negative numbers denote improvement in VAS. Although there was a trend for appetite improvement in both arms (Treatment Arm: ‐9.8+/‐20, Placebo Arm: ‐9.0+/‐27) there was no significant improvement in appetite in either arm.

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus matched active treatment control

Only the study measured appetite status using the NCCTG questionnaire which provided useful data to describe the percentage of patients that reported varying levels of improvement above baseline intake. There was no significant difference between the two arms.

Discussion

The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of EPA for the management of the distressing weight loss syndrome, cachexia, often seen in patients with advanced cancer. Despite a thorough search for evidence, too few well‐conducted studies with common outcomes of interest were available to conduct a meta‐analysis which has made it difficult to draw conclusions. At present, therefore, limited evidence does not support the use of fish oils containing EPA either on its own or in the presence of other treatments.

Comparison one ‐ EPA versus placebo

Three small studies (; ; ) met the methodological inclusion criteria and reported results on a total 150 patients with mixed cancer tumours and weight loss. Apart from adverse events, it was frustrating that there was only one common outcome measure, nutritional status, that could be compared across two of these three studies. There were, therefore, insufficient data to determine whether oral EPA was better than placebo for the patient identified outcomes of interest to this systematic review.

• Although the small study by which observed mixed tumour cancer patients over 14 days, and reported a non‐significant weight gain (using a mean dose of 1.8 g EPA ) compared to the placebo arm, it is possible that: 1) the study was underpowered and a larger study may be required; and, 2) it's doubtful whether EPA given over a longer study period could prove more effective than the placebo since 14 days may not be enough time to assess such outcomes. The supplement dose tolerated may be too low to produce meaningful improvement.
• Of particular interest was the results of the small study by which reported a significant increase in survival in the EPA arm. However, poor reporting as well as incomplete and unconfirmed survival data from this published study leaves questions unanswered. The potential survival advantage of EPA still needs to be explored in a larger, clearly reported study.

Comparison two ‐ EPA versus matched active treatment control

Two large high quality multi‐centered studies were identified (; ). In the study they compared a protein energy supplementation (with or without EPA). Whilst for the study we took the data from two of the three arms (the appetite stimulant, Megestrol acetate combined with an EPA protein supplementation versus Megestrol acetate appetite stimulant and protein supplementation without EPA). In this way the only difference between the two arms was the addition of EPA.

• Both studies provided no evidence that EPA improves symptoms associated with the cachexia syndrome in patients with advanced cancer. On an intention to treat basis, it appears that EPA was the same or worse than the matched active control for all of the outcomes of interest.
• However, In the it is interesting to note the authors suggest that poor compliance may have resulted in patients not receiving sufficient EPA. When the authors did a dose response calculation on the amount of EPA supplement consumed versus non‐EPA matched supplement, they found that there was a significant weight gain in the EPA compared to the matched control arm. It is possible that providing EPA in the form of a nutritional supplement (compared to say study that used EPA capsules) is difficult for patients to consume in sufficient quantities. However, the interpretation of this is not straightforward as any post‐hoc analysis is fraught with hazards. Regression analysis where one or more indicators or independent variables are used to predict a particular outcome would have given a more meaningful result. In addition, no difficulty with compliance was noted in the study.
• Although we used data from two trials, only the study made a direct comparison between the effect of the protein supplementation with and without EPA for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. In the study, the combination of EPA and the appetite stimulant, megestrol acetate (MA) showed inferior results compared to using single‐agent MA.

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice

The conduct of this systematic review did not enable us to confirm or refute previous literature on the use of EPA and it was not possible to recommend its use in clinical practice. Whilst the results from this systematic review suggests that there is little evidence of harm from using EPA it may not be reasonable to suggest its use in people who are very ill or if palatability is low and problems of compliance occur. There appears to be no significant improvement in management of symptoms by the addition of EPA to that gained from patients taking a high calorie, high protein nutritional supplement with or without the addition of the appetite stimulant, Megestrol Acetate (MA). Indeed it may be that combining EPA with MA may have a slight inhibitory action on MA.

Implications for research

The conduct of this systematic review has revealed a paucity of well‐conducted randomised controlled trials to adequately answer the review questions posed. Furthermore many of the trials were poorly reported which made it difficult and time‐consuming to assess their suitability. However, we found improved reporting in those trials which appear to have been designed and reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (CONSORT Statement) which includes a 22‐item checklist and a flow diagram and its use should be encouraged (). There is a need to conduct good quality large scale randomised controlled trials using EPA compared to placebo with different cancer types. In particular, the potential survival advantage of the addition of EPA needs to be explored. We also found that many of the included trials permitted concurrent use of other supportive therapies such as corticosteroids (four of the five trials) palliative chemotherapy (one trial) and radiotherapy (two trials) which may have masked the true benefit of the addition of EPA alone. Future trials could exclude other supportive therapies or incorporate appropriate stratification. In addition, it may be necessary for future studies to consider using a more palatable formulation of EPA. Finally, we found a paucity of studies that recruit patients at an early stage in their disease progression. Recruiting patients in to the study with minimal weight loss and at an earlier stage may provide a better opportunity to encourage compliance and provide enough time to assess meaningful improvements. The challenges will be identifying and recruiting suitable cancer patients into such a study.

What's new

History

Protocol first published: Issue 1, 2004 Review first published: Issue 1, 2007

DateEventDescription25 January 2017AmendedSee .9 April 2015AmendedThis review has been identified as a priority for updating, but additional authors are required. See .19 April 2012AmendedAdditional tables not linked within the text were deleted from this version of the review and the Risk of bias tables were updated.24 September 2010AmendedContact details updated.27 October 2008AmendedFurther RM5 changes1 July 2008AmendedConverted to new review format.

Notes

The updated review is planned for publication in 2016. The lead author requires additional systematic reviewers to join the author team in order to complete this important update. Please contact the lead author or the PaPaS team ([email protected]) directly if you would like to apply to support the development of this update.

At January 2017, the author team has been established and the update is being prepared.

At December 2017, this is no longer being updated, the author team does not have the time or resources to complete this update.

Acknowledgements

• Sylvia R Bickley, Trials Search Co‐Ordinator, PaPaS for help in developing search strategy.
• IOW Healthcare Librarians Ingrid Weekes and Susan Crome for assistance in hand searching selected journals and Anne Lacey for assistance in adaptation of search strategy for selected electronic databases.
• Roisin Gwyer, Librarian at the University of Portsmouth, for assistance in adaptation of search strategy for selected electronic databases.
• Janet Wilmot, Librarian at the University of Portsmouth, for searching Dissertations on line.
• Isabel Muscat for translation of an Italian paper.
• Diane Gal for translation of two Spanish papers.
• Dr. Kerstin Voight for translation of four German papers.
• Yuka Lida for translation of two Japanese papers.
• Lucy Birchwood for translation of two French papers.
• Regina Mitezki for translation of two German papers.
• To both Professor K Fearon (with Anne Voss of Ross Products Division, Abbott Laboratories, USA) and Professor Jatoi for their willingness to share unpublished data for inclusion in the systematic review.

Appendices

Appendix 1. MEDLINE search strategy

Note: Controlled vocabulary (Mesh terms) are presented in uppercase, free text terms are presented in lowercase text

1. CACHEXIA 2. cachexia 3. cachectic OR cachexic 4. disease‐induced adj starvation 5. wasting 6. (weight adj loss) OR (weight adj3 gain$) 7. (weight adj3 lost) OR (weight adj3 lose) OR (weight adj3 losing) 8. WEIGHT LOSS 9. ANOREXIA 10. anorex$ 11. OR/1‐10 12. exp FISH OILS 13. 58111417‐EICOSAPENTAENOIC ACID 14. DOCOSAHEXAENOIC ACIDS 15. FATTY ACIDS OMEGA‐3 16. FATTY ACIDS UNSATURATED 17. Fatty acid$ 18. EFA.ti.ab 19. MaxEPA.ti.ab 20. (oil$ adj6 cod$) 21. (oil$ adj6 marin$) 22. (oil$ ad6 fish$) 23. omega3$ 24. omega‐3$ 25. EPA OR DHA.ti.ab 26. (eicosapentaen$ OR icosapentaenoic) OR docosahexaeno$) 27. OR/12‐26 28. Exp NEOPLASMS 29. neoplasm$ OR cancer$ OR carcino$ OR malignan$ OR tumor$ OR tumour*) 30. 28 OR 29 31. 11 AND 27 AND 30

The search strategy was organised into three distinct groups as follows: Group 1 Terms for cachexia (lines 1 to 11) Group 2 Terms for fish oils (lines 12 to 27) Group 3 Terms for cancer (lines 28 to 30)

Notes

Edited (no change to conclusions)

Data and analyses

Comparison 1

Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size1 Differences in weight1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected2 Differences in lean body mass1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected3 Resting Energy expenditure1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected4 Any Adverse Events277Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.78 [0.31, 1.95]5 Appetite status1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected6 Fatigue1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected7 Performance status ‐ karnofsky score1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected8 Performance scales = Edmonton Functonal Assessment Test1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected9 Total Calorific intake277Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.20 [‐0.25, 0.65]10 Nausea1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected11 Wellbeing1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 1 Differences in weight.


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 2 Differences in lean body mass.


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 3 Resting Energy expenditure.


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 4 Any Adverse Events.


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 5 Appetite status.


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 6 Fatigue.


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 7 Performance status ‐ karnofsky score.


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 8 Performance scales = Edmonton Functonal Assessment Test.


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 9 Total Calorific intake.


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 10 Nausea.


Analysis

Comparison 1 Oral EPA at any dose versus placebo, Outcome 11 Wellbeing.

Comparison 2

Oral EPA versus control

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size1 Weight or weight change2390Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)‐0.15 [‐0.78, 0.47]2 lean body mass or change in LBM1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected3 Any Adverse Events2456Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.48 [0.25, 0.91]4 Performance status1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected5 Quality of Life2384Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)‐1.70 [‐6.11, 2.70]6 Total Calorific intake1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected


Analysis

Comparison 2 Oral EPA versus control, Outcome 1 Weight or weight change.


Analysis

Comparison 2 Oral EPA versus control, Outcome 2 lean body mass or change in LBM.


Analysis

Comparison 2 Oral EPA versus control, Outcome 3 Any Adverse Events.


Analysis

Comparison 2 Oral EPA versus control, Outcome 4 Performance status.


Analysis

Comparison 2 Oral EPA versus control, Outcome 5 Quality of Life.


Analysis

Comparison 2 Oral EPA versus control, Outcome 6 Total Calorific intake.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

MethodsRandomised double‐blind controlled parallel trialParticipantsN = 91 (E = 46 C = 45) Mixed Tumour CancerInterventionsE = Up to 18 capsules (1000 mg fish oil containing 180 mg EPA, 120 mg DSA) + 1 mg Vit E C = up to 18 capsules (1000 mg olive oil placebo)OutcomesAppetite, nausea, tiredness, well‐being, performance, anthropmetric measurements, weight gain, calorific intake, toleranceNotesJadad score 5 = 1+1+1+1+1Risk of biasBiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgementAllocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskA ‐ Adequate

MethodsRandomised double‐blind controlled parallel trialParticipantsN = 200 (E = 95, C = 105) Pancreatic cancer.InterventionsE = two cans nutritional supplement containing 32 g protein and 2.2 g EPA C = two cans nutritional supplement containing 32 g protein. Duration: eight weeksOutcomesBody weight gain kg/month LBM gain kg/month Survival/days Quality of life, Karnofsky scoresNotesJadad score 5 = 1+1+1+1+1Risk of biasBiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgementAllocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskA ‐ Adequate

MethodsRandomised controlled parallel trialParticipantsN = 60 E = 30 C1 = 30 Mixed tumoursInterventionsE = 18 g Fish oil (ea = 170 mg EPA, 115 DHA) + 200 mg Vit E C = placebo sugar tabletsOutcomesImmune status SurvivalNotesJadad score 2 = 1+0+0+1Risk of biasBiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgementAllocation concealment (selection bias)High riskC ‐ Inadequate

MethodsRandomised double‐blind controlled parallel trialParticipantsN = 421 E = 141 C1 = 140 C2 = 140InterventionsE = 2 cans EPA supplement 1.09 g + placebo C1 = MA liq susp 600 mg/d + placebo C2 = BothOutcomes‐ Body weight gain ‐ Quality of Life ‐ Appetite ‐ Survival ‐ ToleranceNotesJadad score 5 = 1+1+1+1+1Risk of biasBiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgementAllocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskA ‐ Adequate

MethodsRandomised double‐blind controlled parallel trialParticipantsN = 17 (E = 9, C = 8) Upper GI N = 4, Pancreatic N = 2, Rectal N = 1, Carcinoid = 1, Mesothelioma N = 1, Cervix N = 1, Oesophageal N = 1, Breast N = 2, Renal N = 1, NSC Lung = 2, Adenocarcinoma N = 1InterventionsE = 6 g EPA ethyl esters (96.8 % purity) C = 6 g oleic acid ethyl esters (79 % purity) Duration: seven daysOutcomesResting Energy Expediture Energy intake (kJ/d) Day 0, 2, 7)NotesJadad score 3 = 1+0+0+1+1Risk of biasBiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgementAllocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskB ‐ Unclear

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

StudyReason for exclusionParticipants not cancer patientsBefore and after trial Jadad score = 0+0+0Part of Barber's 2001 study Non‐randomised open labelled trial No control group Jadad score = 1 (0+0=1)Non‐randomised open labelled trial Jadad score = 1 (0+0+1)Non‐randomised open labelled trial Jadad score = 1 ( 0+0+1)Non‐randomised open labelled dose escalation trial No control group Jadad score = 1 (0+0=1)Non‐randomised open labelled trial No Control group Jadad score = 1 (0+0+1)Non randomised open labelled Before and After Trial No control group Jadad score = 1 (0+0+1)Non randomised open trial No control group Jadad score = 1 (0+0+1) Part of Fearon's 2001 studyPost operative administration of EPA supplementation Eligible for curative elective surgery only Excludes palliative cancer patientsPostoperative administration of EPA supplementation Eligible for curative elective surgery only Excludes palliative cancer patients/evidence of metastasisPreoperative administration of EPA supplementation Eligible for curative elective surgery only Excludes palliative cancer patientsPerioperative administration of EPA supplementation Eligible for curative elective surgery only Excludes palliative cancer patientsPreoperative administration of EPA supplementation Eligible for curative elective surgery onlyPerioperative and preoperative administration of EPA supplementation Excludes patients with equivalent or more than 10% weight lossReview of the studyPhase I dose response cohort study No control group Jadad score = 1 (0+0+1)Non‐randomised open trial No control group Jadad score = 1 (0+0+1)Postoperative administration of EPA supplementation Published outcomes: immune data, postoperative complications, length of stay in hospitalPre and Postoperative administration of EPA supplementation Not clear if curative or palliative Published outcomes: wound healing complications, infections, postoperative inpatient death, length of stay in hospitalRetrospective study on survival data from weight stabilisation Part of Fearon 2003 studyPostoperative administration of EPA supplementation Published outcomes: route of administration, postoperative complications, infectious complications, length of stay in hospitalNon‐randomised open trial No control group Jadad Score = 0 (0+0+0)Duplication of included study (Fearon 2003) multi‐centered trialPostoperative administration of EPA supplementation Eligible for curative elective surgery only Excludes palliative care Published outcomes: post‐operative infections and length of hospital stayPerioperative administration of EPA supplementation Excludes weight loss of equal to or more than 10 % with respect to usual body weight last six months Only two palliative cancer patients included (control) Published outcomes: post‐operative infections and length of hospital stayPreoperative administration of EPA supplementation Excludes weight equal to or more than 10 % with respect to usual body weight in past six months Published outcomes: post‐operative infections and length of hospital stayRetrospective Study; no controls Jadad Score = 0 (0+0+0)Post operative TPN (Total parenteral nutrition) of either Fish oil emulsion and soya oil versus soya oil aloneEarly Postoperative enteral feeding with EPA supplementation Published outcomes: postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative mortalityEarly Postoperative enteral feeding with EPA supplementation Published outcomes Immunological data onlyA Phase II Non‐randomised open trial (on‐going) No control group Jadad score = 1 (0+0+1)Preoperative administration of EPA supplementation 8/51 >10% weight loss Published outcomes: Immune function, infectious complicationsPoster presentation Sub‐analysis of included study () looking at 19 patients Outcomes: total energy expenditure and resting energy expenditurePoster presentation Sub‐analysis of included study (Fearon 2003) looking at 24 patients Outcomes: total energy expenditure and resting energy expenditureNo control or placebo arm Fish oil capsules (4.9 g of EPA, 3.2 g of DSA) versus melatonin 18 mg/day 1+0+1 = 2Part of Bruera 2003 study Published outcome measures: plasma and neutrophil fatty acid compositionOpen pilot study using 2 g EPA within a high protein concentrated supplement No randomisation, no blinding Description of dropouts given Jadad score = 0+0+1 = 1Randomised open trial No description of withdrawals/dropouts Only 7/30 cancer patients Jadad score = 0+0+0 = 0 Jadad Score =1(1+0++0)Postoperative administration of EPA supplementation Published outcomes: immune function, infectious complications, postoperative hospital stayPostoperative administration of EPA supplementation Published outcome: immune functionEarly postoperative feeding with EPA supplementation Published outcomes: reduced infections, wound complications, decreased treatment costsPerioperative Enteral administration of EPA supplementation Published outcomes: postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, decreased treatment costsPostoperative enteral feeding of EPA supplementation Published outcome: prostaglandin release from mononuclear cellsPre and postoperative administration of EPA supplementation Eligible for curative surgery cancer patients only Published outcomes: reduction of postoperative infections, wound healing complications, length of stay in hospitalOpen controlled trial no control group Published outcome: post‐operative immunity function only Jadad score = 0 (0+0+0)Open controlled trial postoperative Chemoradiation therapy No weight loss recorded No relevant clinical outcomes recorded (i.e., postoperative immunity function only) Jadad Score = 0 (0+0+0)Preoperative administration of EPA supplementation Published outcomes: immune and nutritional parameters evaluated No relevant clinical outcomesPoster presentation Sub‐analysis of included study (Fearon 2003) Outcomes: quality of life and grip strengthPreoperative administration of EPA supplementation Published outcomes; immune status, post‐operative infection No relevant clinical outcomesBefore and after study No control group Jadad score = 0 (0 = +0+0)Part of a Phase 1 Non‐randomised Trial No control group No relevant clinical outcomes In vitro and in vivo study looking at ability of EPA to down‐regulate the acute‐phase response Jadad score = 0 (0+0+0)Before and after trial Jadad score = 0 (0+0+0)

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Trial name or titleA DBPCR Multi‐centre Phase Dose Response study of EPA 95% Diester Capsules in patients with cancer cachexiaMethods Participants243 lung & gastrointestinal patients to be recruited 81 patients in each of three groupsInterventionsOne group = 4 g EPA. Two groups = 2 g EPA Three groups = placebo Eight weeks durationOutcomesPrimary Ourcomes: Total body weight Secondary Outcomes Body composition Acute protein response Quality of Life Performance Status Plasma & Red cells phospholipidsStarting date1998Contact informationProfessor KC Fearon Depart of Clinical & Surgical Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, The Lothian University Hospitals NHS Trust, Lauriston Place, EDINBURGH EH3 9YWNotesTrial sponsored by Scotia Pharmaceutical Industry which subsequently went into liquidation Professor Fearon has obtained data and is currently analysing this data

Contributions of authors

CB, TD, IJ, AD: conceived and designed review. AD: coordinated review. AD: developed search strategy, undertook searches/screened searches/organised retrieval of papers. AD, BH: screened retrieved papers against inclusion criteria. AD, BH, TD: appraised quality of papers. AD, BH: abstracted data from papers. AD: wrote to authors of papers for additional information. AD, TD, BH, CB, IJ: wrote up review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

• No sources of support supplied

External sources

• Department of Health R & D Programme, National Researcher Development Award, UK.

Declarations of interest

None known

References

References to studies included in this review

Bruera 2003 {published data only}

• Bruera E, Strasser F, Palmer JL, Willey J, Calder K, Amyotte G, Baracos V. Effect of fish oil on appetite and other symptoms in patients with advanced cancer and anorexia/cachexia: a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2003;21(1):129‐34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fearon 2003 {published and unpublished data}

• Fearon KCH, Meyendfeldt MF, Moses AGW, Geenen R, Roy A, Gouma DJ, et al. Effect of a protein and energy dense n‐3 fatty acid enriched oral supplement on loss of weight and lean tissue in cancer cachexia: a randomised double blind trial. Gut 2003; Vol. 52:1479‐86. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Gogos 1998 {published data only}

• Gogos CA, Ginopoulos P, Salsa B, Apostolidou E, Zoumbos NC, Kalfarentzos F. Dietary omega‐3 polyunsaturated fatty acids plus vitamin E restore immunodeficiency and prolong survival for severely ill patients with generalized malignancy. Cancer 1998;82(2):395‐402. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jatoi 2004 {published data only}

• Jatoi A, Rowland K, Loprinzi CL, Sloan JA, Dakhil SR, MacDonald N, et al. An eicosapentaenoic acid supplement versus megestrol acetate versus both for patients with cancer‐associated wasting: a north central cancer treatment group and national cancer institute of Canada collaborative effort. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2004; Vol. 22, issue 12:2469‐76. [PubMed]

Zuijdgeest 2000 {published data only}

• Zuijdgeest‐van Leeuwen SD, Dagnelie PC, Wattimena JLD, Berg JWO, Gaast A, Swart GR, et al. Eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester supplementation in cachectic cancer patients and healthy subjects: effects on lipolysis and lipid oxidation. Clinical Nutrition 2000;19(6):417‐23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

References to studies excluded from this review

Atkinson 1998 {published data only}

• Atkinson S, Sieffert E, Bihari D. A prospective randomized, double blind, controlled clinical trial of enteral immunonutrition in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 1998;26(7):1164‐72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Barber 1998 {published data only}

• Barber MD, Ross JA, McMillan DC, Preston T, Shenkin A, Fearon KCH. A fish oil‐enriched nutritional supplement modulates changes in the acute phase protein response in weight‐losing pancreatic cancer patients. Clinical Nutrition 1998;17(1 Supplement):41. [P.44] [Google Scholar]

Barber 1999a {published data only}

• Barber MD, Ross JA, Voss AC, Tisdale MJ, Fearon KCH. The effect of an oral nutritional supplement enriched with fish oil on weight loss in patients with pancreatic cancer. British Journal of Cancer 1999;81(1):80‐6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Barber 1999b {published data only}

• Barber MD, Ross JA, Preston T, Shenkin A, Fearon KCH. Fish oil‐enriched nutritional supplement attenuates progression of the acute‐phase response in weight‐losing patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Journal of Nutrition 1999;129(6):1120‐5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Barber 2000 {published data only}

• Barber MD, McMillan DC, Preston T, Ross JA, Fearon KCH. Metabolic response to feeding in weight‐losing pancreatic cancer patients and its modulation by a fish‐oil‐enriched nutritional supplement. Clinical Science 2000;98:389‐99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Barber 2001a {published data only}

• Barber MD, Fearon KCH. Tolerance and incorporation of a high‐dose eicosapentaenoic acid diester emulsion by patients with pancreatic cancer cachexia. Lipids 2001;36(4):347‐51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Barber 2001b {published data only}

• Barber MD, Fearon KCH, Tisdale MJ, McMillan DC, Ross JA. Effect of a fish oil‐enriched nutritional supplement on metabolic mediators in patients with pancreatic cancer cachexia. Nutrition and cancer 2001;40(2):118‐24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Barber 2004 {published data only}

• Barber M, Preston T, McMillan D, Slaters C, Ross J, Fearon KCH. Modulation of the liver export protein synthetic response to feeding by an n‐3 fatty acid enriched nutritional supplement is associated with anabolism in cachectic cancer patients. Clinical Science 2000;106:359‐64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Bauer 2005 {published data only}

• Bauer JD, Capra S. Nutrition intervention improves outcomes in patients with cancer cachexia receiving chemotherapy ‐ a pilot study. Support Care Cancer 2005;13:270‐4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Braga 1995 {published data only}

• Braga M, Vignali A, Gianotti L, Cestari A, Profili M, Carlo V. Benefits of Early Postoperative Enteral Feeding in Cancer Patients. Infusionsther Transfusionsmed 1995;22:280‐4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Braga 1996a {published data only}

• Braga M, Vignali A, Gianotti L, Cestari A, Profili M, Carlo V. Immune and nutritional effects of early enteral nutrition after major abdominal operations. European Journal Surgery 1996;162:105‐12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Braga 1996b {published data only}

• Braga M, Gianotti L, Cestari A, Vignali A, Pellegatta F, Dolci A, Carlo V. Gut function and immune and inflammatory responses in patients preoperatively fed with supplemented enteral formulas. Archives of Surgery 1996;131(12):1257‐65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Braga 1999 {published data only}

• Braga M, Gianotti L, Radaelli G, Vignali A, Mari G, Gentilini O, Carlo V. Perioperative immunonutrition in patients undergoing cancer surgery. Archives of Surgery 1999;134(4):428‐33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Braga 2002 {published data only}

• Braga M, Gianotti L, Vignali A, Carlo V. Preoperative oral arginine and n‐3 fatty acid supplementation improves the immunometabolic host response and outcome after colorectal resection for cancer. Surgery 2002;132(5):805‐14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Braga 2002a {published data only}

• Braga M, Gianotti L, Nespoli L, Radaelli G, Carlo V. Nutritional Approach in Malnourished Surgical Patients. Archives of Surgery 2002;137:174‐80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Brosnahan 2003 {published data only}

• Brosnahan J. Supplementation with key nutrients reduced postoperative infections and length of hospital stay after gastrointestinal surgery. Evidence‐Based Nursing 2003;6(2):47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Burns 1999 {published data only}

• Burns CP, Halabi S, Clamon GH, Hars V, Wagner BA, Hohl RJ, et al. Phase I Clinical Study of fish oil fatty acid capsules for patients with cancer cachexia: cancer and leukemia Group B Study 9473. Clinical Cancer Research 1999;5:3942‐7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Burns 2004 {published data only}

• Burns CP, Halabi S, Clamon G, Kaplan E, Hohl RJ, Atkins JN, et al. Phase II Study of High‐Dose fish oil capsules for patients with cancer‐related cachexia. Cancer 2004;101(2):370‐8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Daly 1992 {published data only}

• Daly JM, Lieberman MD, Goldfine J, Shou J, Weintraub F, Rosato EF, et al. Enteral nutrition with supplemental arginine, RNA and omega‐3 fatty acids in patients after operation: Immunologic, metabolic and clinical outcome. Surgery 1992;112(1):56‐67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Daly 1995 {published data only}

• Daly JM, Weintraub FN, Shou J, Rosato EF, Lucia M. Enteral nutrition during multimodality therapy in upper gastrointestinal cancer patients. Annals of Surgery 1995;221(4):327‐38. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Davidson 2004 {published data only}

• Davidson W, Ash S, Capra S, Bauer J. Weight stabilisation is associated with improved survival duration and quality of life in unresectable pancreatic cancer. Clinical Nutrition 2004;23:239‐47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Di Carlo 1999 {published data only}

• Carlo V, Gianotti L, Balzano G, Zerbi A, Braga M. Complications of pancreatic surgery and the role of perioperative nutrition. Digestive Surgery 1999;16:320‐6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Falconer 1994 {published data only}

• Falconer JS, Fearon KCH, Ross JA, Carter DC. Polyunsaturated fatty acids in the treatment of weight‐losing patients with pancreatic cancer. World Rev Nutritional Diet 1994;76:74‐6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fearon 2001 {published data only}

• Fearon KCH, Meyenfeldt M, Moses AGW, Geenen R, Roy A, Gouma D, et al. An energy and protein dense, high n‐3 fatty acid oral supplement promotes weight gain in cancer cachexia. European Journal of Cancer 2001;37(Supplement 6):90. [Google Scholar]

Gianotti 1997 {published data only}

• Gianotti L, Braga M, Vignali A, Balzano G, Zerbi A, Bisagni P, Carlo V. Effect of route of delivery and formulation of postoperative nutritional support in patients undergoing major operations for malignant neoplasms. Archives of Surgery 1997;132(11):1222‐30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Gianotti 1999 {published data only}

• Gianotti L, Braga M, Fortis C, Soldini L, Vignali A, Colombo S, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial on perioperative feeding with an arginine, omega‐3 fatty acid, and RNA‐enriched enteral diet: effect on host response and nutritional status. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 1999;23(6):314‐20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Gianotti 2002 {published data only}

• Gianotti L, Braga M, Nespoli L, Radelli G, Beneduce A, Carlo V. A randomised controlled trial of preoperative oral supplementation with a specialized diet in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterology 2002;122(7):1763‐70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Gramaglia 1999 {published data only}

• Gramaglia A, Loi GF, Mongioj V, Baronzio F. Increased survival in brain metastatic patients treated with stereotatic radiotherapy, omega three fatty acids and bioflavonoids. Anticancer Research 1999;19:5583‐6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Heller 2004 {published data only}

• Heller AR, Rossel T, Gottschlich B, Tiebel O, Menschikowski M, Litz RJ, et al. Omega‐3 fatty acids improve liver and pancreas function in postoperative cancer patients. International Journal Cancer 2004;111:611‐6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Heslin 1997 {published data only}

• Heslin MJ, Latkany K, Leung D, Brooks AD, Hochwald SN, Pisters PWT, Shike M, Brennan MF. A prospective, randomized trial of early enteral feeding after resection of upper gastrointestinal malignancy. Annals of Surgery 1997;226(4):567‐80. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Keman 1995 {published data only}

• Keman M, Senkal M, Homann HH, Mumme A, Dauphin AK, Baier J, et al. Early postoperative enteral nutrition with arginine‐omega‐3 fatty acids and ribonucleic acid‐supplemented diet versus placebo in cancer patients: An immunologic evaluation of Impact Registered Trademark. Critical Care Medicine 1995;23(4):652‐9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Mantovani 2004 {published data only}

• Mantovani G, Madeddu C, Maccio A, Gramignano G, Lusso MR, Massa E, et al. Cancer‐related anorexia.cachexia syndrome and oxidative stress: an innovative approach beyond current treatment. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2004;13(10):1651‐9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

McCarter 1998 {published data only}

• McCarter MD, Gentilini OD, Gomez ME, Daly JM. Preoperative oral supplement with immunonutrients in cancer patients. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 1998;22(4):206‐11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Moses 2001 {published data only}

• Moses AG, Slater C, Barber MD, Fearon KC, Preston T. An experimental nutrition supplement enriched with n‐3 fatty acids and antioxidants is associated with an increased physical activity level in patients with pancreatic cancer cachexia. Clinical Nutrition 2001;20(62 S3):21. [Google Scholar]

Moses 2002 {published data only}

• Moses AG, Slater C, Barber MD, Preston T, Fearon KCH. Physical activity level in patients with pancreatic cancer cachexia. British Journal Surgery 2002;89(Suppl 1):42. [Google Scholar]

Persson 2005 {published data only}

• Persson C, Glimelius B, Ronnelid J, Nygren P. Impact of fish oil and melatonin on cachexia in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer: a randomized pilot study. Nutrition 2005;21:170‐8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Pratt 2002 {published data only}

• Pratt VC, Watanabe S, Bruera E, Mackey J, Clandinin MT, Baracos VE, Field CJ. Plasma and neutrophil fatty acid composition in advanced cancer patients and response to fish oil supplementation. British Journal of Cancer 2002;87:1370‐8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Read 2004 {published and unpublished data}

• Read JA, Clarke SJ, Volker D. Nutritional and anti‐inflammatory strategies in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: a pilot study. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2004;13 (Supplement):S93. [Google Scholar]

Rodrigo 1997 {published data only}

• Rodrigo MP, Casanova y JM, Pena G. Influence of the composition of the enteral nutrition on the infection of the critical patient [Influencia de la composicion de la nutricion enteral en la infeccion del paciente critico]. Nutricion Hospitalaria 1997;XII(2):80‐4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Schilling 1995 {published data only}

• Schilling J, Vranjes N, Fierz W, Joller H, Gyurech D, Ludwig E, et al. Clinical outcome and immunology of postoperative arginine, w‐3 fatty acids, and nucleotide‐enriched enteral feeding: a randomized prospective comparison with standard enteral and low calorie/low fat IV solutions. Nutrition 1996;12(6):423‐9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Senkal 1995 {published data only}

• Senkal M, Kemen M, Homann HH, Eickhoff U, Baier J, Zumtobel V. Modulation of Postoperative Immune Response by Enteral Nutrition with a Diet Enriched with Arginine, RNA, and Omega‐3 Fatty Acids in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer. European Journal Surgery 1995;161:115‐22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Senkal 1997 {published data only}

• Senkal M, Mumme A, Eickhoff U, Geier B, Spath G, Wulfert D, et al. Early postoperative enteral immunonutrition clinical outcome and cost‐comparison analysis in surgical patients. Critical Care Medicine 1997;25(9):1489‐96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Senkal 1999 {published data only}

• Senkal M, Zumtobel V, Bauer KH, Marpe B, Wolfram G, Frei A, et al. Outcome and cost‐effectiveness of perioperative enteral immunonutrition in patients undergoing elective upper gastrointestinal tract surgery. Archives of Surgery 1999;134(12):1309‐16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Swails 1997 {published data only}

• Swails WS, Kenler AS, Driscoll DF, DeMichele SJ, Babineau TJ, Utsunamiya T, et al. Effect of a fish oil structured lipid‐based diet on prostaglandin release from mononuclear cells in cancer patients after surgery. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 1997;21(5):266‐74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Synderman 1999 {published data only}

• Synderman CH, Kachman K, Molseed L, Wagner R, D'Amico F, Bumpous J, Rueger R. Reduced postoperative infections with an immune‐enhancing nutritional supplement. The Laryngoscope 1999;109:915‐21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tashiro 1998a {published data only}

• Tashiro T, Yamamori H, Takagi K, Hayashi N, Furukawa K, Nakajima N. n‐3 verus n‐6 polyunsaturated fatty acids in critical illness. Nutrition 1998;14(6):551‐3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tashirom 1998b {published data only}

• Tashiro T, Yamamori H, Takagi K, Hayashi N, Furukawa K, Nakajima N. n‐3 versus n‐6 polyunsaturated fatty acids in critical illness. Nutrition 1998;14(6):551‐3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Vignali 1995 {published data only}

• Vignali A, Braga M, Gianotti L, Cestari A, Profili M, Carlo V. Impact of an enriched enteral formula on immune function and nutritional status in cancer patients following surgery [Immunonutrizione enterale precoce nel paziente oncologico chirugico: valutazione immunologica e nutrizonale]. Rivista Italiana di Nutrizione Parenterale ed Enterale 1995;13(1):25‐31. [Google Scholar]

vonMeyenfeldt 2002 {published data only}

• vonMeyenfeldt M, Ferguson M, Voss A, Fearon K, Moses A, Geene R, Gouma DJ, Roy A, Giacosa A, Gossom M, Tisdale M. Weight gain is associated with improved quality of life in patients with cancer cachexia consuming an energy and protein dense, high n‐3 fatty acid oral supplement. Proceedings American Society of Clinical Oncology 2002;21:385A. [Google Scholar]

Wachtler 1995 {published data only}

• Wachtler P, Hilger RA, Konig W, Bauer KH, Kemen M, Koller M. Influence of a pre‐operative enteral supplement on functional activities of peripheral leukocytes from patients with major surgery. Clinical Nutrition 1995;14:275‐82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wigmore 1996 {published data only}

• Wigmore SJ, Ross JA, Falconer JS, Plester CE, Tisdale MJ, Carter DC, Fearon KCH. The effect of polyunsaturated fatty acids on the progress of cachexia in patients with pancreatic cancer. Nutrition 1996;12(1):S27‐30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wigmore 1997 {published data only}

• Wigmore SJ, Fearon KCH, Maingay JP, Ross JA. Down‐regulation of the acute‐phase response in patients with pancreatic cancer cachexia receiving oral eicosapentaenoic acid is mediated via suppression of interleukin‐6. Clinical Science 1997;92:215‐21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wigmore 2000 {published data only}

• Wigmore SJ, Barber MD, Ross JA, Tisdale MJ, Fearon KCH. Effect of oral eicosapentaenoic acid on weight loss in patients with pancreatic cancer. Nutrition and Cancer 2000;36(2):177‐84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

References to ongoing studies

Fearon 2005 {unpublished data only}

• A DBPCR Multi‐centre Phase Dose Response study of EPA 95% Diester Capsules in patients with cancer cachexia. Ongoing study 1998.

Additional references

Altman 2001

• Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;134:663‐94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Beck 1991

• Beck SA, Smith KL, Tisdale MJ. Anticachectic and antitumour effect of Eicosapentaenoic acid and its effect on protein turnover. Cancer Research 1991;51:6089‐91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Belizario 1991

• Belizario JE, Katz M, Chenker E, Raw I. Bioactivity of skeletal muscle proteolysis‐inducing factors in the plasma proteins from cancer patients with weight loss. British Journal of Cancer 1991;63:705‐10.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Blackburn 1977

• Blackburn GL, Bistrian BR, Main BS, Schlamm HT, Smith MF. Nutritional and metabolic assessment of the hospitalized patient. The Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 1977;1:11‐22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Brodie 1998

• Brodie D, Moscrip V, Hutcheon R. Body composition measurement: a review of hydrodosensitometry, anthropometry and impedance methods. Nutrition 1998;14:14‐5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

DeWys 1980

• DeWys WD, Begg C, Lavin PT, Band PR, Bennett JM. Prognostic effect of weight‐loss prior to chemotherapy in cancer patients. American Journal of Medicine 1980;69:491‐7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Giacosa 1994

• Giacosa A, Frascio F, Sukkar SG, Roncella S. Food intake and body composition in cancer cachexia. Nutrition 1994;12(1 (Supplement)):S20‐3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hudson 1994

• Hudson EA, Tisdale MJ. Comparison of the effectiveness of eicosapentaenoic acid administered as either the free acid or ethyl ester as an anticachectic and antitumour agent. Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and essential fatty acids 1994;51:141‐5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jadad 1996

• Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reporting of randomised clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17:1‐12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jaskowiak 1998

• Jaskowiak NT, Alexander Jr. HR. The pathophysiology of cancer cachexia. In: Doyle D, Hanks GWC, MacDonald N editor(s). Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine. 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1998:534‐47.[Google Scholar]

Kyle 2004

• Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, Lorenzo AD, Deurenberg P, Elia M, Manual Gomez J, Lilienthal HB, et al. Bioelectrical impedence analysis‐part II: utilization in clinical practice. Clinical Nutrition 2004;5:1226‐43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lindgvist 2004

• Lindgvist O, Widmark A, Rasmussen BH. Meanings of the phenomenon of fatigue as narrated by 4 patients with cancer in palliative care. Cancer Nursing 2004;27:237‐43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lindsey 1986

• Lindsey AM. Cancer cachexia: effects of the disease and its treatment. Seminars in Oncology Nursing 1986;2:19‐29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Nixon 1981

• Nixon DW, Lawson DH, Kutner M, Ansley J, Schwarz M, Heymsfield S, et al. Hyperalimentation of the cancer patient with protein‐calorie undernutrition. Cancer Research 1981;41:2038‐45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ovesen 1993

Ovesen L, Allingstrup L, Hannibal J, Mortensen EL, Hansen OP. Effect of dietary counselling on food intake, body weight, response rate, survival and quality of life in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a prospective randomised study