1. Introduction
According to the National Cancer Institute, in the United States, one in three adults are diagnosed with cancer (based on 2013–2015 data) [ 1 ]. The decline in the cancer death rate (26% reduction between 1991 and 2015) [ 1 ], is resulting in a larger number of individuals surviving cancer, with the number of cancer survivors expected to rise to 20.3 million by 2026 [ 2 ].
Many people receiving cancer treatment complain of changes to their taste and smell functions, presenting as various manifestations, though routinely described as a loss or alteration of perception [ 3 ]. Prevalence of self-reported taste problems among cancer patients ranges from 12% to 84% [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Taste and smell play an important role in food behavior, so changes in taste or smell perception may negatively influence eating behavior [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. “Food behavior” is an inclusive term to capture any type of food-related behavior that might have real-world significance for patients’ overall nutritional health [ 10 ], such as the desire to eat, food preferences, and food intake, in ways that lead to weight change and poor quality of life [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Several studies have investigated cancer-related changes in chemosensation (i.e., taste and smell) or food-related behavior; however, it is rare for a study to use both measures.
There is a wide variability in the prevalence rates for reported taste function (12% to 84% [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]). There are both clinical and demographic patient characteristics that could have an impact on taste function. The various treatment regimens and cancer types studied, the different methods used to evaluate taste [ 3 , 15 , 16 ], how “taste” was defined in these studies, and the end points examined, all effect the study results. For example, some authors describe “taste” as a study end point but do not assess taste per se. Other patient characteristics, such as smoking history, alcohol abuse, and genetics, have all known to play a role in individual variability in taste perception.
This review critically evaluates research published from 1982 to 2018 that psychophysically measured taste and smell function and assessed some aspect of food behavior (e.g., appetite, dietary intake, and preference). We reviewed studies that used objective measures of taste and smell function (i.e., using psychophysical methods), as opposed to self-reported changes in taste or smell. The rationale for this selection strategy was based on the observation that patients often do not distinguish between taste and smell or confuse sensory constructs with hedonic constructs, such as appetite or food enjoyment, so self-reported changes are often unrelated to objectively measured taste changes [ 17 , 18 ]. For example, a food may taste the same as it always did but that taste is no longer enjoyed.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Selection
Our focus on taste and food behavior in people with cancer posed several challenges in systematically reviewing the literature because no standard search terms returned appropriate studies. We therefore took a two-pronged approach: First, we started with the most current published papers and traced citations back to 1961, the earliest paper reporting on taste psychophysics of cancer patients. This paper from 1961 served as the starting point of the period covered by the review. Second, we included the broad terms “taste” and “smell” (i.e., taste, smell, olfaction, chemosensory), “objective evaluation” (i.e., threshold, detection threshold, recognition threshold, sensitivity, intensity, identification), “food behavior” (i.e., dietary food intake, food preference, food behavior, appetite, food liking), “human,” and “cancer” or “chemotherapy” and read the abstracts to identify relevant papers. Papers were removed that did not use methods that objectively measured taste and/or smell function or did not include measures of food behavior. Papers were not excluded based on study design (e.g., cohort or longitudinal), cancer diagnosis, treatment type, or time since cancer diagnosis or treatment. Papers that met the above criteria were removed if articles were not written in English, included children (<18 years old), or were not original research publications. Database searches were carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and from the University of Pennsylvania and University of Massachusetts Libraries. Two authors reviewed the abstracts of the unique original research articles from the resulting literature searches ( n = 44), and additional articles were identified through reference searches and searches of similar articles, with 11 articles fulfilling the criteria.
2.2. Data Extraction
Data from selected articles were manually extracted, including sample size, experimental design, methods of sensory measurement, food behavior metrics, and summary statistical statistics.
2.3. Statistical Approach for Comparative Analysis
Three of the eleven articles were included in the comparative analysis due to eight of the eleven articles having insufficient data available for extraction. Means and standard deviations of the comparison groups, test statistics, and other metrics for the comparative analysis were obtained where possible. We calculated the effect sizes with the d statistic using previous methods [ 19 ].
3. Results
3.1. Study Characteristics and Design
The characteristics of the 11 studies included in the review and comparative analysis are summarized in Table 1 . The studies included had a combined total of 578 participants, comprising 380 people with cancer and 198 controls. Five studies enrolled patients with more than one cancer type and six enrolled patients with a single cancer type. Cancer diagnoses varied across studies, including breast, esophagogastric, lung, ovarian, prostate, colon, multiple myeloma, lymphoma, and testicular cancer, with one study not reporting a cancer type.
3.2. Methods of Taste and Smell Assessment
A variety of objective measures were used to evaluate taste and smell perception. For taste, procedures included detection threshold (DT) and recognition threshold (RT). DT is the lowest concentration that a taste stimulus can be detected compared to the background (i.e., different than water), with RT referring to the lowest concentration a specific taste can be recognized (e.g., bitter). Other taste methods included taste identification tasks evaluating the suprathreshold stimuli (e.g., International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 3972:2011) intensity rating of suprathreshold stimuli (concentration above DT), and ranking tasks. Of note, the detection threshold occurs at a lower concentration than the recognition threshold. Most studies reported stimuli being presented at room temperature with participants having time between stimuli where water was available for rinsing. The studies also differed in the way investigators presented smell and taste stimuli to subjects. For taste, stimuli were presented to either the whole mouth (whole-mouth rinses, sprays) or only parts of the mouth (filter paper disks, taste strips). For smell, most of the studies used Sniffin’ Sticks (a set of pen-like devices that dispense an odor) to make three measures of olfaction function: identification, sensitivity (DT), and discrimination [ 29 ]. Table 2 summarizes the methods used to evaluate taste and smell. For a general review of methods evaluating taste and smell function in oncology populations, see References [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]; for more methodological detail, see References [ 34 , 35 ]; and for clinical applications for dietitians, see Boltong and Campbell [ 36 ].
A variety of different methods were used to assess food behavior across studies. Eight studies included measures of dietary intake, assessed using either a dietary recall ( n = 2), a food frequency questionnaire ( n = 5), or a 3-day weighed food technique ( n = 1). Participants answered questions regarding symptoms related to appetite ( n = 5); however, only two studies analyzed the relationship between chemosensory measures and appetite. Four studies measured food preferences using responses to food pictures with different macronutrient content.
3.3. Impact of Taste Changes on Food Intake and Preferences
When comparing the experimental results between taste and food behavior for each type of study design, i.e., cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal, the results were mixed. Of the cross-sectional cohort studies (including one combined cross-sectional and longitudinal study), several reported a significant relationship between taste function and food behaviors. Investigators reported that cancer patients with a loss of appetite were more likely to prefer lower sweetness levels and a reduced intake of sweet foods compared with patients without a reduced appetite [ 21 ]. In another study, changes in bitter DT correlated with the avoidance of meat, chocolate, and tea [ 21 ]. In a third study, changes in bitter DT correlated with the avoidance of meat, chocolate, and tea; however, the direction (i.e., increased or decreased bitter sensitivity) was not reported [ 23 ]. In a fourth study, patients with a higher sucrose DT consumed less protein, carbohydrate, zinc, and fewer calories. In the same study, patients with a higher urea RT reported consuming fewer calories and less protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Sucrose and urea thresholds were also associated with energy intake: a greater percentage of patients who did not meet energy requirements had thresholds above the median for sucrose (DT and RT) and urea (RT) [ 24 ], meaning they found it harder to recognize sweet and bitter tastes. The one cross-sectional cohort study did not report a significant relationship between taste function and food behavior in those who had cancer but were in remission and no longer undergoing treatment (cancer survivors; 1–7 years post-treatment), even though changes in taste function were apparent in this group [ 18 ].
Among the seven prospective longitudinal studies (including one cross-sectional longitudinal study using a combined approach), three reported a significant relationship between taste and food behavior. In one of these three studies, the reduced ability to identify taste solutions was associated with decreased energy intake during the beginning of the third chemotherapy treatment cycle [ 25 ]. In a second study, patients who became more sensitive to sucrose between the start of chemotherapy and after two cycles of chemotherapy consumed fewer grams of protein, animal protein, fat, and iron compared to those who became less sensitive to sucrose [ 26 ]. The third study also found a relationship between sweet sensitivity and food behavior, reporting that decreased sucrose sensitivity was associated with reduced appetite prior to treatment [ 20 ].
Of the four prospective longitudinal studies that found no taste effects on food behavior, one showed that changes in sensitivity (as measured by the ability to detect electrical stimulation of the tongue) was not associated with changes in chemotherapy patients’ protein or energy intake [ 22 ]. In two studies, recognition thresholds did not correlate with food preferences [ 28 ] or with the liking of macronutrient categories [ 17 ]. The fourth study measured recognition thresholds and collected data on food frequency intake and food preferences but did not report on associations between objective taste and food measures [ 27 ].
We computed effect sizes from the studies listed in Table 1 . Where possible, we computed these values and report them as d (standardized mean difference; Table 3 ) to assess the magnitude of taste changes, allowing for the comparison of findings across studies. However, 5 of the 11 studies reported no significant effects, and 3 of the 6 studies with significant effects reported too little information to allow us to compute effect sizes. Therefore, only three of the studies were included in the effect size calculations, and thus conclusions should be drawn cautiously. However, the effect sizes revealed that sweet taste has the most empirical evidence for involvement with food behavior, with greater evidence supporting this link. There was some but limited evidence that bitter taste was involved with measures of nutrient intake. Almost all studies measured taste changes for four taste qualities, sweet ( n = 10), sour ( n = 8), bitter ( n = 10), and salty ( n = 8), with fewer reporting responses to umami ( n = 3); but positive results and reportable effect sizes were mostly for sweet taste.
3.4. Impact of Smell Changes on Food Intake and Preferences
Five studies measured smell function; three of the five studies reported no significant change among subjects affected by cancer [ 18 , 22 , 28 ]. One longitudinal study reported significant differences (poorer smell function) for overall olfactory scores and for threshold olfactory scores (but not discrimination or identification tasks) during chemotherapy compared with controls [ 17 ]. A prospective cohort study of testicular cancer patients reported lower smell thresholds (greater smell sensitivity) compared with controls at baseline, with no differences at any other time point (through 1-year post-treatment) [ 27 ]. Another longitudinal study reported just under 50% (13 of 27) of patients had changed smell detection thresholds (compared to baseline): almost equal numbers of participants experienced increased sensitivity ( n = 6) and decreased sensitivity ( n = 7) [ 22 ]; no other analysis was reported. No comparative analysis was performed as none of these studies report an instance where smell alterations were significantly related to any measures of food behaviors.
4. Discussion
4.1. Taste but Not Smell May Influence Food Intake and Enjoyment
The studies reviewed here suggest that cancer patients may suffer from reduced food intake and appetite, which are associated with alterations in taste perception. Specifically, reduced taste perception may result in a decreased intake of fat and protein, leading to an overall decrease in energy consumption ( Table 3 ). These data suggest that patients suffering from reduced taste sensitivity (i.e., higher DT) experience greater incidences of food avoidance. Among the 11 research articles reviewed, six reported no significant relationship between measures of taste (or smell) and food-related behaviors; none of which supported a relationship between smell function and food behavior.
4.2. The Special Role of Sweet Taste Changes and Food Behavior in Cancer Patients
We performed a comparative analysis and learned that changes in sweet and, to a lesser extent, bitter perception were more common than changes to salt or sour perception in cancer patients, and that these changes in sweet taste perception were often tied to differences in food behaviors ( Table 3 ). The effect sizes, reported in Table 3 , allow for the comparison across the studies reporting a significant relationship between taste and food behavior. The greatest effect size reported was between sweet sensitivity and zinc intake, with individuals having a greater sensitivity for sweetness (i.e., low DT) associated with consuming more zinc, compared to those with a lower sensitivity for sweetness (i.e., high DT). For bitterness, the highest effect size was observed for the daily consumption of calories, with individuals with a higher DT (lower sensitivity) consuming on average 631 fewer calories compared to individuals with a lower DT (greater sensitivity). Reduced sweet taste function (decreased sensitivity) was associated with a reduced intake of a variety of different macro and micro nutrients, reduced appetite, and overall lower energy intake. This suggests that reduced taste function, specifically for sweetness, reduces patient’s food intake.
There are a few mechanisms in which cancer treatment may affect taste and ultimately food behavior. It is plausible that sweet taste receptors or cells are more vulnerable to cancer treatment or that neural response to sweet ligands is altered as a result of cancer treatment. Another consideration is that taste receptors are also expressed in the gut [ 37 ] and may be affected in a similar mechanism as oral taste cells during chemotherapy treatment. Therefore, changes in food behavior may be a result of gastrointestinal symptoms that co-occur with taste alterations [ 38 , 39 ]. While caution is warranted in drawing conclusions from this comparative analysis because of the small number of studies, it is clear that these perceptual changes warrant more study.
Taste and smell loss related to cancer treatment is thought to arise as a result of the cancer treatment [ 40 ]; yet individuals may experience taste and smell changes prior to treatment as a result of cancer [ 32 ]. Each type of cancer treatment may affect taste and smell through different mechanisms [ 16 ]. For example, taste loss during chemotherapy may be due to the disruption of taste cell renewal [ 41 , 42 ], whereas surgery in the oral cavity could damage chemosensory nerves [ 43 ].
4.3. Contrasting Study Designs, Patient Populations, and Methodologies
Cancer treatment is continually making advancements, so as technology and precision medicine advances, toxicities may differ. For example, in the treatment of head and neck cancers, proton radiation has a smaller radiation field, and thus may better preserve gustatory tissue when compared to conventional photon radiation treatment [ 44 ]. While it is likely that treatment characteristics and cancer diagnosis may differentially effect taste perception, conclusions cannot be drawn here about the effects of specific treatments on taste and food behavior because of both the diversity of treatments and the limited treatment information provided. Other aspects that could explain the conflicting results are the mix of study designs (see Table 1 ) and patient population. Diverse patient populations were used across studies, with six studies studied a single cancer type, three studies involved patients from two or more cancer type sub groups, and two studies did not disclose cancer diagnosis. Clinical and demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, smoking history, upper airway infections, and drug use, among other factors, are known to impact chemosensory function; however, these data were reported infrequently and could have had a significant impact on the study outcomes and their interpretations. Moreover, occurrence and severity of treatment-related symptoms, such as dysphagia, dry mouth, and nausea, among others, can negatively impact food behavior [ 36 ]. More work is needed to fully understand the implications of co-occurrence of these symptoms on food behavior and overall nutrition. Data and analyses were reported for the study population, regardless of the number of treatment types or cancer diagnoses, making it difficult to conduct a meaningful analysis to examine these clinical characteristics and their association with or influence on taste alterations and food behavior.
As summarized in Table 2 , different methods were used to evaluate chemosensory function, which included variations in the taste stimulus delivery method. The authors of several studies did not report key information about the testing procedure, such as the concentration of the taste stimuli, and these methodological details may have contributed to the range of study results. These different methods allow stimuli to contact different areas of the oral cavity and tongue (e.g., sensitivity on the posterior versus anterior tongue), and the delivery method may influence taste perception [ 45 , 46 ]. Because different areas are innervated by different cranial nerves, they may be differentially impacted by treatment [ 43 , 47 ]. Food-related measures also varied across studies. For those evaluating intake, all studies used either food-frequency questionnaires or dietary recalls (24-h or 3-day recalls), with the exception of one weighed food study [ 23 ]. Evaluation of food preferences in the four studies used pictures of foods that were representative of portion sizes and different macronutrients [ 17 , 18 , 27 , 28 ], developed as a measure of food preference based on taste and macronutrient categories [ 48 ]. Studies using this method had mixed results for changes in food preferences during treatment [ 17 , 28 , 49 ], and were not associated with objective taste and smell measures [ 17 , 18 , 27 , 49 ]. These methods are not without limitations and may not accurately represent daily intake. Furthermore, food intake was not always normalized for body weight or accounted for recent weight history. This can be challenging as recommended caloric intake during cancer treatment may not be reflective their current body weight, with clinicians modifying patients’ diet to promote weight loss or maintain weight. Overall, it is recommended that more objective measures be used to quantify food intake [ 50 ], notwithstanding the practical barriers and participant burden inherent in doing so.
4.4. Individual Differences and Genetic Background
Some of the different findings among studies might be due to variation arising from individual differences in taste perception. A well-studied phenomenon is the wide variation across individuals in response to the bitterness of propylthiouracil (PTU or PROP) and phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) [ 51 , 52 , 53 ]. Some of the variation in response to these bitter compounds and others is linked to genetic differences in bitter taste receptor genes ( TAS2Rs ) [ 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Individual differences in perception are associated with differences in the liking and intake of foods [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. This points to the importance of individual differences in perception that may result from genetic differences [ 59 , 65 ] (see Hayes et al. [ 66 ]) or dietary exposure [ 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ], and is why longitudinal studies are preferred, where the patients act as their own control. Indeed, there appears to be a link between the genetics of a bitter taste receptor ( TAS2R38 ) and the risk of developing cancer; however, the direction of this relationship is unclear [ 71 , 72 , 73 ]; although the direct pathophysiology is not known, it is likely driven by factors other than differences in vegetable and fruit intake [ 74 ]. Taken together, greater attention to differences across individuals arising from taste genotypes is warranted regarding taste studies.
4.5. Translation to Real-World Food Interactions and Clinical Applications
The goal of this review was to determine whether alterations in chemosensory function are associated with changes in food behavior, including consumption, preference, and enjoyment, in cancer patients. However, we must consider how changes in taste thresholds (DT or RT) translate to how we experience food. Threshold measures are variable and subject to false positives [ 75 ], and do not correlate with suprathreshold ratings or hedonic response [ 33 , 76 , 77 ]. However, the intensity and hedonic response of suprathreshold stimuli has been associated with the intake of a variety of foods and beverages [ 67 , 68 , 78 , 79 ]. Of the eleven studies included in this review, three presented taste stimuli at suprathreshold levels [ 17 , 21 , 25 ], of these studies, two reported a significant relationship with reduced energy intake [ 21 , 25 ], and another reported no relationship with food preference [ 17 ]. Selection of the psychophysical sensory methods is important and the translation of these measures to food behavior and nutritional status must be taken into consideration. More studies are needed to evaluate taste function above the detection threshold and how changes in taste perception mediate dietary intake and food behavior.
Patients should receive information on taste changes prior to treatment; this requires the proper training of clinicians such that they are equipped with validated evaluation measures. However, there is no such rapid detection or diagnosis tool that can be administered in a clinical setting. Currently, there are no clinical guidelines on the assessment or strategies for managing or improving taste problems. Future work will help to identify whether patient or clinical characteristics are associated with an increased risk for developing taste alterations, with more work needed to explore the long-term effects of cancer treatment, whether taste fully recovers, or whether there are long-lasting and persistent alterations. Another area that needs attention is the taxonomies used to describe alterations in taste function [ 15 ], with disparities being present in the use of the classifications across disciplines. Overall, more work is needed make diagnostic tools available for clinicians and information available for patients, along with identifying strategies for the treatment of taste disorders.
5. Conclusions
Taste and smell function related to food behavior in people affected by cancer is understudied and the mix of positive and negative results may be due to the mix of measurement methods and experimental designs [ 3 , 15 , 32 , 80 ]. However, we can say that among the studies with statistically significant associations between chemosensory function and food behavior (5 out of the 11 reviewed here), reduced taste function, particularly for sweet stimuli, was associated with a reduced appetite, avoidance of certain foods (e.g., meat), and reduced consumption (e.g., overall calories and protein). Additional studies that use a consistent methodology will better elucidate the duration and extent to which taste and smell alterations impact patient outcome.
The results of laboratory studies investigating taste and food behavior may have practical implications. Clinicians lack standardized tools with a high clinical utility to routinely assess and treat taste and smell disorders in oncology patients. A clearer understanding of the effect of taste and smell alterations on elements of food behavior may support the design and testing of clinical strategies and interventional approaches aimed at mitigating the deleterious effects of chemosensory dysfunction as a result of cancer treatment.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to Anna Lysenko-Brockman and Elena Lysenko for their efforts in translation. Michael G. Tordoff is acknowledged for his assistance with effect size calculations. A.N. was supported by the NIH National Research Service Award T32 (DC000014) Fellowship. The authors would like to thank Cordelia Running and Paule Valery Joseph for their constructive criticism of the manuscript.
Author Contributions
The authors’ responsibilities were as follows—A.A.N.: conception and drafting of the manuscript; A.A.N. and D.R.R.: search and review of the literature; D.R.R. and L.-D.H.: data extraction, comparative analysis, and statistical expertise; A.A.N., L.-D.H., A.B., and D.R.R.: interpretation of the data; A.A.N., A.B., and D.R.R.: critical revision for important intellectual content; all authors: final approval of the manuscript.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.
Abbreviations
References
1. Noone A.M. Howlader N. Krapcho M. Miller D. Brest A. Yu M. Ruhl J. Tatalovich Z. Mariotto A. Lewis D.R. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2015 National Cancer Institute Bethesda, MD, USA 2018
2. National Cancer Institute Cancer Statistics Available online: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics (accessed on 29 October 2018)
3. Cohen J. Wakefield C.E. Laing D.G. Smell and taste disorders resulting from cancer and chemotherapy Curr. Pharm. Des. 2016 22 2253 2263 10.2174/1381612822666160216150812 26881441
4. Wagland R. Richardson A. Armes J. Hankins M. Lennan E. Griffiths P. Treatment-related problems experienced by cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: A scoping review Eur. J. Cancer Care 2015 24 605 617 10.1111/ecc.12246 25296389
5. Hovan A.J. Williams P.M. Stevenson-Moore P. Wahlin Y.B. Ohrn K.E. Elting L.S. Spijkervet F.K. Brennan M.T. A systematic review of dysgeusia induced by cancer therapies Support. Care Cancer 2010 18 1081 1087 10.1007/s00520-010-0902-1 20495984
6. Gamper E.-M. Giesinger J.M. Oberguggenberger A. Kemmler G. Wintner L.M. Gattringer K. Sperner-Unterweger B. Holzner B. Zabernigg A. Taste alterations in breast and gynaecological cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: Prevalence, course of severity, and quality of life correlates Acta Oncol. 2012 51 490 496 10.3109/0284186X.2011.633554 22129358
7. Rolls B.J. Do chemosensory changes influence food intake in the elderly? Physiol. Behav. 1999 66 193 197 10.1016/S0031-9384(98)00264-9 10336143
8. Schiffman S. Graham B. Taste and smell perception affect appetite and immunity in the elderly Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000 54 S54 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601026 11041076
9. Mattes R.D. Cowart B.J. Schiavo M.A. Arnold C. Garrison B. Kare M.R. Lowry L.D. Dietary evaluation of patients with smell and/or taste disorders Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1990 51 233 240 10.1093/ajcn/51.2.233 2305710
10. Axelson M.L. Brinberg D. Measures of Food-Related Behavior A Social-Psychological Perspective on Food-Related Behavior Springer Berlin, Germany 1989 5 29
11. Brisbois T.D. Hutton J.L. Baracos V.E. Wismer W.V. Taste and smell abnormalities as an independent cause of failure of food intake in patients with advanced cancer—An argument for the application of sensory science J. Palliat. Care 2006 22 111 10.1177/082585970602200208 17265664
12. da Costa Marinho E. Custódio I.D.D. Ferreira I.B. Crispim C.A. Paiva C.E. de Paiva Maia Y.C. Impact of chemotherapy on perceptions related to food intake in women with breast cancer: A prospective study PLoS ONE 2017 12 e0187573 29190717 10.1371/journal.pone.0187573 PMC5708740
13. Gyan E. Raynard B. Durand J.-P. Lacau Saint Guily J. Gouy S. Movschin M.L. Khemissa F. Flori N. Oziel-Taieb S. Bannier Braticevic C. Malnutrition in Patients with Cancer: Comparison of Perceptions by Patients, Relatives, and Physicians—Results of the NutriCancer2012 Study J. Parenter. Enter. Nutr. 2017 42 255 260 10.1177/0148607116688881 29505137
14. Boltong A. Keast R. Aranda S. Experiences and consequences of altered taste, flavour and food hedonics during chemotherapy treatment Support. Care Cancer 2012 20 2765 2774 10.1007/s00520-012-1398-7 22350644
15. Boltong A. Keast R. The influence of chemotherapy on taste perception and food hedonics: A systematic review Cancer Treat. Rev. 2012 38 152 163 10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.04.008 21612873
16. Gamper E.-M. Zabernigg A. Wintner L.M. Giesinger J.M. Oberguggenberger A. Kemmler G. Sperner-Unterweger B. Holzner B. Coming to your senses: Detecting taste and smell alterations in chemotherapy patients. A systematic review J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2012 44 880 895 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.11.011 22921177
17. de Vries Y. Winkels R. van den Berg M. de Graaf C. Kelfkens C. de Kruif J.T.C. Göker E. Grosfeld S. Sommeijer D. Van Laarhoven H. Altered food preferences and chemosensory perception during chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: A longitudinal comparison with healthy controls Food Qual. Prefer. 2018 63 135 143 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.09.003
18. IJpma I. Renken R.J. Gietema J.A. Slart R.H.J.A. Mensink M.G.J. Lefrandt J.D. Ter Horst G.J. Reyners A.K.L. Taste and smell function in testicular cancer survivors treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy in relation to dietary intake, food preference, and body composition Appetite 2016 105 392 399 10.1016/j.appet.2016.06.010 27298084
19. Lipsey M.W. Wilson D.B. Practical Meta-Analysis Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA, USA 2001
20. Carson J. Gormican A. Taste acuity and food attitudes of selected patients with cancer J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1977 70 361 365 845347
21. Trant A. Serin J. Douglass H. Is taste related to anorexia in cancer patients? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1982 36 45 58 10.1093/ajcn/36.1.45 6953761
22. Ovesen L. Sorensen M. Hannibal J. Allingstrup L. Electrical taste detection thresholds and chemical smell detection thresholds in patients with cancer Cancer 1991 68 2260 2265 10.1002/1097-0142(19911115)68:10<2260::AID-CNCR2820681026>3.0.CO;2-W 1913462
23. Pattison R. Richardson R. Dougan H. Davidson H. Impact of altered taste sensitivity on dietary intake of patients with advanced cancer Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1997 56 314
24. Sánchez-Lara K. Sosa-Sánchez R. Green-Renner D. Rodríguez C. Laviano A. Motola-Kuba D. Arrieta O. Influence of taste disorders on dietary behaviors in cancer patients under chemotherapy Nutr. J. 2010 9 15 10.1186/1475-2891-9-15 20334666 PMC2858711
25. Boltong A. Aranda S. Keast R. Wynne R. Francis P.A. Chirgwin J. Gough K. A prospective cohort study of the effects of adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy on taste function, food liking, appetite and associated nutritional outcomes PLoS ONE 2014 9 e103512 10.1371/journal.pone.0103512 25078776 PMC4117507
26. Turcott J.G. Juárez-Hernández E. De la Torre-Vallejo M. Sánchez-Lara K. Luvian-Morales J. Arrieta O. Value: Changes in the detection and recognition thresholds of three basic tastes in lung cancer patients receiving Cisplatin and Paclitaxel and its association with nutritional and quality of life parameters Nutr. Cancer 2016 68 241 249 10.1080/01635581.2016.1144075 26943275
27. IJpma I. Renken R.J. Gietema J.A. Slart R.H. Mensink M.G. Lefrandt J.D. Ter Horst G.J. Reyners A.K. Changes in taste and smell function, dietary intake, food preference, and body composition in testicular cancer patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy Clin. Nutr. 2017 36 1642 1648 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.10.013 27836309
28. de Vries Y. Boesveldt S. Kampman E. de Graaf C. Winkels R. van Laarhoven H. Low reported taste function is associated with low preference for high protein products in advanced oesophagogastric cancer patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy Clin. Nutr. 2017 38 472 475 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.12.001 29254661
29. Rumeau C. Nguyen D. Jankowski R. How to assess olfactory performance with the Sniffin’Sticks test ® Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 2016 133 203 206 10.1016/j.anorl.2015.08.004 26344139
30. Epstein J.B. Barasch A. Taste disorders in cancer patients: Pathogenesis, and approach to assessment and management Oral Oncol. 2010 46 77 81 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.11.008 20036797
31. Epstein J.B. Smutzer G. Doty R.L. Understanding the impact of taste changes in oncology care Support. Care Cancer 2016 24 1917 1931 10.1007/s00520-016-3083-8 26820877
32. Spotten L. Corish C. Lorton C. Ui Dhuibhir P. O’Donoghue N. O’Connor B. Walsh T. Subjective and objective taste and smell changes in cancer Ann. Oncol. 2017 28 969 984 10.1093/annonc/mdx018 28327968
33. Bartoshuk L.M. Duffy V.B. Lucchina L.A. Prutkin J. Fast K. PROP (6-n-Propylthiouracil) Supertasters and the Saltiness of NaCl Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1998 855 793 796 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb10660.x 9929686
34. Bartoshuk L.M. Comparing sensory experiences across individuals: Recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste perception Chem. Senses 2000 25 447 460 10.1093/chemse/25.4.447 10944509
35. Lawless H.T. Heymann H. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices Springer Science & Business Media Berlin, Germany 2010 Volume 5999
36. Boltong A. Campbell K. ‘Taste’changes: A problem for patients and their dietitians Nutr. Diet. 2013 70 262 269 10.1111/1747-0080.12101
37. Egan J.M. Margolskee R.F. Taste cells of the gut and gastrointestinal chemosensation Mol. Interv. 2008 8 78 10.1124/mi.8.2.5 18403652 PMC2680194
38. Skerman H.M. Yates P.M. Battistutta D. Cancer-related symptom clusters for symptom management in outpatients after commencing adjuvant chemotherapy, at 6 months, and 12 months Support. Care Cancer 2012 20 95 105 10.1007/s00520-010-1070-z 21293884
39. Nolden A. Joseph P.V. Kober K.M. Cooper B.A. Paul S.M. Hammer M.J. Dunn L.B. Conley Y.P. Levine J.D. Miaskowski C. Co-occurring Gastrointestinal Symptoms Are Associated with Taste Changes in Oncology Patients Receiving Chemotherapy J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2019 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.016 31349034 PMC6823134
40. Hong J.H. Omur-Ozbek P. Stanek B.T. Dietrich A.M. Duncan S.E. Lee Y. Lesser G. Taste and odor abnormalities in cancer patients J. Support. Oncol. 2009 7 58 65 19408458
41. Yang H. Cong W.n. Yoon J.S. Egan J.M. Vismodegib, an antagonist of hedgehog signaling, directly alters taste molecular signaling in taste buds Cancer Med. 2015 4 245 252 10.1002/cam4.350 25354792 PMC4329008
42. Kumari A. Ermilov A.N. Allen B.L. Bradley R.M. Dlugosz A.A. Mistretta C.M. Hedgehog pathway blockade with the cancer drug LDE225 disrupts taste organs and taste sensation Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2014 113 1034 1040 10.1152/jn.00822.2014 25392175 PMC4312875
43. Bartoshuk L.M. Catalanotto F. Hoffman H. Logan H. Snyder D.J. Taste damage (otitis media, tonsillectomy and head and neck cancer), oral sensations and BMI Physiol. Behav. 2012 107 516 526 10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.06.013 22728784
44. Romesser P.B. Cahlon O. Scher E. Zhou Y. Berry S.L. Rybkin A. Sine K.M. Tang S. Sherman E.J. Wong R. Proton beam radiation therapy results in significantly reduced toxicity compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck tumors that require ipsilateral radiation Radiother. Oncol. 2016 118 286 292 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.12.008 26867969 PMC4980117
45. Running C.A. Hayes J.E. Sip and spit or sip and swallow: Choice of method differentially alters taste intensity estimates across stimuli Physiol. Behav. 2017 181 95 99 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.09.011 28912088
46. Feeney E.L. Hayes J.E. Regional differences in suprathreshold intensity for bitter and umami stimuli Chemosens. Percept. 2014 7 147 157 10.1007/s12078-014-9166-3 25485034 PMC4254731
47. Duffy V. Lucchina L. Fast K. Bartoshuk L. Taste and cancer Principles and Practice of Supportive Oncology Lippincott-Raven Philadelphia, PA, USA 1998 141 151
48. de Bruijn S.E. de Vries Y.C. de Graaf C. Boesveldt S. Jager G. The reliability and validity of the Macronutrient and Taste Preference Ranking Task: A new method to measure food preferences Food Qual. Prefer. 2017 57 32 40 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.11.003
49. de Vries Y.C. Helmich E. Karsten M.D. Boesveldt S. Winkels R.M. van Laarhoven H.W. The impact of chemosensory and food-related changes in patients with advanced oesophagogastric cancer treated with capecitabine and oxaliplatin: A qualitative study Support. Care Cancer 2016 24 3119 3126 26919988 10.1007/s00520-016-3128-z PMC4877431
50. Archer E. Lavie C.J. Hill J.O. The Failure to Measure Dietary Intake Engendered a Fictional Discourse on Diet-Disease Relations Front. Nutr. 2018 5 105 10.3389/fnut.2018.00105 30483510 PMC6243202
51. Fox A.L. The relationship between chemical constitution and taste Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1932 18 115 10.1073/pnas.18.1.115 16577421 PMC1076170
52. Anonymous Six in ten ‘tasteblind’to bitter chemical Sci. News Lett. 1931 9 249
53. Dinehart M. Hayes J. Bartoshuk L. Lanier S. Duffy V. Bitter taste markers explain variability in vegetable sweetness, bitterness, and intake Physiol. Behav. 2006 87 304 313 10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.10.018 16368118
54. Kim U. Jorgenson E. Coon H. Leppert M. Risch N. Drayna D. Positional cloning of the human quantitative trait locus underlying taste sensitivity to phenylthiocarbamide Sci. STKE 2003 299 1221 10.1126/science.1080190 12595690
55. Kim U. Wooding S. Ricci D. Jorde L.B. Drayna D. Worldwide haplotype diversity and coding sequence variation at human bitter taste receptor loci Hum. Mutat. 2005 26 199 204 10.1002/humu.20203 16086309
56. Hayes J.E. Bartoshuk L.M. Kidd J.R. Duffy V.B. Supertasting and PROP Bitterness Depends on More Than the TAS2R38 Gene Chem. Senses 2008 33 255 265 10.1093/chemse/bjm084 18209019
57. Duffy V.B. Davidson A.C. Kidd J.R. Kidd K.K. Speed W.C. Pakstis A.J. Reed D.R. Snyder D.J. Bartoshuk L.M. Bitter Receptor Gene (TAS2R38), 6-n-Propylthiouracil (PROP) Bitterness and Alcohol Intake Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2004 28 1629 1637 10.1097/01.ALC.0000145789.55183.D4 15547448 PMC1397913
58. Bufe B. Breslin P.A. Kuhn C. Reed D.R. Tharp C.D. Slack J.P. Kim U.K. Drayna D. Meyerhof W. The molecular basis of individual differences in phenylthiocarbamide and propylthiouracil bitterness perception Curr. Biol. 2005 15 322 327 10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.047 15723792 PMC1400547
59. Allen A.L. McGeary J.E. Knopik V.S. Hayes J.E. Bitterness of the Non-nutritive Sweetener Acesulfame Potassium Varies with Polymorphisms in TAS2R9 and TAS2R31 Chem. Senses 2013 38 379 389 10.1093/chemse/bjt017 23599216 PMC3657735
60. Hayes J.E. Feeney E.L. Nolden A.A. McGeary J.E. Quinine bitterness and grapefruit liking associate with allelic variants in TAS2R31 Chem. Senses 2015 40 437 443 10.1093/chemse/bjv027 26024668 PMC4542653
61. Bartoshuk L.M. The biological basis of food perception and acceptance Food Qual. Prefer. 1993 4 21 32 10.1016/0950-3293(93)90310-3
62. Tepper B.J. 6-n-Propylthiouracil: A genetic marker for taste, with implications for food preference and dietary habits Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1998 63 1271 10.1086/302124 9792854 PMC1377537
63. Tepper B.J. Nutritional implications of genetic taste variation: The role of PROP sensitivity and other taste phenotypes Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2008 28 367 388 10.1146/annurev.nutr.28.061807.155458 18407743
64. Keller K.L. Adise S. Variation in the Ability to Taste Bitter Thiourea Compounds: Implications for Food Acceptance, Dietary Intake, and Obesity Risk in Children Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2016 36 157 182 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-050916 27070900
65. Hayes J.E. Wallace M.R. Knopik V.S. Herbstman D.M. Bartoshuk L.M. Duffy V.B. Allelic variation in TAS2R bitter receptor genes associates with variation in sensations from and ingestive behaviors toward common bitter beverages in adults Chem. Senses 2011 36 311 319 10.1093/chemse/bjq132 21163912 PMC3038275
66. Hayes J.E. Feeney E.L. Allen A.L. Do polymorphisms in chemosensory genes matter for human ingestive behavior? Food Qual. Prefer. 2013 30 202 216 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.05.013 23878414 PMC3714112
67. Nolden A.A. Hayes J.E. Perceptual and affective responses to sampled capsaicin differ by reported intake Food Qual. Prefer. 2017 55 26 34 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.003 28392628 PMC5383096
68. Nolden A.A. Hayes J.E. Perceptual qualities of ethanol depend on concentration, and variation in these percepts associates with drinking frequency Chemosens. Percept. 2015 8 149 157 10.1007/s12078-015-9196-5 27594968 PMC5006941
69. Wise P.M. Nattress L. Flammer L.J. Beauchamp G.K. Reduced dietary intake of simple sugars alters perceived sweet taste intensity but not perceived pleasantness Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2015 103 50 60 10.3945/ajcn.115.112300 26607941
70. Bobowski N. Shifting human salty taste preference: Potential opportunities and challenges in reducing dietary salt intake of Americans Chemosens. Percept. 2015 8 112 116 10.1007/s12078-015-9179-6 26451233 PMC4593321
71. Carrai M. Steinke V. Vodicka P. Pardini B. Rahner N. Holinski-Feder E. Morak M. Schackert H.K. Görgens H. Stemmler S. Association between TAS2R38 gene polymorphisms and colorectal cancer risk: A case-control study in two independent populations of Caucasian origin PLoS ONE 2011 6 e20464 10.1371/journal.pone.0020464 21674048 PMC3107225
72. Choi J.-H. Lee J. Oh J.H. Chang H.J. Sohn D.K. Shin A. Kim J. Variations in the bitterness perception-related genes TAS2R38 and CA6 modify the risk for colorectal cancer in Koreans Oncotarget 2017 8 21253 10.18632/oncotarget.15512 28423504 PMC5400581
73. Choi J.-H. Lee J. Choi I.J. Kim Y.-W. Ryu K.W. Kim J. Genetic variation in the TAS2R38 bitter taste receptor and gastric cancer risk in Koreans Sci. Rep. 2016 6 26904 10.1038/srep26904 27245112 PMC4887993
74. Lambert J.D. VanDusen S.R. Cockroft J.E. Smith E.C. Greenwood D.C. Cade J.E. Bitter taste sensitivity, food intake, and risk of malignant cancer in the UK Women’s Cohort Study Eur. J. Nutr. 2018 58 1 11 10.1007/s00394-018-1772-4 29980925
75. Running C.A. High false positive rates in common sensory threshold tests Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2015 77 692 700 10.3758/s13414-014-0798-9 25407557
76. Bartoshuk L.M. The psychophysics of taste Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1978 31 1068 1077 10.1093/ajcn/31.6.1068 352127
77. Sontag A.M. Comparison of Sensory Methods, Discrimination, Intensity and Hedonic Responses in Four Modalities University of California, Davis Davis, CA, USA 1978
78. Hayes J.E. Sullivan B.S. Duffy V.B. Explaining variability in sodium intake through oral sensory phenotype, salt sensation and liking Physiol. Behav. 2010 100 369 380 10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.03.017 20380843 PMC2874635
79. Mojet J. Christ-Hazelhof E. Heidema J. Taste perception with age: Pleasantness and its relationships with threshold sensitivity and supra-threshold intensity of five taste qualities Food Qual. Prefer. 2005 16 413 423 10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.08.001
80. Comeau T.B. Epstein J.B. Migas C. Taste and smell dysfunction in patients receiving chemotherapy: A review of current knowledge Support. Care Cancer 2001 9 575 580 10.1007/s005200100279 11762967