Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
Nutritional outcomes associated with enteral versus parenteral nutritional support during intensive induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schwarz Marianne, Lebreton Anne, Lester Marie-Antoinette, Marchand Tony, Houot Roch, Giltat Aurélien, Mokeddem Chama, Mear Jean Baptiste, Darras Elise, Orvain Corentin, Hunault Mathilde, Tanguy-Schmidt Aline
Аннотация
PURPOSE: During acute myeloid leukemia (AML) intensive chemotherapy induction, nutrition is an important part of supportive care and may influence treatment tolerance and clinical outcomes, impacting patient prognosis. Several nutritional supports can be used to limit malnutrition, but limited data are available to guide the choice of nutritional support. This study aimed to compare nutritional outcomes associated with enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) during intensive induction chemotherapy for AML in a real-world retrospective setting.
METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted in two French academic centers (Angers University Hospital and Rennes University Hospital), including all adult patients with AML receiving intensive induction chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Between January 2017 and March 2022, 327 patients were included, with a median age of 60 years (range 18-81). Among these patients, 265 (81%) patients received nutritional support during induction therapy: enteral nutrition (EN) for 135 patients and parenteral nutrition (PN) for 130 patients. Patients who received EN had better nutritional status at the end of induction therapy with lower weight loss (5% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.012), higher albumin levels (32 vs. 27.9, P < 0.001), and less severe nutritional index (NRI; 24% vs. 57%, P < 0.001) compared to the PN group. However, no significant difference was observed in overall survival between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: In this retrospective comparison of two institutional nutritional support strategies, patients initially managed with EN experienced lower weight loss and lower rates of severe malnutrition at the end of induction therapy.
METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted in two French academic centers (Angers University Hospital and Rennes University Hospital), including all adult patients with AML receiving intensive induction chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Between January 2017 and March 2022, 327 patients were included, with a median age of 60 years (range 18-81). Among these patients, 265 (81%) patients received nutritional support during induction therapy: enteral nutrition (EN) for 135 patients and parenteral nutrition (PN) for 130 patients. Patients who received EN had better nutritional status at the end of induction therapy with lower weight loss (5% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.012), higher albumin levels (32 vs. 27.9, P < 0.001), and less severe nutritional index (NRI; 24% vs. 57%, P < 0.001) compared to the PN group. However, no significant difference was observed in overall survival between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: In this retrospective comparison of two institutional nutritional support strategies, patients initially managed with EN experienced lower weight loss and lower rates of severe malnutrition at the end of induction therapy.