Home Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in patients with incurable cancer remains controversial with significant variation worldwide. We aimed to systematically evaluate the literature from 1960 to 2018 examining the use of HPN in advanced cancer patients for all intestinal failure indications and assess the potential benefits/burdens of HPN in this cohort of patients. The primary end point was survival and secondary end points were quality of life and nutritional/performance status. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model, where suitable. Of 493 studies retrieved, 22 met the quality inclusion criteria. Studies were mainly conducted in Western countries (Italy, USA, Canada, Germany), including a total of 3564 patients (mean age 57.8 years). Mean duration for HPN was 5.0 mo. Mean overall survival was 7.3 mo. Patients with improved performance status survived for longer on HPN. Quality of life was sparsely reported though there was no observed negative impact of PN. HPN-related complications were reported in eight studies only and were mainly catheter-related blood stream infections. In conclusion, HPN is used for several indications in advanced cancer, though there is significant heterogeneity of results. Disparities in geographical distribution of the studies may reflect variation in accessing HPN.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".