Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Incurable Cancer: Exploring the Heterogenous and Non-Randomised Clinical Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is an insufficient knowledge base for optimal parenteral nutrition (PN) use for patients with incurable cancer, leading to vague guidelines and varied practices. The aim of the study is to describe the practices and actual outcomes of PN in patients with incurable cancer at Norwegian hospitals. Methods: This multicentre study retrospectively reviewed 507 deceased patients (>18 years) receiving PN between 2011 and 2017. Data were collected from PN initiation until death, and analyses were descriptive. Results: Fifty-one percent had upper and lower gastrointestinal cancers, and the main PN indications were insufficient intake (75%) and gastrointestinal malfunction (47%). Sixty-seven percent received no anticancer treatment. Forty-three (8%) received PN as temporary bridging to anticancer treatment, of whom fifteen (35%) resumed or initiated treatment. The median PN dose corresponded to 53% of estimated energy requirements, and 94% of the patients had complementary energy intake. The most common reason for discontinuation was expected imminent death (47%). While common symptoms during PN were nausea (52%), vomiting (46%), and oedema (37%), 15% reported improved wellbeing. Conclusions: In this real-world cohort, up to 80% of the patients would not meet the eligibility criteria of previous trials due to cancer diagnosis and treatment, gastrointestinal tract function, weight loss criteria or complications such as ascites. This study highlights the heterogeneity in how patients with incurable cancer receive PN, and emphasises the importance of individualised PN treatment, carefully and safely managed to meet the patients’ palliative care situation. Future real-world pragmatic patient-centred protocols bridging the gap between clinical trials and patients in clinical practice are warranted.
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 | 0.220 | 0.334 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".