Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 18 (1), 11

Enteral Immunonutrition Versus Enteral Nutrition for Gastric Cancer Patients Undergoing a Total Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Review

Enteral Immunonutrition Versus Enteral Nutrition for Gastric Cancer Patients Undergoing a Total Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ying Cheng et al. BMC Gastroenterol.

Abstract

Background: Nutrition support is a common means for patients with gastric cancer, especially for those undergoing elective surgery. Recently, enteral immunonutrition (EIN) was increasingly found to be more effective than enteral nutrition (EN) in enhancing the host immunity and eventually improving the prognosis of gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy. However, the results reported were not consistent. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of EIN for patients with GC on biochemical, immune indices and clinical outcomes.

Methods: Four electronical databases (Medline, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane library) were used to search articles in peer-reviewed, English-language journals. Mean difference (MD), Relative risk (RR), or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochrane Q and I2 statistic combined with corresponding P-value. The analysis was carried out with RevMan 5.3.

Results: Seven studies involving 583 patients were eligible for the pooled analysis. EIN, when beyond a 7-day time-frame post-operatively (D ≥ 7), increased level of CD4+ (SMD = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.65-1.33; P < 0.00001), CD4+/ CD8+ (SMD = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.02-0.67; P = 0.04), the IgM (SMD = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20; P = 0.03), the IgG (SMD = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.55-1.42; P < 0.0001), the lymphocyte (SMD = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.32-1.06; P = 0.0003), and the proalbumin (SMD = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.33-1.14; P = 0.0004). However, those increased effects were not obvious within a 7-day time-frame post-operatively (D < 7). The levels of CD8+ and other serum proteins except proalbumin were not improved both on D ≥ 7 and D < 7. Clinical outcomes such as systemic inflammatory response syndrone (SIRS) (MD, - 0.89 days; 95% CI, - 1.40 to - 0.39; P = 0.005), and postoperative complications (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.60; P = 0.001) were significantly reduced in EIN group. Pulmonary infection and length of hospitalization (LHS) were not improved no matter what time after surgery.

Conclusions: EIN was found to improve the cellular immunity, modulate inflammatory reaction and reduce postoperative complication for GC patients undergoing radical gastrointestinal surgery. Exclusion of grey literature and non-English language studies was the key limitation in this study.

Keywords: Enteral immunonutrition; Enteral nutrition; Gastrectomy; Gastric cancer.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable for this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable for this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study selection flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk of bias assessment based on review author’s judgement about risk of bias item for each eligible study (n = 7). a risk of bias summary: formula image: low risk of bias; formula imageunclear risk of bias. b risk of bias graph presented as percentages across seven studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot on CD4+ level comparison between EIN and EN after removal of an article with heterogeneity
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot on CD4+/CD8+ comparison between EIN and EN beyond a 7-day time-frame
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot on IgM (a) and IgG (b) comparison between EIN and EN within and beyond a 7-day time-frame
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plot on lymphocyte (a), proalbumin (b) and transferring (c) comparison between EIN and EN within and beyond a 7-day time-frame after removal of one or two articles with heterogeneity
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Forest plot on systemic inflammatory response syndrone (SIRS) comparison between EIN and EN
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Forest plot on postoperative complications comparison between EIN and EN after removal of two articles with heterogeneity

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 5 articles

References

    1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schattner M. Enteral nutritional support of the patient with cancer: route and role. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;36(4):297–302. doi: 10.1097/00004836-200304000-00004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vilhjalmsdottir DO, Hinriksdottir HH, Pordardottir FR, Porsdottir I, Gunnarsdtotir I. Energy and protein intake of patients at the Department of Cardiothoracic surgery, Landspitali - the National University Hospital of Iceland. Laeknabladid. 2013;99(2):71–75. - PubMed
    1. Arends J, Bachmann P, Baracos V, Barthelemy N, Bertz H, Bozzetti F, Fearon K, Hutterer E, Isenring E, Kaasa S, et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin Nutr. 2017;36(1):11–48. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.07.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Weimann A, Braga M, Harsanyi L, Laviano A, Ljungqvist O, Soeters P, Jauch KW, Kemen M, Hiesmayr JM, Horbach T, et al. ESPEN guidelines on Enteral nutrition: surgery including organ transplantation. Clin Nutr. 2006;25(2):224–244. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2006.01.015. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Feedback