Nutritional assessment and support in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of ovarian cancer with cytoreductive surgery

Introduction: The multidisciplinary treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis, also known as Sugarbaker's procedure, aims to eradicate microscopic residual tumor after surgery. This technique is highly complex and it's associated with high mortality and morbidity, so the patient selection is relevant. There is a direct relationship between nutritional status, quality of life, survival and ability to tolerate treatment. It is therefore important to assess nutritional status prior to detect if there is risk or malnutrition. Objectives: The main objective is to evaluate the results of the nutritional assessment after all patients operated by Sugarbaker's procedure. Secondary objectives are to know the parenteral nutrition composition formula most commonly used and to compare the results of those patients with a historical cohort to which the previous nutritional assessment wasn't performed.. Methods: Prospective study where all adult patients who were undergoing Sugarbaker procedure and who underwent previous nutritional assessment were included. Postoperative clinical and patient follow-up data were compared with a historical cohort of patients undergoing the same procedure (which will not be made prior nutritional assessment). For the diagnosis of malnutrition were used anthropometric and laboratory parameters. Study parameters were: age, albumin prior to the intervention, peritoneal carcinomatosis index, quimiotherapy administration and tumor staging. In the postoperative follow-up, the study parameters were: days in intensive care unit, hospitalization days, total days of hospitalization and postoperative complications. Results: A total of 32 patients were included: twenty patients without nutritional assessment and twelve patients with previous nutritional assessment with a mean age of 59 +/- 14 years. No statistically significant differences are observed between groups in peritoneal carcinomatosis index, tumor stage, chemotherapy and albumin before the intervention. A total of 30 patients were required parenteral nutrition. The average composition formula of parenteral nutrition was 1.2 +/- 0.1 g proteins per kg body weight and per day, 2.8 +/- 0.4 g of carbohydrates per kg body weight and per day and 1 +/- 0.1 g of lipid per kg body weight and per day. Of the twelve previous nutritional assessment conducted in nine of them some form of malnutrition was observed. In the parameters evaluated during follow-up of patients, no statistically significant differences were found, although was observed a trend to a shorter in the intensive care unit stay and fewer complications in patients who have undergone nutritional assessment. Discussion: It should be noted that body mass index and the percentage weight loss in these patients is not representative of the observed malnutrition. The high needs of parenteral nutrition in this study may be due the complications of gastrointestinal resection. Possibly no differences are observed in study parameters due to sample size, but if there is a tendency to increase the stay and complications as shown in the literature. Nutritional intervention provides energy and protein needed to reduce the loss of weight and muscle mass from the pathological process of cancer and surgery. Conclusions: The results of the previous nutritional assessment indicate that malnutrition is a pathology that has high prevalence in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of ovarian origin. A trend that improve nutritional status will increase the quality of life by reducing these parameters is observed. The macronutrient composition of parenteral nutrition is similar to nutritional requirement in critically ill patients. We believe that the selection of patients who are going to undergo a Sugarbaker procedure should include assessment of prior nutritional status.