An exercise and nutrition intervention is feasible for patients with HNC during RT, and the intervention is potentially effective in mitigating loss of muscle mass both during and after RT. Future trials should assess the feasibility and effects of extended interventions during and after treatment. Cancer 2017;123:4440-8. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the effects of nutritional and physical exercise interventions and interventions combining these interventions during radiotherapy treatment for patients with head and neck cancer on body composition, objectively measured physical function and nutritional status. Systematic electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed interface), EMBASE (Ovid interface), CINAHL (EBSCO interface) and Cochrane Library (Wiley interface). We identified 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included 858 patients. For body composition, using only nutrition as intervention, a significant difference between treatment and control group were observed (SMD 0.42 (95CI 0.23–0.62), p < 0.001). Only pilot RCTs investigated combination treatment and no significant difference between the treatment and control groups were found (SMD 0.21 (95CI −0.16–0.58), p = 0.259). For physical function, a significant difference between treatment and control group with a better outcome for the treatment group were observed (SMD 0.78 (95CI 0.51–1.04), p < 0.001). No effects on nutritional status were found. This meta-analysis found significantly positive effects of nutrition and physical exercise interventions alone in favor of the treatment groups. No effects in studies with combined interventions were observed. Future full-scaled RCTs combining nutrition and physical exercise is warranted.

Objective Extensive research has documented the negative nutritional impact of head neck cancer (HNC) treatment, but few studies have addressed the patients' experiences. The purpose of this study was to describe how patients with HNC experience the nutritional situation and perceive nutritional support from diagnosis to the post‐treatment phase. Methods Patients with HNC were recruited from a randomised pilot study. Individual interviews were conducted after radiotherapy with 10 participants aged 49 – 70 years and analysed by qualitative content analysis. Results Undergoing surgery was experienced as a poor nutritional starting point for the upcoming radiotherapy. During radiotherapy, increasing side effects made the participants customise their meals to improve food intake. About halfway through radiotherapy, virtually no food intake was experienced and hospital admissions and initiations of tube‐feeding occurred in this period. Oral nutritional supplements were recommended for all, but eventually became unbearable to ingest. When radiotherapy was finally completed, the participants felt discouraged about the persistent side effects preventing them from resume eating. The participants missed tailored information about development of side effects and involvement of a dietitian when reflecting on the treatment‐period. Conclusion The comprehensive nutritional problems experienced by patients with HNC require early nutritional assessments and improved individually tailored nutritional support.

No abstract

Objective: Physical rehabilitation programs hold the potential to mitigate deterioration in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with head and neck cancer.The objective was to assess development in relevant domains of HRQoL following a physical exercise and nutrition intervention administrated during or after treatment.Methods: In a pilot study, 41 patients were randomized to resistance training and oral nutritional supplements during (EN-DUR, n = 20) or after (EN-AF, n = 21) radiotherapy. Global health status/QoL (GHS) and physical functioning (PF) were measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire at baseline, week 6, and week 14. Differences between the groups were assessed by analysis of covariance. A difference of ≥10 points in GHS and PF was interpreted as clinically relevant.Results: No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups; however, clinically relevant changes and differences in GHS and PF were observed.From baseline to week 6, GHS decreased 9 points in the EN-DUR group and 23 points