Feasibility of two levels of protein intake in patients with colorectal cancer: findings from the Protein Recommendation to Increase Muscle (PRIMe) randomized controlled pilot trial

Abstract

•Patients were able to increase and sustain dietary protein intake from preintervention levels.•Over one-half of patients in the 2.0 g/kg/day group maintained or gained MM with a 12-week targeted nutrition intervention.•This work highlighted the potential for nutrition to attenuate MM loss in patients with cancer. BackgroundLow muscle mass (MM) predicts unfavorable outcomes in cancer. Protein intake supports muscle health, but oncologic recommendations are not well characterized. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of dietary change to attain 1.0 or 2.0 g/kg/day protein diets, and the preliminary potential to halt MM loss and functional decline in patients starting chemotherapy for stage II-IV colorectal cancer.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized to the diets and provided individualized counseling. Assessments at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks included weighed 3-day food records, appendicular lean soft tissue index (ALSTI) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to estimate MM, and physical function by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) test.ResultsFifty patients (mean ± standard deviation: age, 57 ± 11 years; body mass index, 27.3 ± 5.6 kg/m2; and protein intake, 1.1 ± 0.4 g/kg/day) were included at baseline. At week 12, protein intake reached 1.6 g/kg/day in the 2.0 g/kg/day group and 1.2 g/kg/day in the 1.0 g/kg/day group (P = 0.012), resulting in a group difference of 0.4 g/kg/day rather than 1.0 g/kg/day. Over one-half (59%) of patients in the 2.0 g/kg/day group maintained or gained MM compared with 44% of patients in the 1.0 g/kg/day group (P = 0.523). Percent change in ALSTI did not differ between groups [2.0 g/kg/day group (mean ± standard deviation): 0.5% ± 4.6%; 1.0 g/kg/day group: −0.4% ± 6.1%; P = 0.619]. No differences in physical function were observed between groups. However, actual protein intake and SPPB were positively associated (β = 0.37; 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.67; P = 0.014).ConclusionIndividualized nutrition counselling positively impacted protein intake. However, 2.0 g/kg/day was not attainable using our approach in this population, and group contamination occurred. Increased protein intake suggested positive effects on MM and physical function, highlighting the potential for nutrition to attenuate MM loss in patients with cancer. Nonetheless, muscle anabolism to any degree is clinically significant and beneficial to patients. Larger trials should explore the statistical significance and clinical relevance of protein interventions. Low muscle mass (MM) predicts unfavorable outcomes in cancer. Protein intake supports muscle health, but oncologic recommendations are not well characterized. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of dietary change to attain 1.0 or 2.0 g/kg/day protein diets, and the preliminary potential to halt MM loss and functional decline in patients starting chemotherapy for stage II-IV colorectal cancer. Patients were randomized to the diets and provided individualized counseling. Assessments at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks included weighed 3-day food records, appendicular lean soft tissue index (ALSTI) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to estimate MM, and physical function by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) test. Fifty patients (mean ± standard deviation: age, 57 ± 11 years; body mass index, 27.3 ± 5.6 kg/m2; and protein intake, 1.1 ± 0.4 g/kg/day) were included at baseline. At week 12, protein intake reached 1.6 g/kg/day in the 2.0 g/kg/day group and 1.2 g/kg/day in the 1.0 g/kg/day group (P = 0.012), resulting in a group difference of 0.4 g/kg/day rather than 1.0 g/kg/day. Over one-half (59%) of patients in the 2.0 g/kg/day group maintained or gained MM compared with 44% of patients in the 1.0 g/kg/day group (P = 0.523). Percent change in ALSTI did not differ between groups [2.0 g/kg/day group (mean ± standard deviation): 0.5% ± 4.6%; 1.0 g/kg/day group: −0.4% ± 6.1%; P = 0.619]. No differences in physical function were observed between groups. However, actual protein intake and SPPB were positively associated (β = 0.37; 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.67; P = 0.014). Individualized nutrition counselling positively impacted protein intake. However, 2.0 g/kg/day was not attainable using our approach in this population, and group contamination occurred. Increased protein intake suggested positive effects on MM and physical function, highlighting the potential for nutrition to attenuate MM loss in patients with cancer. Nonetheless, muscle anabolism to any degree is clinically significant and beneficial to patients. Larger trials should explore the statistical significance and clinical relevance of protein interventions.

Topics & Concepts