Total energy expenditure assessed by 24-h whole-room indirect calorimeter in patients with colorectal cancer: baseline findings from the PRIMe study
Loading...
Date
Citation for Previous Publication
Ford, K. L., Pichard, C., Sawyer, M. B., Trottier, C. F., Disi, I. R., Purcell, S. A., Ghosh, S., Siervo, M., Deutz, N. E., & Prado, C. M. (2023). Total energy expenditure assessed by 24-h whole-room indirect calorimeter in patients with colorectal cancer: baseline findings from the PRIMe study. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 118(2), 422–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.06.002
Link to Related Item
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.06.002
Abstract
Description
Background
Total energy expenditure (TEE) determines energy requirements, but objective data in patients with cancer are limited.
Objectives
We aimed to characterize TEE, investigate its predictors, and compare TEE with cancer-specific predicted energy requirements.
Methods
This cross-sectional analysis included patients with stages II–IV colorectal cancer from the Protein Recommendation to Increase Muscle (PRIMe) trial. TEE was assessed by 24-h stay in a whole-room indirect calorimeter before dietary intervention and compared with cancer-specific predicted energy requirements (25–30 kcal/kg). Generalized linear models, paired-samples t tests, and Pearson correlation were applied.
Results
Thirty-one patients (56 ± 10 y; body mass index [BMI]: 27.9 ± 5.5 kg/m2; 68% male) were included. Absolute TEE was higher in males (mean difference: 391 kcal/d; 95% CI: 167, 616 kcal/d; P < 0.001), patients with colon cancer (mean difference: 279 kcal/d; 95% CI: 73, 485 kcal/d; P = 0.010), and patients with obesity (mean difference: 393 kcal/d; 95% CI: 182, 604 kcal/d; P < 0.001). Appendicular lean soft tissue (β: 46.72; 95% CI: 34.27, 59.17; P < 0.001) and tumor location (colon—β: 139.69; 95% CI: 19.44, 259.95; P = 0.023) independently predicted TEE when adjusted for sex. Error between measured TEE and energy requirements predicted by 25 kcal/kg (mean difference: 241 kcal/d; 95% CI: 76, 405 kcal/d; P = 0.010) or 30 kcal/kg (mean difference: 367 kcal/d; 95% CI: 163, 571 kcal/d; P < 0.001) was higher for patients with obesity, and proportional error was observed (25 kcal/kg: r = −0.587; P < 0.001; and 30 kcal/kg: r = −0.751; P < 0.001). TEE (mean difference: 25 kcal/kg; 95% CI: 24, 27 kcal/kg) was below predicted requirements using 30 kcal/kg (−430 ± 322 kcal/d; P < 0.001).
Conclusions
This is the largest study to assess TEE of patients with cancer using whole-room indirect calorimeter and highlights the need for improved assessment of energy requirements in this population. Energy requirements predicted using 30 kcal/kg overestimated TEE by 1.44 times in a controlled sedentary environment and TEE was outside of the predicted requirement range for most. Special considerations are warranted when determining TEE of patients with colorectal cancer, such as BMI, body composition, and tumor location.
Item Type
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
Alternative
Other License Text / Link
Language
en