Research Paper Sample on Nutrition for Patients Getting Radiation

According to Stewart and Wild (2017), proper nutrition is essential for cancer patients since a healthy diet helps them maintain their body weight subsequently becoming stronger. They add that a healthy diet also helps cancer patients fight body infections and treatment side effects. As per the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (2017), head and neck radiation treatment results in a dry and sore mouth or throat, swallowing issues or taste changes. Chest treatment, on the other hand, can make cancer patients experience difficulty when consuming. Also, stomach or pelvis treatment can cause sickness and vomiting, diarrhea, infections, and stomach bloating (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, 2017).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Paccagnella, Morello, Da Mosto, Baruffi, Marcon, Gava, & Giometto (2010), argue that head and neck cancer patients are especially vulnerable to weight loss, both auxiliary to the disease procedure and because of treatment reactions. There is an immediate relationship between more effective restorative modalities and dynamic lack of healthy sustenance, bringing about lessened personal satisfaction and an unfortunate result (Paccagnella et al., 2010). Consequently, robust dietary support can fundamentally benefit malnourished patients by having a positive reaction to treatment (Kushi, Doyle, McCullough, Rock, DemarkWahnefried, Bandera, & American Cancer Society 2010 Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2012). Proper nutritional support and prompt medical intervention with brief constant gain can bring about enhanced nourishing status and treatment tolerance. This corresponds with diminished hospitalizations, upgraded nature of life, and a decrease in dreariness and deaths.

Malnutrition Etiology

According to Bauer, Jurgens, & Fruhwald, (2011) head and neck cancer patients have different etiologies for hunger as a result of the variance between supplement intake and demand. Reduced nutrient intake might be as a result of confined tumor effect or the toxic reaction of treatment. Cancer patients usually lose weight before starting treatment. In his research study, Lees, (1997) investigated weight change in 100 successive head and neck carcinoma patients before the beginning of radical or palliative radiotherapy. He found that about 57% of them had shed off some weight, and just 12% had put on weight preceding the beginning of radiation (Lees, 1997). As per Paccagnella et al., (2010), the mean weight reduction was roughly 10% of aggregate body weight and was viewed as inadvertent in 95% of patients. The most common causative variables of weight loss were found out to be dry mouth and the failure to wear dentures optional to mouth uneasiness.

According to Francis, Weymuller Jr, Parvathaneni, Merati, & Yueh (2010), head and neck cancer can be treated by chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery or combination therapy. Every one of these treatment procedures may result in symptoms that could influence patient nutritional level. Radiotherapy mostly triggers exhaustion, mucositis, infection, dysgeusia, xerostomia, fistula formation, and change in saliva thickness, a gustatory dysfunction that can likewise fundamentally impede patient dietary levels (Fancis et al., 2010). Apart from that, simultaneous chemotherapy addition to radiotherapy may radically worsen these impacts.

Clinical Experience

Previous research studies found that standard radiotherapy fractionation plans of 2 Gy/day to at least 60Gy for five days per week result in an expanded danger of weight reduction both during and after treatment. According to Bauer et al. (2011), Johnston investigated 31 patients getting standard fractionated radiotherapy for limited head and neck cancer. This planned examination uncovered that pretreatment nutritional practices, serum albumin, or anthropometric estimations were not prescient for weight reduction. Notwithstanding, weight reduction could be anticipated based on field size and site irradiated (Bauer et al., 2011).

Stewart & Wild (2017) reported that Tyldesley gave an account of 76 head and neck cancer patients in his study treated with radiotherapy alone who got gastrostomy tubes either electively embedded in week 1, or just if a severe response happened embedded in week 3. They compared them with a control aggregate that did not get a gastrostomy tube (G-tube). According to them, weight loss before treatment and weight loss after treatment were altogether less for patients who experienced elective or nonselective G-tube situation, which translated to fewer days in hospital (Stewart & Wild, 2017).

Peters, Goepfert, and Ang, (1993), provided details regarding 240 patients with stage II and stage III head and neck cancer treated with surgical resection and randomized to get heightening measurements of postoperative radiotherapy. Three dosage levels running from 52.2 to 68.4 Gy (field lessening at 57.6 Gy) were inspected, in everyday 1.8-Gy divisions. Just 3.8% of patients developed strong responses that required treatment interference over two days. The most extreme intrusion lasted six days. The mean weight loss found to be 2.6 kg.

Addition of Concurrent Chemotherapy to Radiotherapy

Over the years, concurrent chemotherapy addition to radiotherapy for head and neck neoplasms has proved to enhance both local control and overall survival (Paccagnella et al., 2010). However, this happens only at the cost of expanded seriousness and span of intense reactions. Newman, Vieira, and Schwiezer, (1998) in their study covered 47 head and neck cancer patients who experienced daily concurrent radiotherapy of 1.8-2.0 Gy with intra-blood vessel cisplatin and parenteral sodium thiosulfate. About 53% of patients had hindered swallowing, and 9% were reliant on tube feedings even before treatment began. Newman et al., (1998) found a mean 10% decrease in total body weight in therapy and no critical changes in weight following treatment. There was no link recorded between the stage of cancer and weight loss. About 9% of patients in sub-grouped investigations who had a G-tube previous treatment did not lose critical weight. In therapy, the accomplice of patients with swallowing issues increased from 62% to 79%, which related to an expansion of G-tubes from 9% to 26% before the end of treatment. Notwithstanding, swallowing issues were accounted for in just 28% of patients at a year and a half after surgery.

Weight Loss and Other Metabolic Effects

Past studies have uncovered a relationship between weight loss and mediocre result for head and neck cancer patients (Lopez, Robinson, Madden, 1994). Bosaeus, Daneryd, and Lundholm, (2002) inspected 297 cancer patients associated with an outpatient palliative care program and noticed that a +10% weight loss was recognizable in around 43% of the patients. They further found hypermetabolism to be present in about 48% of the patients. According to Bosaeus et al., 2002), hypermetabolism and weight loss are crucial elements linked to diminished survival. Furthermore, the consequence of radiotherapy includes exposure to dangers such as weight loss. Weakened nutrition may cause treatment delays and a drawn-out treatment course that has been proved to influence local control and survival (Kushi et al., 2010).

Diminished nutritious absorption does not solely cause weight drop in head and neck cancer patients. Radiotherapy, surgery, and chemotherapy likewise prompt intense metabolic pressure and increased nutrient demands. Furthermore, the heightened supplement demand might be related to the foundational impact of cancer, which rivals the host for supplements, bringing about unsettling metabolic influences prompting anorexia, expanded basal metabolic rate, and unusual digestion of supplements (Kushi et al., 2010).

Tube Feeding Patients

Regardless of the use of enteral nutrients, appetizers, and dietary guides, providing sufficient nutrients to tube feeding patients can be exceptionally difficult. This has prompted enteral access and tube feeding to give calories, liquids, and treatments to cancer patients. Specialists favor enteral nutrition over parenteral nutrition since it protects the gut integrity, capacity, and strong components. Suffices to say, tube feeding ought to be considered for patients who have a utilitarian gut, however, cannot or will not eat, and for whom a sheltered technique of access is conceivable.

Complications of Enteral Nutrition

Nutritional Issues

Tube feeding disorder is an arrangement of side effects that include dehydration, azotemia and hypernatremia caused by high-protein tube feedings particularly in cases where there are deficient measures of water intake. An aversion of this issue demands sufficient water intake no less than one mL/cal in addition to any bizarre respiratory, renal, or gastrointestinal misfortunes and the shunning of protein loads over 1.5 g/kg of attractive body weight. It is essential for the doctors and specialists to distinguish the malnutrition levels and actualize effective and sometimes obtrusive techniques for nutritional help in patients who are in danger. In many patients, by giving enteral guidance, personal satisfaction is enhanced through reclamation of energy and strength as well as decreasing the pressure linked to "constrain" feeding.

Metabolic Issues

These are also referred to as clinical problems. One of the most common metabolic issue related to enteral nutrition for cancer patients is diarrhea (Francis et al., 2010). The list of causes of diarrhea in enteral feeding cancer patients is endless. It includes treatments, delivery rates, the structure of the feeding formula, forceful re-feeding, malnutrition, intercurrent gastrointestinal syndromes, and acute infections. In the exceptional care setting, most instances of diarrhea can presumably be identified with medicines, either expressly or indirectly.

The other common metabolic issue related to enteral nutrition for cancer patients is diarrhea aspiration. According to Francis et al., (2010), aspiration is a standout amongst the best and hazardous complexities of tube feeding. Numerous elements to the mechanics of aspiration exist. They include the patient position, the tube position, treatments, surgeries, neuromuscular issues, deferred gastric exhausting, or even lessened esophageal sphincter capacity would all be able to build the danger of reflux and aspiration.

Numerous measures have been upheld for decreasing aspiration, yet each has its particular confinements. They incorporate situating of the cancer patient in tube-feeding, hoisting the head of the bed to at least 30, checking leftover volumes and utilization of prokinetic specialists to upgrade gastric exhausting. As a rule, aspiration is less regular in ceaseless feeds as opposed to in bolus or irregular feeds. The volume of gastric residuum to use as a slice point for choosing to postpone or moderate consequent feedings is not clear; proposals extend from 100 to 200 mL, contingent upon the clinical situation.

Mechanical Issues

Mechanical complexities in cancer patients can be linked to tube relocation using voluntary evacuation by the patient or by an accidental removal from hacking, regurgitating, or heaving. However, the most widely recognized mechanical complexity is identified with stopping up of the tube. Essential activities are prescribed to forestall stopping up. The critical preventive measure is to flush with enough water to clear the tube. Notwithstanding amid ceaseless nourishing, tubes ought to be routinely rinsed with water at regular intervals, at whatever point the encouraging is halted, and at whatever position pharmaceuticals must be given through the bolstering tube.