CONTEXT: Taste and smell (chemosensory) alterations are common and distressing among advanced cancer patients, but their specific nature is poorly described and seldom linked to dietary intake. Details of altered chemosensory perception may help to explain food intake behaviors. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to characterize chemosensory alterations and their relationship with dietary intake and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Adult advanced cancer patients (n=192) completed a chemosensory self-assessment questionnaire to characterize changes in their sense of smell and four basic tastes (sweet, sour, salty, and bitter) since the onset of cancer, three-day food record, and QOL questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients experienced either no alteration in any basic tastes and sense of smell sensations (26% of patients) or one of three altered chemosensory phenotypes: 1) stronger sensations overall (42%), 2) weaker sensations overall (18%), or 3) mixed (some sensations stronger and others weaker, 14%). For individual sensations (sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and smell), stronger sensation was twice more prevalent than weaker sensation (P=0.035). Patients reporting chemosensory alteration consumed 20%-25% fewer calories per day (P=0.0018), experienced greater weight loss (P=0.0036), and had poorer QOL scores (P=0.0176) compared with patients with no alterations, but results did not vary by chemosensory phenotype. Chemosensory alterations were not related to tumor type (P=0.884), gender (P=0.286), or nausea (P=0.278). CONCLUSION: Chemosensory alterations predict dietary intake and QOL; the identification of chemosensory phenotypes provides a rationale to adjust the properties of foods and dietary recommendations in function of the specific nature of these changes.
CONTEXT: Taste and smell (chemosensory) alterations are common and distressing among advanced cancerpatients, but their specific nature is poorly described and seldom linked to dietary intake. Details of altered chemosensory perception may help to explain food intake behaviors. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to characterize chemosensory alterations and their relationship with dietary intake and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Adult advanced cancerpatients (n=192) completed a chemosensory self-assessment questionnaire to characterize changes in their sense of smell and four basic tastes (sweet, sour, salty, and bitter) since the onset of cancer, three-day food record, and QOL questionnaire. RESULTS:Patients experienced either no alteration in any basic tastes and sense of smell sensations (26% of patients) or one of three altered chemosensory phenotypes: 1) stronger sensations overall (42%), 2) weaker sensations overall (18%), or 3) mixed (some sensations stronger and others weaker, 14%). For individual sensations (sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and smell), stronger sensation was twice more prevalent than weaker sensation (P=0.035). Patients reporting chemosensory alteration consumed 20%-25% fewer calories per day (P=0.0018), experienced greater weight loss (P=0.0036), and had poorer QOL scores (P=0.0176) compared with patients with no alterations, but results did not vary by chemosensory phenotype. Chemosensory alterations were not related to tumor type (P=0.884), gender (P=0.286), or nausea (P=0.278). CONCLUSION: Chemosensory alterations predict dietary intake and QOL; the identification of chemosensory phenotypes provides a rationale to adjust the properties of foods and dietary recommendations in function of the specific nature of these changes.
Authors: M Alvarez-Camacho; S Gonella; S Ghosh; C Kubrak; R A Scrimger; K P Chu; W V Wismer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Anne Kathrine Larsen; Christine Thomsen; Mathilde Sanden; Lotte Boa Skadhauge; Camilla Bundgaard Anker; Marie Nerup Mortensen; Wender L P Bredie Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sofia Pugnaloni; Arianna Vignini; Francesca Borroni; Jacopo Sabbatinelli; Sonila Alia; Mara Fabri; Marina Taus; Laura Mazzanti; Rossana Berardi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-06-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alissa Nolden; Paule V Joseph; Kord M Kober; Bruce A Cooper; Steven M Paul; Marilyn J Hammer; Laura B Dunn; Yvette P Conley; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Cedrick D Dotson; Connie L Colbert; Mircea Garcea; James C Smith; Alan C Spector Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Jac A Jones; Yanin Chavarri-Guerra; Luisa Barreto Costa Corrêa; David R Dean; Joel B Epstein; Eduardo R Fregnani; Jiyeon Lee; Yuhei Matsuda; Valeria Mercadante; Ragnhild Elisabeth Monsen; Natasja J H Rajimakers; Deborah Saunders; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis; Mariana S Sousa; Arghavan Tonkaboni; Arjan Vissink; Keng Soon Yeoh; Andrew N Davies Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: L Spotten; C Corish; C Lorton; P Ui Dhuibhir; N O'Donoghue; B O'Connor; M Cunningham; N El Beltagi; C Gillham; D Walsh Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-03-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Biljana Gigic; Heiner Boeing; Reka Toth; Jürgen Böhm; Nina Habermann; Dominique Scherer; Petra Schrotz-King; Clare Abbenhardt-Martin; Stephanie Skender; Hermann Brenner; Jenny Chang-Claude; Michael Hoffmeister; Karen Syrjala; Paul B Jacobsen; Martin Schneider; Alexis Ulrich; Cornelia M Ulrich Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 2.900