Sarah A Purcell1, Sarah A Elliott1, Peter J Walter2, Tom Preston3, Hongyi Cai2, Richard J E Skipworth4, Michael B Sawyer5, Carla M Prado1. 1. Division of Human Nutrition, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Stable Isotope Biochemistry Laboratory, Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom. 4. Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total energy expenditure (TEE) data in patients with early-stage cancer are scarce, precluding an understanding of energy requirements. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to cross-sectionally characterize TEE in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and to compare measured TEE with energy recommendations. It was hypothesized that TEE would differ according to body mass, body composition, and physical activity level (PAL) and current energy recommendations would have poor individual-level accuracy. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed CRC had resting energy expenditure (REE) measured by indirect calorimetry and TEE by doubly labeled water. Hypermetabolism was defined as REE > 110% of that predicted from the Mifflin St.-Jeor equation. Body composition was assessed via DXA. Physical activity was determined as the ratio of TEE to REE (TEE:REE) (PAL) and residual activity energy expenditure (RAEE). TEE was compared with energy recommendations of 25-30 kcal/d and Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) using Bland-Altman analyses. Patients were stratified according to median BMI, PAL, and sex-specific ratio of fat mass (FM) to fat-free mass (FFM). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (M:F 14:7; mean ± SD BMI: 28.3 ± 4.9 kg/m2, age: 57 ± 12 y) were included. Most (n = 20) had stage II-III disease; 1 had stage IV. Approximately half (n = 11) were hypermetabolic; TEE was not different in those with hypermetabolism and REE as a percentage of predicted was not correlated with TEE. Mean ± SD TEE was 2473 ± 499 kcal/d (range: 1562-3622 kcal/d), or 29.7 ± 6.3 kcal/kg body weight (range: 20.4-48.5 kcal/kg body weight). Mean ± SD PAL was 1.43 ± 0.27. The energy recommendation of 25 kcal/kg underestimated TEE (-12.6% ± 16.5%, P = 0.002); all energy recommendations had wide limits of agreement (the smallest was DRI with measured PAL: -21.2% to 29.3%). Patients with higher BMI and FM:FFM had higher bias using kilocalories per kilogram recommendations; bias from several recommendations was frequently lower (i.e. underestimation) in patients with higher PAL and RAEE. CONCLUSIONS: TEE variability was not reflected in energy recommendations and error was related to body weight, body composition, and physical activity. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03131921.
BACKGROUND: Total energy expenditure (TEE) data in patients with early-stage cancer are scarce, precluding an understanding of energy requirements. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to cross-sectionally characterize TEE in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and to compare measured TEE with energy recommendations. It was hypothesized that TEE would differ according to body mass, body composition, and physical activity level (PAL) and current energy recommendations would have poor individual-level accuracy. METHODS:Patients with newly diagnosed CRC had resting energy expenditure (REE) measured by indirect calorimetry and TEE by doubly labeled water. Hypermetabolism was defined as REE > 110% of that predicted from the Mifflin St.-Jeor equation. Body composition was assessed via DXA. Physical activity was determined as the ratio of TEE to REE (TEE:REE) (PAL) and residual activity energy expenditure (RAEE). TEE was compared with energy recommendations of 25-30 kcal/d and Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) using Bland-Altman analyses. Patients were stratified according to median BMI, PAL, and sex-specific ratio of fat mass (FM) to fat-free mass (FFM). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (M:F 14:7; mean ± SD BMI: 28.3 ± 4.9 kg/m2, age: 57 ± 12 y) were included. Most (n = 20) had stage II-III disease; 1 had stage IV. Approximately half (n = 11) were hypermetabolic; TEE was not different in those with hypermetabolism and REE as a percentage of predicted was not correlated with TEE. Mean ± SD TEE was 2473 ± 499 kcal/d (range: 1562-3622 kcal/d), or 29.7 ± 6.3 kcal/kg body weight (range: 20.4-48.5 kcal/kg body weight). Mean ± SD PAL was 1.43 ± 0.27. The energy recommendation of 25 kcal/kg underestimated TEE (-12.6% ± 16.5%, P = 0.002); all energy recommendations had wide limits of agreement (the smallest was DRI with measured PAL: -21.2% to 29.3%). Patients with higher BMI and FM:FFM had higher bias using kilocalories per kilogram recommendations; bias from several recommendations was frequently lower (i.e. underestimation) in patients with higher PAL and RAEE. CONCLUSIONS:TEE variability was not reflected in energy recommendations and error was related to body weight, body composition, and physical activity. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03131921.
Keywords:
body composition; cancer; dietary intake; energy balance; energy expenditure; energy metabolism; energy requirements; nutritional assessment; physical activity
Authors: Laurien M Buffart; Joeri Kalter; Maike G Sweegers; Kerry S Courneya; Robert U Newton; Neil K Aaronson; Paul B Jacobsen; Anne M May; Daniel A Galvão; Mai J Chinapaw; Karen Steindorf; Melinda L Irwin; Martijn M Stuiver; Sandi Hayes; Kathleen A Griffith; Alejandro Lucia; Ilse Mesters; Ellen van Weert; Hans Knoop; Martine M Goedendorp; Nanette Mutrie; Amanda J Daley; Alex McConnachie; Martin Bohus; Lene Thorsen; Karl-Heinz Schulz; Camille E Short; Erica L James; Ron C Plotnikoff; Gill Arbane; Martina E Schmidt; Karin Potthoff; Marc van Beurden; Hester S Oldenburg; Gabe S Sonke; Wim H van Harten; Rachel Garrod; Kathryn H Schmitz; Kerri M Winters-Stone; Miranda J Velthuis; Dennis R Taaffe; Willem van Mechelen; Marie-José Kersten; Frans Nollet; Jennifer Wenzel; Joachim Wiskemann; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Johannes Brug Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Matthias H Tschöp; John R Speakman; Jonathan R S Arch; Johan Auwerx; Jens C Brüning; Lawrence Chan; Robert H Eckel; Robert V Farese; Jose E Galgani; Catherine Hambly; Mark A Herman; Tamas L Horvath; Barbara B Kahn; Sara C Kozma; Eleftheria Maratos-Flier; Timo D Müller; Heike Münzberg; Paul T Pfluger; Leona Plum; Marc L Reitman; Kamal Rahmouni; Gerald I Shulman; George Thomas; C Ronald Kahn; Eric Ravussin Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Steven B Heymsfield; Dympna Gallagher; Donald P Kotler; Zimian Wang; David B Allison; Stanley Heshka Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Stacey A Fedewa; Dennis J Ahnen; Reinier G S Meester; Afsaneh Barzi; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: E W Fredrix; P B Soeters; E F Wouters; I M Deerenberg; M F von Meyenfeldt; W H Saris Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1991-11-15 Impact factor: 12.701