PD837 - USE OF HOME PARENTERAL NUTRITION IN PATIENTS WITH CANCER

PD837

USE OF HOME PARENTERAL NUTRITION IN PATIENTS WITH CANCER

M. Maíz Jiménez^1,* on behalf of ), C. Cuerda Compés², P. Diaz Guardiola³, C. Marcuello Foncillas⁴, A. Ramos Carrasco⁵, M. Merino Viveros⁶, S. Palma Milla⁷, M. J. Rodriguez Troyano⁸, C. Aragón Valera⁹, J. I. Botella Carretero¹⁰, I. Huguet Moreno¹¹, H. Hernandez Nieto¹² on behalf of Nutrition Working Group of the Madrid Society of Endocrinology, Nutrition and Diabetes (SENDIMAD)

¹Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, ²Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, ³Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital Infanta Sofía, San Sebastian de los Reyes, ⁴Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, ⁵Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital of Móstoles, Móstoles, ⁶Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital of Getafe, Getafe, ⁷Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital La Paz, Madrid, ⁸Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital Príncipe de Asturiass, Alcalá de Henares, ⁹Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz, ¹⁰Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital Ramón y Cajal, ¹¹Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital Infanta Leonor, Madrid, ¹²Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital Infanta Cristina, Parla, Spain

Rationale: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) use in cancer patients is increasing, though its use in advanced malignancies remains controversial. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence and clinical characteristics of cancer patients receiving HPN in public hospitals in the Community of Madrid, Spain.

Methods: Multicenter, observational, retrospective study of cancer patients receiving HPN in the Community of Madrid during 2024. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were collected. Student’s t-test and Chi-square test were used; p<0.05 was considered significant.

Results: Of 156 HPN patients from 21 hospitals, 79(50.6%) had cancer. Mean age was 60.2 ±14.2 years; 50 (63.3%) were female. Tumor types: gynecological 25(31.6%), colorectal 22(27.8%), upper GI 9(11.4%), biliopancreatic 6(7.6%), desmoid 3(3.8%), others 14 (17.7%). Active neoplasia: 58(73.4%); receiving treatment: 49(62.0%); palliative: 26(32.9%). Malnutrition (GLIM) in 69(87.3%); intestinal failure in 69(87.3%): Short bowel syndrome(SBS) 34(48.6%), obstruction 23(32.9%), fistula 8(11.4%), mucosal disease 3(4.3%), motility disorders 2(2.9%). Catheters: tunneled 37(46.8%), PICC 22 (27.8%), ports 20(25.3%). Mean HPN: 10.5 ±4.6 L/week, 8285.7 ±3085.3 kcal/week. Median survival 7 months (IQR 4–12); Deaths: 40(50.6%),  97.4% due to underlying disease. Active neoplasia and palliative status was significantly associated with mortality (OR=4.87, 95% CI 1.6–14.5) and (OR=7.52, 95% CI 2.4–23.5) respectively. Patients with Obstruction and Fistula had a significantly higher risk of mortality(OR=3.64; 95% CI: 1.36–9.73). Mortality varied significantly according to tumor location with the highest mortality in biliopancreatic tumors.

Conclusion: Half of HPN patients in Madrid had cancer, mostly active and under treatment. Nearly half died within a median of 7 months, mainly due to the underlying disease. Palliative status, active neoplasia, and intestinal failure cause were linked to higher mortality.

Disclosure of Interest: None declared