Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Construction of individualised care programmes for patients with pancreatic cancer with postoperative weight-loss control based on the Delphi method: a cross-sectional study in China

Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition volume 43, Article number: 36 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

At present, clinical nutritional care for patients with pancreatic cancer focuses more on the observation of the effect of enteral parenteral nutrition, and there is a lack of personalised care plans for weight-loss control. We used the Delphi method to construct a set of personalised nursing programmes to effectively control the rate of postoperative weight loss in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional investigation. Through literature analysis, literature review and data review, a personalised nursing plan for the postoperative weight-loss control in patients with pancreatic cancer was preliminarily developed. From October to December 2022, the Delphi method was adopted to conduct two questionnaires for 32 experts working in fields related to pancreatic diseases in Grade-A tertiary hospitals from four different departments. After statistical processing, the personalised nursing plan was determined according to the perceived level of importance, coefficient of variation, full score rate and recognition rate of the indicators.

Results

The recovery rates of the two rounds of consultation were 93.75% and 100%, respectively, and the overall authority coefficient of the experts was 0.918, which represented ‘authoritative’. In terms of importance, the coefficient of variation was 0–0.137; in terms of feasibility, the coefficient of variation ranged from 0.09 to 0.194. Finally, a scheme consisting of 36 entries in 8 dimensions was built. This programme is comprehensive in content, meets the nutritional diagnosis and treatment needs of patients in the stage of postoperative rehabilitation, provides relatively comprehensive nutritional assessment and support and has a robust system and feasibility.

Conclusions

The individualised nursing plan for patients with pancreatic cancer with postoperative weight-loss control based on the Delphi method is highly scientific and reliable and has positive significance.

Background

Pancreatic cancer is a tumour of the digestive system and has an insidious incidence, high malignancy and low 5-year survival rate. Recently, the results of a data analysis based on the Global Burden of Disease Study showed that the incidence rate of pancreatic cancer in China is not optimistic and is on the rise at an average rate of 2.04% per year [1]. Involuntary weight loss is one of the most significant clinical manifestations of pancreatic cancer, and 70–80% of patients with pancreatic cancer will experience varying degrees of weight loss [2], of which nearly one-third of patients show significant weight loss (weight-loss rate ≥ 10%) after surgery [3]. Studies have shown that a common challenge in the postoperative care of patients with pancreatic cancer is postoperative weight loss. The underlying causes of postoperative weight loss involve both pathologic and physiologic factors. Pathological factors include issues of tumour growth and aggressiveness, where the tumour may occupy space in the pancreas and interfere with normal pancreatic function and metabolism, which in turn can lead to diabetes mellitus and indigestion. Aggressive tumours may also exert pressure on surrounding organs, affecting the passage of food. Some tumours may also produce metabolites that further interfere with the patient’s metabolism. Physiologic factors include decreased appetite, absorption problems and metabolic changes that may result from the surgery itself, nausea, vomiting and decreased appetite that may result from chemotherapy and radiation. This is as well as pain and psychological problems that patients may experience. Understanding these factors is therefore crucial. Individualised care plans should take into account the patient’s specific pathology and physiology to provide interventions supported by scientific evidence to mitigate the effects of postoperative weight loss and improve quality of life. It is therefore important to provide personalised care plans for patients with pancreatic cancer when dealing with postoperative weight loss [4,5,6]. The relationship between the nutritional status of patients with pancreatic cancer and weight loss is extremely close [7], and at present, clinical nutritional care for patients with pancreatic cancer focuses more on the observation of the effect of enteral parenteral nutrition, etc. Oral nutritional intervention is reported as effective in increasing nutritional intake and improving the quality of life in patients with cancer who are malnourished [8]. However, contrary to this, there have been limited benefits from nutritional support reported in patients with cancer in receipt of chemotherapy, in the preoperative period or in those patients with advanced-stage disease [9, 10]. In addition, there are few studies on postoperative weight-loss control nursing for patients with pancreatic cancer, insufficient standardised nursing programmes and effect evaluation indicators and no unified consensus on the content and methods of postoperative weight-loss control nursing. The aim of this study is to establish a set of personalised nursing plans for patients with pancreatic cancer after radical surgery by using the Delphi method as the basis of a preliminary investigation to effectively control the rate of postoperative weight loss in patients with pancreatic cancer to reduce postoperative complications, control medical costs and improve the work efficiency of nurses. Finally, it will provide an invaluable reference for future research and clinical practice.

Methods

Establishment of the study group

The study group consisted of eight members, including one deputy chief nurse, three chief nurses and four nurse practitioners. The members included one specialist nutrition nurse and one specialist oncology nurse.

Initial construction of a personalised care plan for postoperative weight-loss control in patients with pancreatic cancer

This research mainly included preliminary research, literature search, the preparation of an expert consultation questionnaire and the selection of correspondence and telecommunications experts. The ratings and written comments of the experts on our study subjects were compiled, counted and analysed, and the final protocol was revised on this basis. See Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study design process

Full size image

Literature search

The literature search of Chinese databases mainly included China Knowledge Network, Wan fang, China Biomedical Literature and Wipro Chinese Biomedical Journals; the English literature search mainly came from PUBMED, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library and JBI. The English database was based on the MeSH subject terms ‘pancreatic neoplasms’, the subject terms ‘nutrition therapy’, ‘nutritional status’, ‘weight loss’ and the free terms ‘pancreatic cancer’, ‘tumours or cancer of the pancreas’, ‘carcinoma’, ‘pancreatic ductal’, ‘pancreatic intraductal neoplasms’, ‘diet therapy’, ‘nutritional support’, ‘physician-nurse cooperation’, ‘individualised’, etc. To avoid miss detection, the Chinese search terms were all free words, including ‘pancreatic cancer’, ‘pancreatic tumour’, ‘pancreaticoduodenectomy’, ‘weight-loss nutritional intervention’, ‘nutritional care’, ‘nutritional support’, ‘nutritional supplementation’, ‘diet’, ‘personalisation’, ‘individualised’, ‘multidisciplinary collaboration,’ etc. The timeframe for searching the literature was from the start date of the database up to the end of December 2022.

A total of 10 guidelines [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20], 6 expert consensuses [10, 21,22,23,24,25] and 12 relevant secondary literature [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37] were included. To ensure the quality of the included guidelines, they were analysed using the AGREE II evaluation system [38]; the JBI Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care’s Literature Quality Evaluation Tool (2016 version) was used to complete the systematic evaluation as well as to certify the quality of the expert consensuses [39]. The quality of the 10 guidelines and 6 expert consensuses was Grade A. Of the 12 systematic evaluations included, eight were of a high quality of evidence, two were of moderate quality, and the other two were of low quality of evidence.

Survey of the current status of perioperative weight loss in patients with pancreatic cancer and analysis of factors affecting it [40]

The aim of this study was to investigate patients who underwent radical surgery for pancreatic cancer between September 2021 and February 2022 at Ruijin Hospital, affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University. It also sought to understand the current status of perioperative weight loss in patients with pancreatic cancer and to analyse the underlying factors using generalised estimating equations. Eventually, 180 patients completed all the investigations from the time of admission (T0) to the stage of preparation for discharge (T3). For details, see reference 34.

Qualitative interviews with patients with pancreatic cancer and their primary caregivers

One-on-one, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the respondents to capture the real experiences, problems, needs and suggestions for weight loss and dietary and nutritional care that existed in the two groups of patients with pancreatic cancer and their primary caregivers. The interviews included 8 postoperative patients with pancreatic cancer and 8 primary caregivers corresponding to the patients, totalling 16 individuals. Within 24 h of completing the interviews, the relevant work was done, and the audio recordings and transcripts were converted into a unified text form. Next, the authenticity and completeness of the relevant documents were checked by two researchers.

Delphi method of expert consultation

Preparation of expert consultation questionnaire

In the first expert consultation questionnaire, the following was covered. The questionnaire was divided into four parts: the first part detailed the background, objectives and importance of the study and requested the consent of the experts. Instructions for completing the form were provided so that the respondents could fill in the questionnaire correctly. In the second part, questions were set to find out detailed information about the experts: their work unit, length of service, position, specialty, education and title. The third part was the experts’ self-assessment form, which reflects their level of expertise in their field of study and the criteria for judging them. The fourth part is the experts’ rating of the importance and feasibility of each entry in the research programme. The experts evaluated the projects based on their judgment using a Likert 5-point scale. In terms of ‘importance’, the five options ‘not important, not too important, generally important, important and very important’ corresponded to the scores 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. For ‘feasibility’, the five options of ‘not feasible, not too feasible, average, feasible and very feasible’ corresponded to scores of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. If the score was lower than three, the experts were required to provide comments regarding modification and deletion in the remarks column. If the experts had additional comments, they could make additions in the ‘Entries to be added’.

Selection of experts

Adopting the convenience sampling method, 32 experts in this field were selected from October to December 2022. The qualification criteria for the experts were as follows: 1. working in a tertiary-level hospital and having been engaged in pancreatic disease-related fields for more than 5 years; 2. having a bachelor's degree or above, and a title of intermediate or above; and 3. having the intention to participate in the study and having participated in two or more rounds of correspondence in the course of the study. The questionnaires were distributed in paper or electronic form to the participants, and they were returned after being completed independently. The research team revised the first draft of the questionnaire based on each expert's comments to create a second round of questionnaires. A summary of the first round of comments was attached to the second round of questionnaires and the correspondence was conducted in the same manner. Correspondence ended when the experts reached a consensus.

Principles of programme revision

When assessing the importance and feasibility of dimensions and entries, if the mean value of the rating is < 4 and the coefficient of variation is > 0.25, the experts can make suggestions for additions, deletions or modifications. Before making the final decision, these suggestions needed to be discussed by the research team to determine the retention, deletion or modification of items in the programme.

Ethics statement

This study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the hospital (2022 Pro-Lun Audit No. 249) and has passed the Evidence Summary Registration of the Evidence-Based Nursing Centre of Fudan University (No. ES20233043).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 software, setting the test level at α = 0.05. Basic information about the experts was analysed descriptively. The questionnaire recovery rate was used as an indicator to measure the degree of active participation of the experts in the study. The degree of authority of experts was measured by the coefficient of authority (Cr), which was calculated based on the mean values of the coefficient of basis of judgment (Ca) and the coefficient of familiarity (Cs) [41]; `x ± S standard deviation was used to assess the degree of centralisation of the experts' opinions, which reflected the degree of difference in the importance ratings of the entries. In contrast, the degree of harmonisation of the experts’ opinions was measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) and Kendall’s coefficient (W), reflecting the degree of agreement in their opinions [42].

Results

Background information of the participating experts

Thirty experts in fields related to the diagnosis, treatment and care of pancreatic diseases were included in this study. The basic information of the experts is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Basic information on Delphi consultants
Full size table

Degree of expert participation

In the first round of correspondence (the background and objectives of the study, the information about the experts, the experts’ self-assessment form and the importance and feasibility of each entry in the research programme), 32 questionnaires were distributed, and 30 of them were successfully returned with an effective recovery rate of 93.75%. In the second round of correspondence (a summary of the first round of comments), 30 questionnaires were distributed, and all questionnaires were successfully returned, with an effective recovery rate of 100%. In the first round of correspondence, 21 experts (70% of the total) suggested amendments and deletions; in the second round of correspondence, four experts (13.33% of the total) suggested amendments. This indicates a high level of active participation of experts in the study.

Degree of expert authority

The degree of authority of experts can be assessed using Ca and Cs. Ca includes four dimensions, and the degree of familiarity includes five dimensions, and the values assigned to each dimension are as follows (Table 2).

Table 2 Assignment of values to the level of expert authority
Full size table

It is generally believed that experts have good authority when the degree of authority is Cr ≥ 0.7 [20]. In this study, the individual authority coefficient of the experts was 0.80–1.00, and the overall authority coefficient was 0.918, which indicates that they have high authority, and the obtained correspondence results have high reliability. The authority coefficient of the participating experts is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Table of expert authority factors
Full size table

Degree of concentration and coordination of expert opinions

The mean number of the first round of correspondence is 4.367–4.933, the CV value of importance is 0.051–0.198, and the CV value of feasibility is 0.113–0.249; the mean number of the second round of correspondence is 4.533–5, the CV value of importance is between 0 and 0.137 and the CV value of feasibility is between 0.09 and 0.194. After two rounds of correspondence, the harmonisation coefficients of the experts’ opinions on the importance of the indicators were 0.271 and 0.312, and the harmonisation coefficients of the opinions on the feasibility of the indicators were 0.259 and 0.324, respectively. These results were statistically significant (P < 0.5). The experts’ views on the entries converged and the results are reliable and harmonised. The correspondence is closed. See Table 4 for details.

Table 4 CV, W and significance test of the second round of expert correspondence
Full size table

Personalised nursing plan for postoperative weight-loss control of patients with pancreatic cancer

In the first round of expert consultation, there were 6 items with an expert score of less than 3 points, and a total of 20 written opinions were provided by the experts. Six items were modified, and two additional items were added. The specific content is as follows: (1) Adding critical care physicians to the multidisciplinary team building of nutrition management in pancreatic surgery. (2) In the team building dimension, add ‘improving the staffing of nursing teams and cultivating nutrition or pancreatic specialised nurses’. (3) Add the entry ‘Weight-Loss Grading System’. (4) Add the entry ‘After the patient undergoes the first nutritional screening and evaluation after admission, they can start creating a “personalised nutritional diagnosis and treatment file for the patient”’. (5) Modify the ‘Introduction Calorimetry Method’ to ‘Use an H-B Formula Prediction Method for personalised measurement of patients’ actual energy consumption’. If within 7 days after surgery, the oral route cannot reach 50% of the required amount, ‘modify to 60%’. Change the phrase ‘start enteral nutrition within 24 h after surgery’ to ‘start enteral nutrition as soon as possible after surgery based on the patient's condition’. ‘If there is a gastric emptying disorder, and the condition does not improve after 7 days’ should be changed to ‘If there is a gastric emptying disorder, it should be treated promptly, and the condition does not improve after 3–5 days’.

In the second round of expert consultation, the experts proposed four written opinions and modified three items. The experts wrote four opinions as follows: (1) The 15th expert gave a suggestion on question 9. ‘When a patient loses 5–10% of their weight, surgery should be performed as soon as possible with active nutritional support’. (2) The 14th expert gave an opinion on question 11, stating that ‘the surgical team must fully communicate with the ward nurses and nutritionists’. (3) The 14th expert provided an opinion on question 19, emphasising that the decision on which nutritional support plan to adopt should be based on the overall postoperative condition of the patient. (4) The 16th expert proposed a supplementary opinion, stating that ‘electronic nutrition assessment and patient nutrition records are recommended’. The specific content is as follows: (1) Add ‘Human body composition measurement when conditions permit’. (2) Add ‘Follow up using a mobile information platform after discharge’. (3) Add the ‘Food Caloric Equivalence Exchange Table’ to the ‘Postoperative Nutrition Manual for Pancreatic Surgery’. After two rounds of expert consultation, the personalised nursing plan for weight-loss control of patients with pancreatic cancer after surgery was finalised, including 8 modules and 36 items in total. See Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Personalised nursing practice plan for weight-loss control of pancreatic cancer patients

Full size image

Discussion

The necessity of establishing a personalised nursing plan for weight-loss control in patients with pancreatic cancer after surgery

Recently, researchers have been paying increased attention to the impact of weight loss on the prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer. This study found that patients with severe weight loss were relatively less responsive to treatment, had shorter survival and a significantly reduced quality of life [43,44,45]. Hashimoto et al. [46] pointed out that different degrees of postoperative weight loss in patients with pancreatic cancer were significantly correlated with the patients’ overall survival. In addition to the special pathophysiological changes caused by pancreatic malignant tumours, pancreatic surgical treatment can also affect the metabolic and nutritional status of the body to varying degrees, resulting in impaired internal and external secretion functions of the pancreas. The likelihood of body weight loss and malnutrition are significantly increased, which affects postoperative recovery and clinical outcome [23]. A retrospective analysis showed that the average weight loss of patients undergoing radical surgery for pancreatic cancer was 7.01% compared with that before surgery [47], and postoperative body mass index (BMI) decreased by an average of 1.75 compared with preoperative BMI [48]. It can be seen that the weight-loss rate of pancreatic cancer after radical surgery was significantly higher than that of oesophageal cancer [49] (3.71–5.13%), gastric cancer [50] (4.7%) and rectal cancer [51] (2.41%). Weight loss has a significant impact on the nutritional score, and greater weight loss means a higher score and a worse nutritional status, so it is especially important to maintain a balance of energy intake throughout the treatment process to prevent significant weight loss [52]. Evidence increasingly indicates that preoperative exercise and nutritional optimisation improve perioperative physical function in major abdominal surgery [53,54,55]. However, a recent scoping review of nutrition within rehabilitation oncology research identified that nutrition assessment was inconsistently applied [56]. Of the 110 studies reviewed, 37 (34%) included a nutrition treatment component. Only half of these studies provided the goal for the nutrition component of their rehabilitation programme and, of these goals, less than half referenced accepted nutrition guidelines [57]. Furthermore, a failure to diagnose and address malnutrition and dietary complications has been identified as the primary unmet supportive care need of patients with pancreatic cancer. Therefore, the measurement, determination and evaluation of weight loss is an indispensable part of the nutritional status assessment of patients. However, in the current clinical nutritional diagnosis and treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer, different medical centres and individual pancreatic surgeons select varying strategies, methods and timing of nutritional support to match different conditions after surgery. Therefore, it is necessary to build a more personalised clinical nursing practice to provide an important basis for clinical workers to control postoperative weight loss in pancreatic cancer patients.

Scientific and reliable research results

The research team in this study invited front-line clinical experts, care managers, educators and nutrition experts in the field of pancreatic disease care to serve as correspondence experts. According to the results of this study, the effective recovery rate of the first round of correspondence questionnaire was 93.75%, and the effective recovery rate of the second round of correspondence questionnaire was 100%, indicating that experts were very active in participating in the research. The authority coefficient of the overall experts in this study is 0.918, indicating that the authority of experts in this field has reached a high level. In all the items of the second round of correspondence, the coefficient of variation was less than 0.25, and the W coefficient was higher than that of the first round, indicating that the opinions of experts showed a high level of consistency.

Revelations of an individualised nursing plan for weight-loss control in patients with pancreatic cancer after surgery

The average importance of Pancreatic Specialist nutritional support team (PSNST) team building ranked first among all the items, indicating that the construction and collaborative operation of multidisciplinary teams in nutrition management is the basis of this nursing practice plan. A study by Shen Mingyan et al. [58] also showed that giving a full role to nurses in the team can significantly improve the postoperative recovery speed of patients with pancreatic cancer and maximise the prognosis of patients. The National Nursing Career Development Plan (2021–2025) clearly states that nurses play a vital role in the team. They are not only responsible for the day-to-day care of patients, but also key participants in the postoperative recovery process. Nurses are important members of the medical team and need to work closely with other members such as doctors, physiotherapists and social workers to develop and implement rehabilitation plans. Through the effective allocation of medical resources, a detailed preoperative assessment of each patient can be performed, including the patient’s physical condition, the severity of the condition and other factors that may affect the outcome of the surgery. This requires a precise diagnosis by a doctor and a thorough assessment by a medical team. On this basis, a personalised surgery and rehabilitation plan can be developed for the patient [59]. Finally, establishing an effective community medical cooperation network can also help patients recover quickly after surgery. We need to establish effective communication and cooperation with patient caregivers and families to ensure that they understand and cooperate with the implementation of treatment management programmes. At the same time, support and education are also needed to help them better participate in the patient's care process. Improving the professionalism and competence of nursing staff while improving the quality of patient care will result in greater benefits for our healthcare system and better care for patients [60]. The average importance of nutritional guidance at the stage of a patient’s discharge preparation ranked second. In the previous qualitative study, it was found that almost all subjects had a strong demand for dietary guidance at home after discharge, including what kind of food should be eaten after returning home, the amount of food, how to eat less and more meals and how to match different meals. All patients hope to receive detailed professional guidance, which is similar to the research results of Green et al. [61]. Jingjing Mou et al. [62] found that more than half of the respondents felt helpless at home and needed professional medical staff to assist them. By implementing discharge preparation services, we can achieve a tripartite ‘win–win’ situation for patients, hospitals and society [21].

Advantages of personalised care for weight-loss control in patients with pancreatic cancer after surgery

In the previous literature quality evaluation of this study, it was found that although nutrition management of patients with pancreatic cancer has attracted more and more attention from experts in the industry, systematic reviews, evidence summary, expert consensuses and programme formulations have been carried out on this topic, but the diagnosis and treatment opinions of clinical patients often do not match the recommendations of the guidelines. The Chinese Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the Pancreatic Surgery Group of the Chinese Society of Surgery jointly launched an exclusive survey of domestic experts. A snapshot survey of perioperative nutrition management was conducted among 96 physicians in 64 first-class hospitals in 35 cities in 22 provinces in China. The results showed that irregular and unreasonable nutritional support was widespread [63]. In addition, nutritional nursing strategies for patients with pancreatic cancer mostly focus on the content and methods of health education. Among the nutritional assessment indicators, from the perspective of patient self-management, body weight and BMI are the most intuitive, simple and accessible indicators. However, there is currently a lack of pancreato-related nursing programmes with weight loss as the observation index. In view of the differences of nutritional diagnosis and treatment guidelines for patients with pancreatic cancer at home and abroad, a more personalised clinical nursing plan for weight-loss control should be explored in line with China’s national conditions.

Limitations

The implementation timeframe of this programme was only during the postoperative rehabilitation of patients with pancreatic cancer in the hospital, which has certain limitations, and it needs to be more widely applied in clinical practice to continuously verify its actual clinical guidance effect, promote the continuous improvement of this programme and lay a foundation for follow-up home-based self-weight management and nutritional management of patients.

Conclusions

In this study, through qualitative interviews and subject extraction based on the actual needs of both parties, a personalised nursing plan for postoperative weight-loss control of patients with pancreatic cancer was constructed. The content of this programme is comprehensive, which can meet the needs of nutritional diagnosis and treatment of patients in the stage of postoperative rehabilitation, provide comprehensive nutritional assessment and nutritional support and has a good system and high feasibility.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Zhang M, Xu JR, Chen L, Duan ZH, Yao CZ, Rang WQ. Analysis of the incidence trend of pancreatic cancer in China from 1990 to 2019 based on GBD data. Mod Prev Med. 2022;49(7):1159–69.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chen J, Dai SL. Progress of nutritional support therapy for cachexia of pancreatic cancer. Chin J Pancreatol. 2019;20(4):321–4. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3760/cma.j.cn115667-20190919-00082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sun B, Tian FY. Key points of perioperative nutritional support in patients with pancreatic cancer. Chin J Pract Surg. 2018;38(3):273–7. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2018.03.09.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Scherübl H. Metabolisches syndrom und gastrointestinale Krebsvorsorge [Metabolic syndrome and gastrointestinal cancer screening]. Z Gastroenterol. 2023;61(10):1394–400. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1055/a-1959-3829.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Behdadnia A, Jeddi M. Severe hypercalcemia due to metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2023;17(1):400. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13256-023-04042-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Takeda T, Sasaki T, Okamoto T, Ishitsuka T, Yamada M, Nakagawa H, et al. Impact of the extent of weight loss before administration on the efficacy of anamorelin in advanced pancreatic cancer patients with cachexia. Intern Med. 2023;62(13):1887–93. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.2169/internalmedicine.0730-22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chinese Anti-Cancer Association Cancer Nutrition Committee, Chinese Medical Association parenteral Nutrition Branch, Sun LY, Sun XM, Shi HP. Expert consensus on nutritional therapy of pancreatic cancer patients. Electron J Metab Nutr Cancer. 2022;6:735–40.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baldwin C, Spiro A, Ahern R, Emery PW. Oral nutritional interventions in malnourished patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(5):371–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Baldwin C, Spiro A, McGough C, Norman AR, Gillbanks A, Thomas K, et al. Simple nutritional intervention in patients with advanced cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, non-small cell lung cancers or mesothelioma and weight loss receiving chemotherapy: a randomised controlled trial. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2011;24(5):431–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Burden ST, Hill J, Shaffer JL, Campbell M, Todd C. An unblinded randomised controlled trial of preoperative oral supplements in colorectal cancer patients. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2011;24(5):441–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chinese Society of parenteral and enteral Nutrition. Perioperative nutritional support guidelines for adults. Chin J Surg. 2016;54(9):641–57. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2016.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. General Office of the National Health Commission. Pancreatic cancer diagnosis and treatment guidelines (2022 edition). J Hepatobiliary Dis. 2019;38(5):1006–15. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li T, Jiang H, Liu M. Interpretation of the nutritional treatment pathway guide for Chinese adult patients: nasoenteric tube. J Cancer Metab Nutr. 2012;9(3):287–92. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.16689/j.cnki.cn11-9349/r.2022.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rock CL, Thomson CA, Sullivan KR, Howe CL, Kushi LH, Caan BJ, et al. American cancer society nutrition and physical activity guideline for cancer survivors. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(3):230–62. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3322/caac.21719.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ligibel JA, Bohlke K, Alfano CM. Exercise, Diet, and weight management during cancer treatment: ASCO guideline summary and Q&A. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18(10):695–7. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1200/OP.22.00277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Volkert D, Beck AM, Cederholm T, Cruz-Jentoft A, Goisser S, Hooper L, et al. ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(1):10–47. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.clnu.2018.05.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weimann A, Braga M, Carli F, Higashiguchi T, Hübner M, Klek S, et al. ESPEN practical guideline: clinical nutrition in surgery. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(7):4745–61. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.03.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Surgery Society of Chinese Medical Association Anesthesiology Society of Chinese Medical Association. Chinese clinical practice guidelines for accelerated rehabilitation surgery (2021 edition). Chin J Pract Surg. 2021;14(9):961–91. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2021.09.01.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pancreatic Surgery Group, Chinese Society of Surgery, Chinese Medical Association Pancreatic Diseases Professional Committee of Chinese Research Hospital Society. Chinese guidelines for neoadjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer (2020 edition). Med J Peking Union Med Coll Hosp. 2020;11(5):547–58. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3969/j.issn.1674-9081.2020.05.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Geriatric Nutrition Therapy Group, Chinese Society of Parenteral and enteral Nutrition. Guidelines for the application of parenteral nutrition in elderly patients in China (2020). Chin J Gerontol. 2020;39(2):119–32. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-9026.2020.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. China Elderly Care Alliance. Expert consensus on discharge preparation services for elderly patients (2019 ediiton). Chin J Nurs. 2019;55(02):220–7. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2020.02.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pancreatic Surgery Group, Chinese Society of Surgery, Chinese Medical Association Pancreatic Disease Professional Committee of Chinese Research Hospital Society. A consensus statement on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of common complications after pancreatic surgery (2017). Chin J Surg. 2017;55(5):328–34. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2017.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chinese Society of Surgery, Pancreatic Surgery Group, Chinese Society of Parenteral Nutrition. Chinese expert Consensus on perioperative holistic nutrition management in pancreatic surgery (2020 edition). Chin J Dig Surg. 2019;19(10):1013–29. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20200902-00596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chinese Medical Doctor Association Branch of Oncologists, China International Healthcare Exchange Promotion Association Pancreatic Disease Expert Committee. Expert consensus on multidisciplinary integrated treatment model for pancreatic cancer in China (2020 edition). Chin J Oncol. 2019;42(7):531–6. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20200310-00192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wischmeyer PE, Carli F, Evans DC, Guilbert S, Kozar R, Pryor A, et al. American society for enhanced recovery and perioperative quality initiative joint consensus statement on nutrition screening and therapy within a surgical enhanced recovery pathway. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(6):1883–95. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002743.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bullock AF, Greenley SL, McKenzie GAG, Paton LW, Johnson MJ. Relationship between markers of malnutrition and clinical outcomes in older adults with cancer: systematic review, narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020;74(11):1519–35. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1038/s41430-020-0629-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Perera LAM, Chopra A, Shaw AL. Approach to patients with unintentional weight loss. Med Clin North Am. 2021;105(1):175–86. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.mcna.2020.08.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yoon SL, Kim JA, Kelly DL, Lyon D, George TJ Jr. Predicting unintentional weight loss in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2019;10(3):526–35. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/jcsm.12398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hendifar AE, Petzel MQB, Zimmers TA, Denlinger CS, Matrisian LM, Picozzi VJ, Rahib L. Precision promise consortium. pancreas cancer-associated weight loss. Oncologist. 2019;24(5):691–701. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bossi P, Delrio P, Mascheroni A, Zanetti M. The spectrum of malnutrition/cachexia/sarcopenia in oncology according to different cancer types and settings: a narrative review. Nutrients. 2021;13(6):1980. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nu13061980.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ryan AM, Prado CM, Sullivan ES, Power DG, Daly LE. Effects of weight loss and sarcopenia on response to chemotherapy, quality of life, and survival. Nutrition. 2019;67–68:110539. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nut.2019.06.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hue JJ, Sugumar K, Kyasaram RK, Shanahan J, Lyons J, Ocuin LM, et al. Weight loss as an untapped early detection marker in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(11):6283–92. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1245/s10434-021-09861-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Martin L, Senesse P, Gioulbasanis I, Antoun S, Bozzetti F, Deans C, et al. Diagnostic criteria for the classification of cancer-associated weight loss. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):90–9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.1894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mitsunaga S. Development of therapy for cancer cachexia in pancreatic cancer. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2022;49(7):728–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gilliland TM, Villafane-Ferriol N, Shah KP, Shah RM, Tran Cao HS, Massarweh NN, et al. Nutritional and metabolic derangements in pancreatic cancer and pancreatic resection. Nutrients. 2017;9(3):243. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nu9030243.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Shima Y, Okabayashi T, Kozuki A, Sumiyoshi T, Tokumaru T, Saisaka Y, et al. Completion pancreatectomy for recurrent pancreatic cancer in the remnant pancreas: report of six cases and a review of the literature. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2015;400(8):973–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00423-015-1355-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yin L, Lin X, Liu J, Li N, He X, Zhang M, et al. Classification tree-based machine learning to visualize and validate a decision tool for identifying malnutrition in cancer patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2021;45(8):1736–48. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/jpen.2070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182(18):E839–42. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1503/cmaj.090449.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBl). Critical Appraisal Tools [EB/OL]. [2018-12-281]. http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisaltools.html.

  40. Chen LY, Zha QH, Tian QJ, Zhang SY, Huang ZY, Zhang M, et al. Investigation of perioperative weight loss in patients with pancreatic cancer and analysis of its influencing factors. Chongqing Med J. 2023;52(S01):48–53.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Xu ZJ, Xia HO. Application of Delphi method in nursing research. J Nurs Sci. 2008;23(6):78–80. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-2907.2012.22.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tang AL. Research on training and management plan of specialized nurses in Shanghai. Shanghai: Second Military Medical University. 2016. doi:CNKI:CDMD:2.1016.162364.

  43. Mardas M, Stelmach-Mardas M, Madry R. Body weight changes in patients undergoing chemotherapy for ovarian cancer influence progression-free and overall survival. Supp Care Cancer. 2017;25(3):795–800. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00520-016-3462-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Liu X, Xu P, Qiu H, Xu D, Li W, Zhan Y, et al. Preoperative nutritional deficiency is a useful predictor of postoperative outcome in patients undergoing curative resection for gastric cancer. Transl Oncol. 2016;9(6):482–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.tranon.2016.09.008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Lin J, Peng J, Qdaisat A, Li L, Chen G, Lu Z, et al. Severe weight loss during preoperative chemoradiotherapy compromises survival outcome for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142(12):2551–60. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00432-016-2225-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Hashimoto D, Chikamoto A, Ohmuraya M, Abe S, Nakagawa S, Beppu T, et al. Impact of postoperative weight loss on survival after resection for pancreatic cancer. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2015;39(5):598–603. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/0148607114520992.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Yang B, Yan YJ, Ding WJ. Clinical analysis of postoperative malnutrition in 45 patients with pancreatic cancer. J Clin Med. 2012. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3969/j.issn.1674-0742.2012.21.058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hu S, Guo YX, Xu T, Gao J. Investigation and analysis of perioperative nutritional support in 146 patients with hepatobiliary and pancreatic malignancies in a hospital. J Prev Med Chin People’s Lib Army. 2018;36(2):233–6.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Liu W, Guan DD. Effects of comprehensive nutrition care on postoperative weight loss and immune function in patients with esophageal cancer. Chin Oncol Clin Rehabilit. 2017;24(10):1277–80. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.13455/j.cnki.cjcor.2017.10.34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Aoyama T, Sato T, Segami K, Maezawa Y, Kano K, Kawabe T, et al. Risk factors for the loss of lean body mass after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(6):1963–70. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1245/s10434-015-5080-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Cao YL. Effect of individualized nutritional care on postoperative recovery of patients with rectal cancer. Tianjin Medical University. 2014. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.7666/d.Y2698917.

  52. Chen J, Du C, Ding ZY, Zhang D, Zheng ZD. Analysis of nutritional status and related influencing factors in patients with malignant tumor. J Mod Oncol. 2018;26(01):91–4. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3969/j.issn.1672-4992.2018.01.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gillis C, Buhler K, Bresee L, Carli F, Gramlich L, Culos-Reed N, et al. Effects of nutritional prehabilitation, with and without exercise, on outcomes of patients who undergo colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:391–410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Minnella EM, Awasthi R, Loiselle SE, Agnihotram RV, Ferri LE, Carli F. Effect of exercise and nutrition prehabilitation on functional capacity in esophagogastric cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(12):1081–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Blomquist K, Wennerholm C, Berterö C, Sandström P, Björnsson B, Drott J. Motivation and life circumstances affecting living habits prior to gastrointestinal cancer surgery: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Inquiry. 2023;60:469580231170544.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gillis C, Davies SJ, Carli F, Wischmeyer PE, Wootton SA, Jackson AA, et al. Current landscape of nutrition within prehabilitation oncology research: a scoping review. Front Nutr. 2021;8:644723.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Bibby N, Rajai A, O’Reilly DA. From prehab to rehab: Nutritional support for people undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2023;36(2):493–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Shen MY, Lu FY, Wang RF, Lu JN, Wu XY, Yang J. Practice and effect of multidisciplinary specialized nursing for pancreatic cancer patients. Chin J Nurs. 2016;51(5):542–6. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3761/i.issn.0254-1769.2016.05.006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Fraser KD, Garland Baird LM, Labonté S, O’Rourke HM, Punjani N. Case manager work and workload: uncovering a wicked problem: a secondary analysis using interpretive description. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2019;31(2):83–91. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/1084822318803099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ham C. The ten characteristics of the high-performing chronic care system. Health Econ Policy Law. 2010;5(Pt 1):71–90. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1017/S1744133109990120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Green SM, Townsend K, Jarrett N, Fader M. The experiences and support needs of people living at home with an enteral tube: a qualitative interview study. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2019;32(5):646–58. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/jhn.12656.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Mou J, Sun J, Zhang R, Yang Y, Yang W, Zhao X. Experiences and needs of home caregivers for enteral nutrition: a systematic review of qualitative research. Nurs Open. 2022;9(1):11–21. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/nop2.990.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Xu JY, Wei JS, Cui HY, Xu Q, Zhang XN, Wu WM, et al. Investigation on perioperative nutritional management of pancreaticoduodenectomy (with report from 64 Top three hospitals in China). Chin J Dig Surg. 2019;19(10):1062–9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20200929-00640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was funded by Nursing Research Fund of Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. Project number: Jyhk2301.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Leying Chen and Zhongyan Huang contributed equally to this study.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital Affiliated of Jiaotong University, No. 197 of Ruijin No. 2 Street, Huangpu District, Shanghai, 200025, China

    Leying Chen, Zhongyan Huang, Zhe Chen, Ziyun Dong, Yuqing Zhou, Ming Zhang & Xiaoyan Wei

  2. Department of Nurse Management, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital Affiliated of Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200025, China

    Qiuju Tian, Qinghua Zha & Shiyu Zhang

Authors
  1. Leying Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhongyan Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qiuju Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qinghua Zha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shiyu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhe Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ziyun Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yuqing Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ming Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Xiaoyan Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Chen LY and Huang ZY were involved in the conception and design of the work; Tian QJ, Zha QH, Zhang SY, Chen Z, Dong ZY, Zhou YQ, Zhang M, and Wei XY collected the data; Chen LY and Huang ZY contributed to the supervision; Tian QJ, Zha QH, Zhang SY, Chen Z, Dong ZY, Zhou YQ, Zhang M, and Wei XY analysed and interpreted the data; Chen LY, Huang ZY, Zhang M, and Wei XY contributed to the statistical analysis; Chen LY and Huang ZY drafted the manuscript; all authors contributed to the critical revision of the manuscript and approval of the final manuscript: all authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ming Zhang or Xiaoyan Wei.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the hospital (2022 Pro-Lun Audit No. 249) and has passed the Evidence Summary Registration of the Evidence-Based Nursing Center of Fudan University (No. ES20233043). Informed consent was signed by all participants in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None of the authors have any personal, financial, commercial, or academic conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, L., Huang, Z., Tian, Q. et al. Construction of individualised care programmes for patients with pancreatic cancer with postoperative weight-loss control based on the Delphi method: a cross-sectional study in China. J Health Popul Nutr 43, 36 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s41043-024-00525-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s41043-024-00525-3

Keywords

Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition

ISSN: 2072-1315

Contact us