Medical nutrition therapy during intensive remission-induction treatment and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia patients: Hematologists’ experiences and perspectives

Background & aims: The European Societies for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) recommend enteral nutrition (EN) as the first-choice medical nutrition therapy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients undergoing intensive treatments, including high-dose remission-induction chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, parenteral nutrition (PN) remains the preferred method of nutrition support in current clinical practice. The aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into hematologists’ experiences and perspectives regarding the choice and ESPEN/EBMT recommendations on EN versus PN. Methods: Online semi-structured interviews were conducted with one hematologist from each of the 21 hospitals offering intensive AML treatments in the Netherlands, using Microsoft Teams. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed using Atlas. ti. One hundred nineteen hematologists working in the same hospitals were invited to complete a short online questionnaire survey (SurveyMonkey®) regarding their knowledge and opinion on the ESPEN/EBMT guidelines recommending EN over PN during intensive AML treatments. The results of this survey are presented in a descriptive way. Results: Fifty-nine hematologists participated in this study (42% overall response rate), of which 21 in the semi-structured interviews (response rate 100%) and 38 in the online survey (response rate 32%). Hematologists considered medical nutrition therapy important for prevention and treatment of malnutrition and associated adverse outcomes in AML patients undergoing intensive remission-induction treatment and HSCT. However, opposed to the ESPEN/EBMT guidelines, the vast majority of hematologists were hesitant or reluctant to use EN instead of PN as the first-choice medical nutrition therapy in these patients. The most frequently cited barriers to use EN were the expected low feasibility and tolerance of EN, feeding tube-related discomfort and bleeding risk, and patient refusal. Other barriers to follow the guidelines on EN were related to personal factors, including hematologists’ knowledge (lack of awareness and familiarity) and attitude (lack of agreement, outcome expectancy, experience, success, motivation, and learning culture), guideline-related factors (lack of evidence and applicability), and external factors (lack of collaboration and resources). Facilitators included strategies for nutrition education and dissemination of nutritional guidelines, interprofessional and patient collaboration, availability of feeding tubes that can be inserted without endoscopy and stronger scientific evidence. Conclusions: Hematologists recognized the importance of medical nutrition therapy for reducing malnutrition and related negative outcomes during intensive AML treatments. However, contrary to the ESPEN/EBMT guidelines, they preferred PN instead of EN as the medical nutrition therapy of first choice. To reduce compliance barriers, interventions should focus on improving hematologists’ knowledge of medical nutrition therapy and dietary guidelines, enhancing success rates of EN by adequately triaging patients eligible for EN and inserting duodenal feeding tubes using an electromagnetic sensing device without endoscopy, developing decision aids and multidisciplinary guidelines and care pathways. Furthermore, future trials should focus on the feasibility and benefits of EN versus PN both during remission-induction treatment and HSCT.