ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2021
A pilot study of a low glycemic load diet in patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing dietary interventions as therapy for cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsumption of a diet with high glycemic indices has been associated with inferior cancer-specific outcomes in patients with early-stage colorectal cancer, but there is limited prospective evidence that alterations in dietary habits improves cancer outcomes. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of following a low glycemic load (GL) diet in patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer.
methodsPatients with stage I-III colorectal cancer, who completed definitive therapy, and consumed an average daily GL >150 participated in a 12-week tailored face-to-face dietary intervention with a target GL. This study followed a 2-stage design, with 4 planned cohorts, each with an assigned GL target and dietary intervention intensity. The primary endpoint of feasibility was determined by participant compliance, defined as an individual following the assigned GL ≥75% of the time. Compliance was determined using 24-hour telephone recalls. A cohort was deemed feasible if at least 67% of participants were compliant. Secondary endpoints included acceptability of the diet, nutritional support resources necessary to follow the diet, and evaluation of the effect of the diet on physical measures and correlative laboratories.
resultsOnly cohort 1 was required as the primary endpoint of feasibility was met (stringent GL target, low intensity dietary support). The majority of participants experienced a decrease in body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference, 29% experiencing meaningful weight loss (≥5%). The dietitian spent an average of 6.97 hours (SD 2.18) face-to-face time and 1.58 hours (SD 0.68) by phone with each participant. Significant decreases were seen in total cholesterol, very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) and triglycerides (all P<0.05). All participants liked the foods and were satisfied with the diet. All participants felt the in-person meetings were helpful, and 62% did not feel a virtual meeting (e.g., Skype, etc.) could replace in-person meetings.
conclusionsPatients with stage I-III colorectal cancer can follow a low GL diet with a 12-week in-person dietary intervention. Significant changes in physical and laboratory measures suggest relevant biologic effects of the dietary intervention. This study establishes feasibility, and warrants a larger scale prospective intervention trial to evaluate the impact of a low GL diet on cancer outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.