Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40971058›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in auto-HCT: a randomized controlled trial on clinical outcomes and gut microbiome dynamics.

Hannah R Wardill, Lenneke F J van Groningen, Mohsen Dorraki, Eva B D Molendijk, Doris Kalter, Ana Rita Da Silva Ferreira, Alexander Kurilshikov, Feargal J Ryan, Johan W Verjans, Hermie J M Harmsen and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Hannah R Wardill *Supportive Oncology Research Group, Precision Cancer Medicine Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Terrace, Adelaide, Australia. hannah.wardill@adelaide.edu.au.
Lenneke F J van Groningen *Department of Hematology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mohsen DorrakiAustralian Institute for Machine Learning (AIML), Adelaide, Australia.
Eva B D MolendijkDepartment of Hematology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Doris KalterDepartment of Hematology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ana Rita Da Silva FerreiraDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Alexander KurilshikovDepartment of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Feargal J RyanFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia.
Johan W VerjansAustralian Institute for Machine Learning (AIML), Adelaide, Australia.
Hermie J M HarmsenDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Wim J E TissingPrincess Maxima Centre for Paediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Walter J F M van der VeldenDepartment of Hematology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Nicole M A BlijlevensDepartment of Hematology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disruption of the gut microbiome is a common consequence of chemotherapy, linked with detrimental treatment outcomes (e.g. sepsis), especially in haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) recipients. Preclinical data suggest that enteral nutrition (EN) is superior to parenteral nutrition (TPN), minimising gut atrophy and promoting eubiosis; yet, TPN continues to be used. Here, we evaluated the clinical effects of EN and TPN in autologous HCT recipients and their influence on gut microbiome dynamics. Despite efforts to optimise delivery, EN was poorly tolerated and ultimately proved unfeasible. As such, we turned our attention to analysing microbial dynamics in our study cohort and confirmed preclinical reports that epithelial apoptosis drives gut microbiome disruption. Machine learning models predicted microbial composition by tracking plasma citrulline trajectories, a biomarker of enterocyte mass. These findings suggest that (i) monitoring citrulline may be able to identify patients at risk of potentially lethal HCT complications associated with gut microbiome disruption, and that (ii) preserving epithelial integrity could support microbial resilience by minimising the production of caspase-dependent metabolites. Dutch Trial Register: NL4069. Data registered: 19-11-2013. www.trialregister.nl.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationParenteral NutritionAdultAgedApoptosisCitrullineFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeCitrullineApoptosisCitrullineGastrointestinal mucositisGut microbiomeHaematopoietic cell transplantationHCTNutrition

Identifiers

PMID40971058
PMCPMC12449397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.