Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in cancer patients: evidences and controversies

The debate over the use of enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) is an old but evergreen and hot topic. Since many years, studies comparing EN and PN have been a pivotal ‘leitmotif’ in the published literature on artificial nutrition (AN). Actually, there is a background misunderstanding in this debate; specifically, that EN and PN are competitors in the choice of the route for delivering nutrition support in cancer patients. Conversely, EN and PN have specific indications and contraindications. This review has the purpose to discuss the indications and complications as well as pros and cons of EN and PN in cancer patients, the crucial role of nutrition support in oncology patients during anticancer treatments and throughout the course of disease, and, finally, the role of AN in advanced cancer patients. In summary, we have no evidence-based data able to definitively indicate the optimal method for delivering AN in cancer patients. EN and PN have to be considered equally effective in maintaining or improving nutritional status in cancer patients. Besides, this review strongly supports the recommendation that a baseline nutritional assessment should be carried out by a healthcare professional expert in AN for all cancer patients at the time of diagnosis or anticancer treatment plan, taking the nutritional status, estimated duration of AN, AN-related potential benefits and possible complications into consideration on an individual basis. Moreover, the patient symptoms, performance status, estimated life expectancy, and mainly, will or preferences have to be evaluated and incorporated into the nutrition support plan before the definitive choice of the route for delivering nutrients is decided. Finally, the application of a decision-making process tailored to patient needs—regardless of whether receiving or not anticancer treatment—allows to choose reasonably the optimal nutritional support strategy.