Tom 8, Nr 6 (2023)
Artykuł przeglądowy
Opublikowany online: 2023-12-27

dostęp otwarty

Wyświetlenia strony 278
Wyświetlenia/pobrania artykułu 94
Pobierz cytowanie

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Artykuł przeglądowy / Review article
Żywienie kliniczne w onkologii / Clinical nutrition in oncology

Biuletyn Polskiego
Towarzystwa Onkologicznego

2023, tom 8, nr 6, 472–475

© Polskie Towarzystwo Onkologiczne

ISSN: 2543–5248, e-ISSN: 2543–8077

Quality of life as an important goal of therapy for cancer patients on home enteral nutrition

Marcin A. Folwarski12
1Department of Clinical Nutrition and Dietetics, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
2Home Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition Unit, Department of General Surgery, Nicolaus Copernicus Hospital, Gdansk, Poland
Nutritional support is increasingly recognized as an important component of multimodal cancer treatment. The number of cancer patients requiring home enteral nutrition (HEN) is increasing, particularly for head and neck (HNC) and upper gastrointestinal cancers. The quality of life (QoL) of these patients is emerging as a critical aspect that is influenced by the effective management of cancer-related symptoms, psychological support, and the socio-functional impact of HEN. Routine and standardized monitoring of QoL is highlighted as crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of HEN and for adapting treatment strategies. The interaction between nutritional status and other aspects of health such as physical functioning, psychological well-being, social engagement, and pain management is emphasized. Improving quality of life as a goal in palliative care should guide treatment strategies and the need for advanced nutritional support.
Key words: home enteral nutrition, quality of life, cancer, malnutrition

Jak cytować / How to cite:

Folwarski MA. Quality of life as an important goal of therapy for cancer patients on home enteral nutrition. NOWOTWORY J Oncol 2023; 73: 390–393.


The growing awareness of multimodal support in approaches has led to an increased focus on nutritional support, as underscored in European guidelines [1] and Polish recommendations [2–4]. Most oncology patients benefit from food fortification with the support of a clinical dietitian. However, enteral nutrition (EN) is indicated for malnourished patients or patients at risk of malnutrition who cannot meet their needs with oral nutrition and ‘have a functioning digestive tract (tube, gastrostomy, jejunostomy) to a functioning digestive tract. If hospitalization is no longer required, these patients can transition to home enteral nutrition (HEN) [5]. In many countries, including Poland, HEN is reimbursed by health care provides. Home care supervised by specialized nutritional support teams (NST) reduces hospital admissions, the incidence of infectious complications, and treatment costs [8] by providing multidisciplinary care. Technological advances such as peristaltic feeding pumps or closed feeding systems can contribute to greater efficacy, safety, and patient comfort [6, 7] in long-term nutritional treatment. This can be achieved through appropriate training of patients and caregivers by specialized healthcare professionals. Improvement or preservation of nutritional status remain primary objectives of nutritional treatment. However, this review aims to draw attention to quality of life as an equally important issue, particularly in cancer patients.

Home enteral nutrition in cancer

Epidemiological studies indicate a worldwide increase in the number of patients requiring HEN [9, 10]. In the United States, the number of HEN patients increased from 463 in 1995 [11] to 1,385 per million citizens by 2017 (248,846 adult patients in total) [12]. This trend is consistent in Europe as reported by countries with national registries or long-term observations [5, 13]. Recent studies show that cancer patients have become a significant group among HEN recipients together with patients with neurological disorders [14]. HEN can be required due to obstruction in the gastrointestinal tract caused by tumor masses, such as in esophageal or gastric cancer, or due to mucosal damage and dysphagia caused by oncological therapy for head and neck cancer (HNC). In Poland, cancer patients accounted for 14% of all HEN cases in 2013 [15] and up to 33.9% in 2018 [16]. A particularly significant increase was seen in HNC patients (from 4.5% of all HEN patients in 2013 to 20% in 2018) and upper gastrointestinal tumors (from 5.2% to 11.7%). UK data also showed similar trends with the rate of oncological patients receiving HEN increasing from 25% in 2000 to 43% in 2015, and HNC patients clearly predominating this group (80% of oncological patients in 2015) [17, 18].

In those groups of cancer patients, especially during oncological treatment, a significant proportion may be unable to fulfill their nutritional requirements through oral intake alone. EN, especially in HNC patients, substantially contributes to therapeutic benefits by preventing chemotherapy dose reduction, excessive weight loss, and complications [19]. Postoperative body mass index (BMI), lean body mass, appendicular muscle mass and the postoperative pneumonia rates also improved in patients with esophageal cancer, compared to patients receiving only an oral diet [20]. In addition, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis has shown that HEN not only improves the postoperative nutritional status but also the physical, social, and role functions of patients with esophageal cancer [20].

The effectiveness of home EN depends on several factors such as diet tolerance, management of EN complications, appropriate pain management, mental health (depression) support, rehabilitation, and physical exercises. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) recommends HEN for patients with a survival prognosis of at least one month [1]. For cancer cases where the remission or cure cannot be achieved, prolonged nutritional support aimed solely at improving or maintaining quality of life is considered beneficial [21].

Quality of life

Improving or maintaining quality of life is a major goal for cancer patients treated with HEN, especially in advanced stages of the disease. According to the ESPEN guidelines, QoL should be systematically monitored using validated assessment tools [26]. Due to the different populations of HEN patients, some NSTs use disease-specific assessment methods, for example IBDQ [27], QOL-EF for H&N [28], EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) [29] or EORTC QLQ-C30 with modules for specific cancer types. NutriQoL is a validated and reliable quality of life assessment questionnaire that can be used to identify specific problems for HEN populations [30, 31].

Other studies have shown that QoL in HEN patients is generally worse than that of the general population, although this is dependent on demographics. Better QoL is observed in younger individuals, non-cancer patients, and those receiving care from multiple caregivers. In a study by Sharma et al., the quality of life of HNC patients was analyzed. Within the first three months of treatment, a significant deterioration in physical, emotional, social, and functional aspects was observed. One year after treatment, none of the subscales returned to baseline values. Surgery in combination with chemo-radiotherapy had the strongest impact on QoL among the treatment modalities [23]. Sensitivity problems, mouth opening, dry mouth, viscous saliva, pain, and weight problems can be observed even long after treatment [24]. The health-related quality of life of patients with locally advanced, non-metastatic gastric cancer deteriorated significantly after surgery and chemotherapy, improving after 6–12 months if no recurrence was diagnosed [25].

HEN significantly interferes with daily activities such as meals, sleep, travelling, and work, and often limits social activities due to long feeding times and concerns about damaging the EN tube [35, 36]. Enteral feeding affects social and family life, intimate relationships, and hobbies [32–34]. Nevertheless, patients observe an improvement in QoL during HEN [35–37], which was confirmed by a systematic review by Ojo and co-authors [38]. On the other hand, some studies indicate possible adverse effects, emphasizing the complexity of nutritional interventions in cancer treatment [36]. Lis showed in a systematic review that malnutrition significantly impairs the quality of life of patients with EN [39]. Weight loss is associated with poorer quality of life in patients with HNC and upper gastrointestinal cancer undergoing HEN [40]. Malnutrition assessed according to the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria correlated with QoL in HEN [41]. However, HEN can prevent further weight loss and thus, improve some aspects of QoL [42–43]. Studies on the effect of HEN on nutritional status and QoL in patients with esophageal cancer after esophagectomy found that HEN can stabilize or slightly improve nutritional status and physical performance as well as reduce fatigue [44, 45]. When nutritional support is initiated in the early stages of precachexia or cachexia, it can also improve performance status and survival [46].

Effective management of symptoms associated with cancer and its treatment, such as nausea, vomiting, pain, and digestive problems, is a critical component of QoL. In addition, the physical and mental health and QoL of cancer patients are related to sleeping problems. Sleep quality can be considered a prognostic factor for survival as it is related to cancer progression [25, 47]. More than half of cancer patients report poor sleep quality, and one third report functional impairment due to lack of sleep [48].

Chronic pain is another important factor contributing to the deterioration of quality of life in cancer patients [49, 50]. Although improvements in pain management have been noted in recent years, more than a third of cancer patients still do not receive adequate treatment [51, 52]. Inadequate pain management leads to further deterioration of QoL [53]. Pain and malnutrition contribute to depression and anxiety, which are common in cancer patients. In palliative stages, almost half of patients can be affected by these problems [54–56]. Psychological support can promote active coping and constructive strategies to manage difficult life situations during oncological treatment [22].

Nutritional support in palliative care requires experienced professionals as it can lead to poorer outcomes in some cases [57]. In cancer patients receiving palliative care, monitoring of QoL in HEN is particularly important. A significant decline in QoL, despite treatment, should prompt a reassessment of the need for more aggressive nutritional strategies. In end-stage disease, it may be more beneficial to prioritize supportive measures such as hydration and analgesia.


QoL is an important outcome for cancer patients receiving HEN. Regular, systematic assessment using validated instruments should be an integral part of patient monitoring. Strategies to improve QoL are essential components of care. Addressing problems affecting QoL like pain, sleeping disorders or depression is one of the key elements of care. HEN patients should have access to psychological support, especially in advanced stages of cancer. Deterioration of QoL can be a helpful parameter when deciding on the nature of palliative care.

Article information and declarations

Author contributions

Marcin Folwarski was responsible for the main idea, writing and editing of the first and final version of the article.


None declared

Conflict of interest

None declared

Marcin A. Folwarski

Medical University of Gdansk

Department of Clinical Nutrition and Dietetics

ul. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie 3a

80-210 Gdańsk, Poland


Rceived: 26 Nov 2023
Accepted: 1 Dec 2023


  1. Muscaritoli M, Arends J, Bachmann P, et al. ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical Nutrition in cancer. Clin Nutr. 2021; 40(5): 2898–2913, doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.02.005, indexed in Pubmed: 33946039.
  2. Jankowski M, Qelaj A, Kłęk S, et al. The role of comprehensive nutritional care in cancer patients. Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology. 2021; 71(3): 158–161, doi: 10.5603/njo.a2021.0016.
  3. Jarosz J, Kapała A, Kłęk S, et al. Konferencja uzgodnieniowa: problemy żywieniowe w polskiej onkologii. Nowotwory Journal of Oncology. 2012; 62(3): 221–229.
  4. Kłęk S, Jankowski M, Kruszewski W, et al. Standardy leczenia żywieniowego w onkologii. Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology. 2015; 65(4): 320–337, doi: 10.5603/njo.2015.0062.
  5. Bischoff SC, Austin P, Bowykens K, et al. ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition. Clin Nutr. 2020; 39(1): 5–22, doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.04.022, indexed in Pubmed: 31255350.
  6. White H, King L. Enteral feeding pumps: efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability. Med Devices (Auckl). 2014; 7: 291–298, doi: 10.2147/MDER.S50050, indexed in Pubmed: 25170284.
  7. Babaie F, Ghasemi Z. Role of Enteral Feeding Pumps in Precision Enteral Nutrition. Precision Medicine and Clinical OMICS. 2023; 2(1), doi: 10.5812/pmco-133591.
  8. Klek S, Szybinski P, Sierzega M, et al. Commercial enteral formulas and nutrition support teams improve the outcome of home enteral tube feeding. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2011; 35(3): 380–385, doi: 10.1177/0148607110378860, indexed in Pubmed: 21527600.
  9. Paccagnella A, Baruffi C, Pizzolato D, et al. Home enteral nutrition in adults: a five-year (2001-2005) epidemiological analysis. Clin Nutr. 2008; 27(3): 378–385, doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2008.03.005, indexed in Pubmed: 18486282.
  10. Parker E, Faruquie S, Talbot P. Trends in home enteral nutrition at a tertiary teaching hospital: 2005–2013. Nutrition & Dietetics. 2015; 72(3): 267–275, doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12165.
  11. Howard L, Ament M, Fleming CR, et al. Current use and clinical outcome of home parenteral and enteral nutrition therapies in the United States. Gastroenterology. 1995; 109(2): 355–365, doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(95)90321-6, indexed in Pubmed: 7615183.
  12. Mundi MS, Pattinson A, McMahon MT, et al. Prevalence of Home Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition in the United States. Nutr Clin Pract. 2017; 32(6): 799–805, doi: 10.1177/0884533617718472, indexed in Pubmed: 28715295.
  13. Paccagnella A, Marcon ML, Baruffi C, et al. Enteral nutrition at home and in nursing homes: an 11-year (2002-2012) epidemiological analysis. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. 2016; 62(1): 1–10, indexed in Pubmed: 26887795.
  14. Folwarski M, Kłęk S, Zoubek-Wójcik A, et al. Home Enteral Nutrition in Adults—Nationwide Multicenter Survey. Nutrients. 2020; 12(7): 2087, doi: 10.3390/nu12072087.
  15. Klek S, Pawlowska D, Dziwiszek G, et al. THE EVOLUTION OF HOME ENTERAL NUTRITION (HEN) IN POLAND DURING FIVE YEARS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION: A MULTICENTRE STUDY. Nutr Hosp. 2015; 32(1): 196–201, doi: 10.3305/nh.2015.32.1.8819, indexed in Pubmed: 26262717.
  16. Folwarski M, Kłęk S, Zoubek-Wójcik A, et al. Home Enteral Nutrition in Adults—Nationwide Multicenter Survey. Nutrients. 2020; 12(7): 2087, doi: 10.3390/nu12072087.
  17. Smith T, Chairman B. BANS Report 2018 Home Enteral Tube Feeding 2018 (April).
  18. Smith T, Naghibi M. British Artificial Nutrition Survey (BANS) Report 2016. Artificial Nutrition Support in the UK 2005-2015. Adult Home Parenteral Nutrition & Home Intravenous Fluids. 2016: 1–27.
  19. Kapała A, Surwiłło-Snarska A, Jodkiewicz M, et al. Nutritional Care in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer during Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and Bioradiotherapy (BRT) Provides Better Compliance with the Treatment Plan. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(11), doi: 10.3390/cancers13112532, indexed in Pubmed: 34064057.
  20. Zhang C, Hu LW, Qiang Y, et al. Home enteral nutrition for patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Nutr. 2022; 9: 895422, doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.895422, indexed in Pubmed: 35967793.
  21. Kłęk S, Piechowicz M, Szybiński P, et al. Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in incurable cancer patients: patients’ qualification criteria and treatment outcome. Nowotwory Journal of Oncology. 2013; 63(1): 16–20.
  22. Kulpa M, Ciuba A, Duda T, et al. Mental adaptation to cancer diagnosis and the health locus of control in patients undergoing treatment. Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology. 2022; 72(5): 275–281, doi: 10.5603/njo.a2022.0041.
  23. Sharma Y, Mishra G, Parikh V. Quality of Life in Head and Neck Cancer Patients. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019; 71(Suppl 1): 927–932, doi: 10.1007/s12070-019-01620-2, indexed in Pubmed: 31742096.
  24. Milecki J, Żmijewska-Tomczak M, Osmola K, et al. The impact of radiotherapy on the quality of life in patients with early-stage clinical head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Pol. 2021; 75(5): 1–8, doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.8759, indexed in Pubmed: 34552020.
  25. van Amelsfoort RM, van der Sluis K, Schats W, et al. Health-Related Quality of Life in Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(23), doi: 10.3390/cancers13235934, indexed in Pubmed: 34885043.
  26. Bischoff SC, Austin P, Boeykens K, et al. ESPEN practical guideline: Home enteral nutrition. Clin Nutr. 2022; 41(2): 468–488, doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.10.018, indexed in Pubmed: 35007816.
  27. Guo Z, Wu R, Zhu W, et al. Effect of exclusive enteral nutrition on health-related quality of life for adults with active Crohn’s disease. Nutr Clin Pract. 2013; 28(4): 499–505, doi: 10.1177/0884533613487218, indexed in Pubmed: 23851180.
  28. Stevens CS, Lemon B, Lockwood GA, et al. The development and validation of a quality-of-life questionnaire for head and neck cancer patients with enteral feeding tubes: the QOL-EF. Support Care Cancer. 2011; 19(8): 1175–1182, doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-0934-6, indexed in Pubmed: 20574664.
  29. Wanden-Berghe C, Nolasco A, Planas M, et al. Grupo NADYA-SENPE. Health-related quality of life according to the main caregiver in patients with home nutritional support. Med Clin (Barc). 2008; 131(8): 281–284, doi: 10.1016/s0025-7753(08)72258-9, indexed in Pubmed: 18803920.
  30. Apezetxea A, Carrillo L, Casanueva F, et al. The NutriQoL ® questionnaire for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with home enteral nutrition (HEN): validation and fi rst results. Nutr Hosp. 2016; 33(6): 1260, doi: 10.20960/nh.769.
  31. Cuerda MC, Apezetxea A, Carrillo L, et al. Development and validation of a specific questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in patients with home enteral nutrition: NutriQoL development. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016; 10: 2289–2296, doi: 10.2147/PPA.S110188, indexed in Pubmed: 27853360.
  32. Jordan S, Philpin S, Warring J, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies: the burden of treatment from a patient perspective. J Adv Nurs. 2006; 56(3): 270–281, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04006.x, indexed in Pubmed: 17042806.
  33. Rogers SN, Thomson R, O’Toole P, et al. Patients experience with long-term percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding following primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncol. 2007; 43(5): 499–507, doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2006.05.002, indexed in Pubmed: 16997615.
  34. Martin L, Blomberg J, Lagergren P. Patients’ perspectives of living with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). BMC Gastroenterol. 2012; 12: 126, doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-12-126, indexed in Pubmed: 22989321.
  35. Schneider SM, Pouget I, Staccini P, et al. Quality of life in long-term home enteral nutrition patients. Clin Nutr. 2000; 19(1): 23–28, doi: 10.1054/clnu.1999.0068, indexed in Pubmed: 10700530.
  36. Gliwska E, Guzek D, Przekop Z, et al. Quality of Life of Cancer Patients Receiving Enteral Nutrition: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2021; 13(12), doi: 10.3390/nu13124551, indexed in Pubmed: 34960103.
  37. Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka K, Folwarski M, Ruszkowski J, et al. Effects of 4 weeks of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v supplementation on nutritional status, enteral nutrition tolerance, and quality of life in cancer patients receiving home enteral nutrition – a double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled trial. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020; 24(18): 9684–9694, doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202009_23059, indexed in Pubmed: 33015813.
  38. Ojo O, Keaveney E, Wang XH, et al. The Effect of Enteral Tube Feeding on Patients’ Health-Related Quality of Life: A Systematic Review. Nutrients. 2019; 11(5), doi: 10.3390/nu11051046, indexed in Pubmed: 31083338.
  39. Lis CG, Gupta D, Lammersfeld CA, et al. Role of nutritional status in predicting quality of life outcomes in cancer--a systematic review of the epidemiological literature. Nutr J. 2012; 11: 27, doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-11-27, indexed in Pubmed: 22531478.
  40. Gliwska E, Głąbska D, Zaczek Z, et al. Influence of Enteral Nutrition on Quality of Life in Head and Neck Cancer and Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Patients within a Pair-Matched Sample. Nutrients. 2023; 15(21), doi: 10.3390/nu15214698, indexed in Pubmed: 37960351.
  41. Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka K, Skonieczna-Żydecka K, Folwarski M, et al. Influence of malnutrition stage according to GLIM 2019 criteria and SGA on the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. Nutr Hosp. 2020; 37(6): 1179–1185, doi: 10.20960/nh.03185, indexed in Pubmed: 33119401.
  42. Schönenberger KA, Reber E, Huwiler VV, et al. Quality of Life in the Management of Home Parenteral Nutrition. Ann Nutr Metab. 2023; 79(3): 326–333, doi: 10.1159/000530082, indexed in Pubmed: 36934718.
  43. Ojo O, Keaveney E, Wang XH, et al. The Effect of Enteral Tube Feeding on Patients’ Health-Related Quality of Life: A Systematic Review. Nutrients. 2019; 11(5), doi: 10.3390/nu11051046, indexed in Pubmed: 31083338.
  44. Zeng J, Hu J, Chen Q, et al. Home enteral nutrition’s effects on nutritional status and quality of life after esophagectomy. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2017; 26(5): 804–810, doi: 10.6133/apjcn.112016.07, indexed in Pubmed: 28802289.
  45. Donohoe CL, Healy LA, Fanning M, et al. Impact of supplemental home enteral feeding postesophagectomy on nutrition, body composition, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Dis Esophagus. 2017; 30(9): 1–9, doi: 10.1093/dote/dox063, indexed in Pubmed: 28859364.
  46. Ruggeri E, Giannantonio M, Agostini F, et al. Home artificial nutrition in palliative care cancer patients: Impact on survival and performance status. Clin Nutr. 2020; 39(11): 3346–3353, doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.02.021, indexed in Pubmed: 32143890.
  47. Hofmeister D, Schulte T, Mehnert-Theuerkauf A, et al. The association between sleep problems and general quality of life in cancer patients and in the general population. Front Psychol. 2022; 13: 960029, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.960029, indexed in Pubmed: 36591026.
  48. Pai A, Sivanandh B, Udupa K. Quality of Sleep in Patients with Cancer: A Cross-sectional Observational Study. Indian J Palliat Care. 2020; 26(1): 9–12, doi: 10.4103/IJPC.IJPC_164_19, indexed in Pubmed: 32132776.
  49. Cox-Martin E, Anderson-Mellies A, Borges V, et al. Chronic pain, health-related quality of life, and employment in working-age cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2020; 14(2): 179–187, doi: 10.1007/s11764-019-00843-0, indexed in Pubmed: 31828603.
  50. Cramer JD, Johnson JT, Nilsen ML. Pain in Head and Neck Cancer Survivors: Prevalence, Predictors, and Quality-of-Life Impact. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018; 159(5): 853–858, doi: 10.1177/0194599818783964, indexed in Pubmed: 29943677.
  51. Greco MT, Roberto A, Corli O, et al. Quality of cancer pain management: an update of a systematic review of undertreatment of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(36): 4149–4154, doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.0383, indexed in Pubmed: 25403222.
  52. Roberto A, Greco MT, Uggeri S, et al. Living systematic review to assess the analgesic undertreatment in cancer patients. Pain Pract. 2022; 22(4): 487–496, doi: 10.1111/papr.13098, indexed in Pubmed: 35014151.
  53. Shen WC, Chen JS, Shao YY, et al. Impact of Undertreatment of Cancer Pain With Analgesic Drugs on Patient Outcomes: A Nationwide Survey of Outpatient Cancer Patient Care in Taiwan. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017; 54(1): 55–65.e1, doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.02.018, indexed in Pubmed: 28479410.
  54. Smith HR. Depression in cancer patients: Pathogenesis, implications and treatment (Review). Oncol Lett. 2015; 9(4): 1509–1514, doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.2944, indexed in Pubmed: 25788991.
  55. Linden W, Vodermaier A, Mackenzie R, et al. Anxiety and depression after cancer diagnosis: prevalence rates by cancer type, gender, and age. J Affect Disord. 2012; 141(2-3): 343–351, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.025, indexed in Pubmed: 22727334.
  56. Ciaramella A, Poli P. Assessment of depression among cancer patients: the role of pain, cancer type and treatment. Psychooncology. 2001; 10(2): 156–165, doi: 10.1002/pon.505, indexed in Pubmed: 11268142.
  57. Kapała A. Nutrition treatment does not improve the efficacy of oncological treatment. Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology. 2018; 67(5): 308–312, doi: 10.5603/njo.2017.0051.