Evidence Hub

Immunonutrition Decreases Postoperative Complications in Gastrointestinal Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Budai BC, Panait R, Laczkó B, Cai G, Váncsa S, Veres DS, Fazekas KK, Szalai EÁ et al.

Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2026

7,462 participants

Abstract

Current evidence supports the role of immunonutrition support (IMNS) to improve surgical outcomes in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, but the optimal formula and prescription timing remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IMNS on postoperative outcomes in patients with GI cancer. The systematic search was conducted in 3 databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) in March 2024. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42024524537. Studies were selected based on the PICOS framework. Population: patients with GI cancer; Intervention: IMNS; Comparator: isonitrogenous and isocaloric supplementation, or standard care; Outcome: mortality, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications; study design: randomized controlled trial (RCT). Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 90 RCTs were included in the systematic review, with 55 eligible for meta-analysis. Data from 7462 patients were analyzed. IMNS formula based on arginine, nucleotides, and omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids, administered perioperatively, orally or enterally, significantly reduced the odds of anastomotic leak (OR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.76), infectious complications [e.g., respiratory (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.64), urinary (OR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.89), wound (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.98), and sepsis (OR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.28,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,462 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free