Evidence Hub

Effects of immune-enhancing nutrition on radical cystectomy outcomes: Primary results from the randomized phase III double-blind clinical trial (S1600)

J. Hamilton-Reeves, J. Unger, J. Holzbeierlein, D. Lew, J. Mark, S. Daneshmand, J. Kukreja, Eugene K. Lee et al.

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2024

203 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

4501 Background: SWOG S1600 was a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial comparing the impact of consuming Specialized IMmunonutrition (SIM) to oral nutritional support (ONS) on postoperative complications following radical cystectomy (RC). SIM is fortified with nutrients: L-arginine; omega-3 fatty acids; and dietary nucleotides. Methods: Patients with bladder carcinoma planning to undergo RC were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to SIM vs. ONS. The primary endpoint was any (≥Grade I) postoperative complication assessed by the Clavien-Dindo (CD) scale at Day 30 after RC. Multivariable logistic regression was used, adjusted for the stratification factors: diversion type (neobladder vs. ileal conduit), prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy (any vs. none), and baseline nutrition status (well-nourished vs. moderate malnutrition). Additional outcomes included 90-day complications and high-grade (CD ≥Grade III) complications. Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed; differences by arm were reported using Log-rank test statistics. Protocol-specified intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses based on all randomized patients and 1-sided alpha=.05 tests were performed. Results: Among N=203 enrolled patients (99 on SIM, 104 on ONS), median age was 68.8 years, 20% were female and 5% were Black. Five patients did not meet eligibility criteria (1 on SIM, 4 on ONS) but were included under the ITT design. Seventeen patients withdrew consent prior to their Day 30…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 203 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