Guidelines on artificial nutrition versus hydration in terminal cancer patients

Whether a terminally ill cancer patient should be actively fed or simply hydrated through subcutaneous or intravenous infusion of isotonic fluids is a matter of ongoing controversy among clinicians involved in the care of these patients. Under the auspices of the European Association for Palliative Care, a committee of experts developed guidelines to help clinicians make a reasonable decision on what type of nutritional support should be provided on a case-by-case basis. It was acknowledged that part of the controversy related to the definition of the terminal cancer patient, since this is a heterogeneous group of patients with different needs, expectations, and potential for a medical intervention. A major difficulty is the prediction of life expectancy and the patient's likely response to vigorous nutritional support. In an attempt to reach a decision on the type of treatment support (artificial nutrition vs. hydration) which would best meet the needs and expectations of the patient, we propose a three-step process: Step I: define the eight key elements necessary to reach a decision: Step II: make the decision; and Step III: reevaluate the patient and the proposed treatment at specified intervals. Step I involves assessing the patient concerning the following: 1) oncological/clinical condition; 2) symptoms; 3) expected length of survival; 4) hydration and nutritional status; 5) spontaneous or voluntary nutrient intake; 6) psychological profile; 7) gut function and potential route of administration; and 8) need for special services based on type of nutritional support prescribed. Step II involves the overall assessment of pros and cons, based on information determined in Step I, in order to reach an appropriate decision based on a well-defined end point (i.e. improvement of quality of life; maintaining patient survival; attaining rehydration). Step III involves the periodic reevaluation of the decision made in Step II based on the proposed goal and the attained result.

Are the reference values of B cell subpopulations used in adults for classification of common variable immunodeficiencies appropriate for children?

Detailed phenotypic characterization of B cell subpopulations is of utmost importance for the diagnosis and management of humoral immunodeficiencies, as they are used for classification of common variable immunodeficiencies. Since age-specific reference values remain scarce in the literature, we analysed by flow cytometry the proportions and absolute values of total, memory, switched memory and CD21(-/low) B cells in blood samples from 168 healthy children (1 day to 18 years) with special attention to the different subpopulations of CD21(low) B cells. The percentages of total memory B cells and their subsets significantly increased up to 5-10 years. In contrast, the percentages of immature CD21(-) B cells and of immature transitional CD21(low)CD38(hi) B cells decreased progressively with age, whereas the percentage of CD21(low) CD38(low) B cells remained stable during childhood. Our data stress the importance of age-specific reference values for the correct interpretation of B cell subsets in children as a diagnostic tool in immunodeficiencies.