Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin

Background Prior systematic reviews addressing the impact of diet on cancer outcomes have focused on specific dietary interventions. In this systematic review, we assessed all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating dietary interventions for cancer patients, examining the range of interventions, endpoints, patient populations, and results. Methods This systematic review identified all RCTs conducted before January 2023 testing dietary interventions in patients with cancer. Assessed outcomes included quality of life, functional outcomes, clinical cancer measurements (eg, progression-free survival, response rates), overall survival, and translational endpoints (eg, inflammatory markers). Results In total, 252 RCTs were identified involving 31 067 patients. The median sample size was 71 (interquartile range 41 to 118), and 80 (32%) studies had a sample size greater than 100. Most trials (n = 184, 73%) were conducted in the adjuvant setting. Weight or body composition and translational endpoints were the most common primary endpoints (n = 64, 25%; n = 52, 21%, respectively). Direct cancer measurements and overall survival were primary endpoints in 20 (8%) and 7 (3%) studies, respectively. Eight trials with a primary endpoint of cancer measurement (40%) met their endpoint. Large trials in colon (n = 1429), breast (n = 3088), and prostate cancer (n = 478) each showed no effect of dietary interventions on endpoints measuring cancer. Conclusion Most RCTs of dietary interventions in cancer are small and measure nonclinical endpoints. Although only a small number of large RCTs have been conducted to date, these trials have not shown an improvement in cancer outcomes. Currently, there is limited evidence to support dietary interventions as a therapeutic tool in cancer care.

Treatment at academic cancer centers (ACs) is associated with improved survival across hematologic malignancies, though the benefit in multiple myeloma (MM) has not been examined. This study aims to evaluate survival outcomes at Commission on Cancer accredited ACs compared to non‐academic centers (NACs) for patients receiving MM‐directed therapy. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify demographics and overall survival (OS) of MM patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2017 and to compare outcomes by facility type. Survival analysis was repeated in a propensity score matched cohort, with NACs matched 1:1 to ACs by age, race, comorbidity score, insurance, year of diagnosis, distance traveled, and income. Of 163 375 MM patients, 44.5% were treated at ACs. Patients at ACs were more likely to receive MM‐directed therapy compared to NACs (81% vs. 73%, p < .001). For patients receiving treatment, median OS at ACs was 71.3 months versus 41.2 months at NACs ( p < .001). When adjusted for baseline demographics, patients treated at ACs had reduced mortality; hazard ratio (HR) 0.79 (95% CI 0.78–0.81, p < .001). The propensity score matched cohort maintained this survival benefit with a median OS of 59.9 months at ACs versus 37.0 months at NACs ( p < .001), HR of 0.66 (95% CI 0.64–0.67, p < .001). ACs treated younger patients with fewer comorbidities and were more likely to treat racial minorities and patients with Medicaid or private insurance, and the uninsured. In this analysis, MM patients treated at ACs have significantly improved survival. While potentially related to access to specialized care, socioeconomic factors that drive facility selection may also contribute.