Sensory preferences of supplemented food products among cancer patients: a systematic review
- 195 Downloads
Oral nutritional supplements and fortified foods, here considered supplemented food products (SFP), are recommended as part of nutrition therapy guidelines to treat malnutrition among cancer patients. However, their successful use is limited by patients’ failure to meet recommended intakes. This systematic review aimed to identify sensory preferences for SFP among cancer patients and evaluate the methodologies employed in sensory preference assessment.
A systematic search was conducted in several relevant databases yielding 1056 papers of which 19 met the inclusion criteria. Two authors independently selected papers and extracted findings. The included papers were categorized according to the focus of the preference assessment.
Studies comparing sensory preferences for SFP of cancer patients with those of a control group suggested that the liking for SFP by cancer patients differs from healthy participants. Patient heterogeneity in site and stage of tumor, variation in study methodologies, and type of treatment complicated a conclusion regarding the effects of cancer treatment and taste changes on taste preferences. However, some general results were observed among the studies, such as the preference for fresh milk-based supplements when compared with other supplement types.
This review highlighted the need for consistent reporting and control of variables that influence the sensory characteristics of SFP when sensory preferences are assessed in the clinical setting. Attention to these methodological details will enhance the reliability and accuracy of sensory preference assessment among cancer patients for realistic evaluation of SFP targeted to their nutritional needs.
KeywordsAcceptability Cancer Compliance Fortified foods Oral nutritional supplements Taste change
We acknowledge Lea Ruch and Isabella Carneiro for translating a research paper from French and Portuguese language, respectively.
SC performed the literature search. BEF and SN reviewed all search results and generated the first draft of the manuscript. WW and VM guided formation of and contributed text to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. BEF received a fellowship from the Mexican Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Baldwin C, Weekes CE (2011) Dietary advice with or without oral nutritional supplements for disease-related malnutrition in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev :1465–1858Google Scholar
- 4.Arends J, Bachmann P, Baracos V, Barthelemy N, Bertz H, Bozzetti F, Fearon K, Hütterer E, Isenring E, Kaasa S, Krznaric Z, Laird B, Larsson M, Laviano A, Mühlebach S, Muscaritoli M, Oldervoll L, Ravasco P, Solheim T, Strasser F, de van der Schueren M, Preiser J (2016) ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin Nutr 36:11–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2016.07.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Fearon KCH, Von Meyenfeldt MF, AGW M, van Geenen R, Roy A, Gouma DJ, Giacosa A, van Gossum A, Bauer J, Barber MD, Aaronson NK, Voss AC, Tisdale MJ (2003) Effect of a protein and energy dense N-3 fatty acid enriched oral supplement on loss of weight and lean tissue in cancer cachexia: a randomised double blind trial. Gut 52:1479–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.IFT (1975) Minutes of division of business meetingGoogle Scholar
- 23.Garofolo A, Alves FR, do Carmo Rezende MA (2010) Homemade oral supplements for patients with cancer: descriptive analysis. [Suplementos orais artesanais desenvolvidos para pacientes com cancer: analise descritiva]. Rev Nutr 23:523–533. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-52732010000400003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Trinidade A, Martinelli K, Andreou Z, Kothari P (2012) Soft, fortified ice-cream for head and neck cancer patients: a useful first step in nutritional and swallowing difficulties associated with multi-modal management. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269:1257–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1769-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.ASTM International (2009) Standard terminology relating to sensory evaluations of materials and products, E253-09a. STM International. Available from https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/E253-09A.htm 2018
- 34.Meilgaard MC, Civille GV, Carr BT (2016) Sensory evaluation techniques. CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group), Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- 39.Methven L, Rahelu K, Economou N, Kinneavy L, Ladbrooke-Davis L, Kennedy OB, Mottram DS, Gosney MA (2010) The effect of consumption volume on profile and liking of oral nutritional supplements of varied sweetness: sequential profiling and boredom tests. Food Qual Prefer 21:948–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Brisbois TD, de Kock IH, Watanabe SM, Mirhosseini M, Lamoureux DC, Chasen M, MacDonald N, Baracos VE, Wismer WV (2011) Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol may palliate altered chemosensory perception in cancer patients: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial. Ann Oncol 22:2086–2093. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq727 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.International Organization for Standardization (2017) Standards catalogue. Available from https://www.iso.org/ics/67.240/x/. Accessed 23 Sept 2017
- 47.Stone H, Sidel JL (2004) Sensory evaluation practices. Elsevier Academic Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar