Evaluating Predictive Equations for Energy Requirements throughout Breast Cancer Trajectory: A Comparative Study.

Abstract

Background & AimsAccurately estimating resting energy requirements is crucial for optimizing energy intake, particularly in the context of patients with varying energy needs, such as individuals with cancer. We sought to evaluate the agreement between resting energy expenditure (REE) predicted by 40 equations and that measured by reference methods in women undergoing active breast cancer treatment stage (I-IV) and post-completion (i.e., survivors). MethodsData from 4 studies were combined. REE values estimated from 40 predictive equations identified by a systematic search were compared with REE assessed by indirect calorimetry (IC) using a metabolic cart (MC-REE N=46) or a whole-room indirect calorimeter (WRIC-REE N=44). Agreement between methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman and Lin's concordance coefficient correlation (Lin's CCC). Results90 participants (24 % survivors, 61.1% had early-stage breast cancer I or II, mean age: 56.8 ± 11 years; body mass index: 28.7 ± 6.4 kg/m2) were included in this analysis. Mean MC-REE and WRIC-REE values were 1389 ± 199 kcal/day and 1506 ± 247 kcal/day, respectively. Limits of agreement were wide for all equations compared to both MC and WRIC (∼ 300kcal for both methods), including the most commonly used ones, such as Harris-Benedict and Mifflin ST. Jeor equations; none had a bias within ±10% of measured REE, and all had low agreement per Lin's CCC analysis (< 0.90). The Korth equation exhibited the best performance against WRIC and the Lvingston-Kohlstadt equation against MC. Similar patterns of bias were observed between survivors and patients and between patients with stages I-III versus IV cancer. ConclusionMost equations failed to accurately predict REE at the group level, and none were effective at the individual level. This inaccuracy has significant implications for women with or surviving breast cancer, who may experience weight gain, maintenance, or loss due to inaccurate energy needs estimations. Therefore, our research underscores the need for further efforts to improve REE estimation.