Key result
The VIE intervention resulted in lower total caloric intake (1759 vs. 1997 kcal, p=0.042) and higher calcium intake compared to standard care, but did not significantly impact cardiometabolic health.
Why the study?
Pediatric cancer survivors face a heightened risk of cardiometabolic complications compared with peers, but the preliminary impact of multidisciplinary lifestyle interventions during cancer treatment was unclear.
Does a multidisciplinary nutritional, physical, and psychological intervention improve dietary intake and cardiometabolic health in pediatric cancer patients?
Observational (n=122)
Does a multidisciplinary nutritional, physical, and psychological intervention improve dietary intake and cardiometabolic health in pediatric cancer patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 1759% vs 1997%
p-value: p=0.042
A multidisciplinary nutritional intervention during pediatric cancer treatment improved specific dietary intakes post-treatment but did not significantly alter cardiometabolic health outcomes.
Improved dietary intake without cardiometabolic changes in this cohort; leaves open efficacy in randomized trials.
Background/Objectives: Pediatric cancer survivors are at greater risk of cardiometabolic complications than their peers. This study evaluates the preliminary impact of the VIE (Valorization, Implication, Education) intervention, which integrates nutrition, physical activity, and psychological support, on dietary intake and cardiometabolic health among children and adolescents during cancer treatment. Methods: This comparative study includes pediatric cancer patients recruited to either the VIE intervention group or a control group receiving standard care. Post-treatment data on dietary intake, anthropometric measures, blood pressure, and biochemical parameters were compared between groups and stratified by level of involvement in the nutritional intervention and age at diagnosis (children and adolescents). Results: In the intervention group, 45 participants were included (51.1% male, mean age at evaluation 10.2 ± 4.5 years, mean time since end of treatment of 1.3 ± 0.8 years), and the control group comprised 77 participants (44.2% male, mean age at evaluation 12.0 ± 5.6 years, mean time since end of treatment of 1.4 ± 0.8 years). The intervention group had lower total caloric intake (mean: 1759 ± 513 vs. 1997 ± 669 kcal, p = 0.042) and higher calcium intake (mean: 567 ± 240 vs. 432 ± 197 mg/1000 kcal, p = 0.001). The participants who were highly involved in the nutritional intervention had greater protein-derived energy intake than the controls (mean: 17 ± 5 vs. 15 ± 4%, p = 0.029). While there was a tendency for a lesser proportion of cardiometabolic risk factors in the adolescents from the intervention group, the differences did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: The VIE intervention improved some specific dietary intakes in the medium term after treatment completion but did not significantly impact cardiometabolic health outcomes. Additional strategies are needed to improve the diet of pediatric cancer patients, and further research is warranted to assess the long-term impact of such interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Delorme et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Pediatric cancer (n=122). VIE (Valorization, Implication, Education) intervention vs. Standard care was evaluated on Total caloric intake (kcal) (p=0.042). The VIE intervention resulted in lower total caloric intake (1759 vs. 1997 kcal, p=0.042) and higher calcium intake compared to standard care, but did not significantly impact cardiometabolic health.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: