All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit Know ALL.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your ALL Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe ALL Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the ALL Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The ALL Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The ALL Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, and Pfizer. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Bookmark this article
Being overweight or obese (OW/OB) has been associated with an increased risk of developing several different malignancies. More specifically, preexisting obesity has been associated with an increased risk of childhood B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). Notably, as many as 40% of adolescents and young adult patients begin B-ALL induction therapy as OW/OB. Patients in this setting are known to have increased chemoresistance and measurable residual disease (MRD) positivity, which can lead to significant clinical ramifications and poor prognosis.
Recently, new scientific research has suggested that the negative effects of OW/OB physiology could be corrected with appropriate interventions. Therefore, Etan Orgel and colleagues hypothesized that inducing a caloric and nutrient restriction through diet and exercise could reduce gains in fat mass (FM), reverse overweight physiology, and improve chemosensitivity by decreasing postinduction MRD. The authors further hypothesized that lean patients could also benefit from this intervention.1
Table 1. Summary of IDEAL intervention*
Education topic |
Approach |
---|---|
Diet and exercise benefits during induction |
Integrated into physician conference and assessment of diet by a dietician and activity by a physiotherapist |
Food selection and portion control |
Individualized menus, Traffic Light, My Plate |
Safe exercise during chemotherapy |
Instruction, demonstration by physiotherapist |
Diet intervention |
Daily intake goal |
Caloric deficit |
≥10% |
Protein |
≥20% of total calories |
Fat |
<25% of total calories |
Carbohydrate |
<55% of total calories |
Low glycemic load |
<100/2,000 kcal |
Progression |
Caloric goal ±5% weekly |
Exercise intervention |
Goal |
Caloric expenditure |
≥10% |
Frequency |
Daily |
Intensity |
Moderate exertion |
Time |
15- to 30-min sessions (200 min/week) |
Type |
Aerobic exercise and resistance training |
Location |
Home-based |
Progression |
As tolerated |
*Adapted from Orgel, et al.1 |
a higher BMI and FM at baseline.
Table 2. Patient characteristics*
Characteristic |
IDEAL trial |
Historical control |
p value† |
---|---|---|---|
Age, years |
|
|
|
Mean ± SD |
15.0 ± 3.0 |
14.7 ± 2.5 |
0.72 |
10.0–14.9, n (%) |
19 (48) |
46 (58) |
0.34 |
≥15, n (%) |
21 (52) |
34 (42) |
|
Sex, n (%) |
|
|
|
Female |
16 (40) |
37 (46) |
0.56 |
Male |
24 (60) |
43 (54) |
|
Ethnicity, n (%) |
|
|
|
Not Hispanic |
8 (20) |
14 (18) |
0.002 |
Hispanic, |
26 (65) |
66 (83) |
|
Not reported |
6 (15) |
0 (0) |
|
White blood cell count, ×103/μL |
|
|
|
Mean ± SD |
56 ± 117 |
50 ± 93 |
0.54 |
<50, n (%) |
31 (70) |
57 (71) |
0.52 |
≥50, n (%) |
9 (23) |
23 (29) |
|
Cytogenetics‡, n (%) |
|
|
|
Neutral |
18 (45) |
61 (76) |
<0.001 |
Favorable |
3 (7) |
10 (13) |
|
Adverse |
19 (48) |
8 (10) |
|
Unknown |
0 (0) |
1 (1) |
|
BMI category, n (%) |
|
|
|
Lean |
14 (35) |
45 (56) |
0.09 |
Overweight |
6 (15) |
9 (11) |
|
Obese |
20 (50) |
26 (33) |
|
BMI percentile, % |
79.5 ± 27.3 |
67.2 ± 32.8 |
0.03 |
Body composition§ |
|
|
|
Fat mass, kg |
25.2 ± 14.1 |
18.4 ± 11.3 |
0.04 |
% fat |
32.7 ± 9.6 |
27.8 ± 9.0 |
0.02 |
Lean mass, kg |
45.3 ± 14.7 |
39.5 ± 12.5 |
0.11 |
% lean |
64.4 ± 9.2 |
68.9 ± 8.5 |
0.02 |
SD, standard deviation. |
Figure 1. Prevalence of EOI MRD positivity stratified by BMI category1
BMI, body mass index; EOI, end of induction; MRD, measurable residual disease; OW/OB, overweight/obese.
*Adapted from Orgel, et al.1
This is the first prospective trial in a hematologic malignancy to demonstrate the feasibility and potential benefit of caloric restriction via diet and exercise on chemotherapy efficacy and disease response. The IDEAL intervention did not significantly reduce fat gain in the overall cohort compared with the historical control, however stratified analysis demonstrated benefit in patients who were OW and OB. After accounting for prognostic factors, the IDEAL intervention reduced the risk of EOI MRD in all patients. The insulin-glucose pathway and adiponectin were identified as potential mediators of chemoresistance and IDEAL efficacy. Limitations include poor adherence to the exercise component of the intervention, as well as the incorporation of a nonrandomized historical control.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to ALL delivered to your inbox