jct Journal of Cancer Therapy 2151-1934 2151-1942 Scientific Research Publishing 10.4236/jct.2025.169025 jct-145785 Articles Medicine Healthcare Effect of the Oncology Pack Supplement on Preoperative Nutritional Status and Recovery in Patients with Operable Gastrointestinal Cancer: Prospective Case Series Alberto Suárez Cuevas 1 Ivanis Ruizcalderon Cabrera 1 Olga N. Rodríguez Marrero 2 Marta Lugioyo Lugo 2 Mircea Betancourt Cabeza 2 Rosa M. Ortiz Reyes 2 Ramón de J. Ropero Toirac 2 David Márquez Soriano 3 aOncological Surgery Department, Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology (INOR), Havana, Cuba aClinical Research Department, Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology (INOR), Havana, Cuba aScientific Department, CATALYSIS S.L., Madrid, Spain 04 09 2025 16 09 323 344 28, July 2025 19, July 2025 19, September 2025 © Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 2014 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Introduction : Malnutrition is a common condition in cancer patients, especially those with tumours located in the digestive tract, and it is associated with increased postoperative morbidity. Nutritional intervention in the perioperative period may improve the surgical prognosis. Oncology Pack (CATALYSIS S.L., Spain) is a product that combines immunonutrients and probiotics, with the potential to optimise nutritional status in this context. Objective : To evaluate the effect of perioperative administration of the Oncology Pack supplement on nutritional status in patients with operable gastrointestinal cancer. Materials and Methods : An observational, prospective study was conducted in 37 patients with gastrointestinal cancer and a surgical indication. The Oncology Pack was administered for 15 days prior to and for 15 days after surgery. Nutritional status was assessed using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) prior to administration and on postoperative day 15. Changes in overall scores and individual components were analysed. Results : 89.2% of patients were at high nutritional risk at baseline. After treatment, a significant reduction in the proportion of patients at high risk was observed (from 89.2% to 40.5%; p = 0.019), with improvement in the weight, food intake, and symptom components of the PG-SGA (p < 0.01), suggesting a reduction in the frequency and/or severity of symptoms such as nausea, anorexia, dysgeusia, and fatigue, among others. There were no adverse events reported during the study period. Conclusion : The perioperative use of Oncology Pack was associated with a significant improvement in nutritional status in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. These findings support its potential as an immunonutritional support strategy in enhanced recovery protocols. Controlled clinical trials are required to confirm these results and assess the product’s impact on the incidence of complications associated with oncological surgery. Gastrointestinal Cancer Immunonutrition Perioperative Period Nutritional Status Postoperative Complications 1. Introduction

Malnutrition is a common clinical condition in cancer patients, especially those with digestive tract tumours, due to tumour localisation, disease progression, and adverse effects related to cancer-specific treatments [1] - [4] . This condition is associated with increased postoperative morbidity, an increased risk of infectious complications, delayed healing, and decreased quality of life [5] - [9] .

The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) clinical guidelines recommend systematic assessment of nutritional status in all cancer patients, especially before major surgery [10] - [12] . In patients with nutritional risk or malnutrition, a structured nutritional intervention should be implemented in the context of multimodal prehabilitation programmes that include nutritional support, physical exercise, and psychological support. These recommendations are aligned with the principles of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol, which aims to optimise postoperative outcomes by reducing complications, preserving physiological function, and reducing the duration of hospital stay in patients undergoing cancer surgery [13] [14] .

A cancer patient’s nutritional status may deteriorate significantly before surgery due to adverse effects related to cancer-specific treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy. These therapies can cause anorexia, nausea, vomiting, mucositis, dysgeusia, diarrhoea, fatigue, and metabolic disturbances that compromise nutrient intake and absorption [15] - [18] . In addition, systemic inflammation caused by both the tumour itself and the associated treatment may contribute to loss of muscle mass and the development of cancer cachexia, a condition that adversely affects tolerance to treatment and postoperative recovery [19] - [23] .

Validated instruments such as the PG-SGA are used to assess nutritional status in cancer patients. This tool, developed specifically for the oncology population, enables comprehensive assessment of nutritional status through components such as weight loss, daily food intake, symptoms associated with changes in nutrition, physical examination, and the patient’s functional status [24] - [28] . In addition, it includes a triage system that guides the need for and urgency of nutritional intervention. Various studies have demonstrated the ability of this instrument to predict clinical outcomes such as duration of hospital stay, response to treatment, and survival [29] - [31] . Therefore, both the ESPEN guidelines and other scientific societies recommend its systematic use in patients with malignant tumours, especially during cancer-specific treatments.

The Oncology Pack (CATALYSIS S.L., Spain) is an immunonutritional support product composed of four products: Ocoxin® oral solution [32] - [39] , Ocoxin® capsules [32] , Viusid® oral solution [39] - [44] , and Viusid Biotic®. These products have been combined to meet specific nutritional requirements in situations of high metabolic demand, such as in the perioperative period in cancer patients. Its combination of amino acids, vitamins, minerals, plant extracts, and probiotics aims to modulate the immune response, preserve mucosal integrity, and promote functional recovery. L-arginine and L-glycine are involved in protein synthesis, tissue healing, and immune activation [45] - [48] , while glutamine acts as an energy substrate for enterocytes and lymphocytes [49] - [51] , helping to preserve the integrity of the intestinal barrier [52] - [54] . Malic acid and the B vitamins (B5, B6, B9, and B12) are involved in metabolic pathways essential for energy production, nucleic acid synthesis, and haematopoiesis [55] - [58] , which are critical for preventing anaemia [56] [59] and maintaining neurological function [60] [61] . Minerals such as zinc and manganese act as enzyme cofactors in tissue regeneration, antioxidant defence, and immune signalling processes [62] - [67] . Meanwhile, green tea extracts (rich in epigallocatechin-3-gallate), liquorice, and cinnamon contribute bioactive compounds with anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties [68] - [71] , with potential effects on the regulation of cell proliferation [72] - [75] and cytokine modulation [70] [71] [76] . Finally, the mixture of 20 probiotic strains together with fructooligosaccharides included in Viusid Biotic® promotes restoration of gut microbiota [77] - [79] , improves barrier function [50] [54] [80] , and contributes to the control of systemic inflammation [81] - [83] —key aspects in post-surgical recovery [84] [85] . These products combine plant extracts, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and probiotics with immunomodulatory, hepatoprotective, and intestinal balance-regulating properties.

Clinical evidence accumulated in observational studies and controlled trials suggests that the combined use of these products may contribute to improving nutritional status, reducing gastrointestinal symptoms, and promoting quality of life in patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery. That is why, in this context, the present study evaluates the effect of the Oncology Pack protocol administered perioperatively on nutritional status, for which the PG-SGA instrument was used as an assessment tool.

 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Design

An observational, prospective, longitudinal, case series study was conducted to evaluate the effect of an oral immunonutritional supplement on the nutritional status of patients with operable digestive tract cancer. The study was conducted in the Oncological Surgery Department of the Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology (IOR) in Havana, Cuba, between October 2023 and December 2024. The sample size was determined by the number of eligible patients recruited during the study period.

 2.2. Population and Inclusion Criteria

Adult patients with a confirmed histopathological diagnosis of malignant tumours located in the oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, liver, gallbladder, or duodenum, with surgical indication, either with curative or palliative intent, based on multidisciplinary evaluation and performance status between 0 and 3 according to the ECOG scale, were included [86] . The exclusion criteria were: contraindication for surgery, known allergy to any of the components of the supplement, or non-compliance with the supplement protocol.

 2.3. Nutritional Intervention

Each patient was given the Oncology Pack oral supplement for four weeks in the perioperative period: 15 days before surgery and 15 days after surgery. This supplement is composed of:

Ocoxin oral solution [per 30 mL, contains: glucosamine sulphate potassium chloride (600 mg), L-glycine (600 mg), malic acid (360 mg), L-arginine (192 mg), L-cysteine (61.2 mg), liquorice extract (Glycyrrhiza glabra L.) (60 mg), vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) (36 mg), sodium benzoate (30 mg), potassium sorbate (30 mg), zinc sulphate (24 mg), passion fruit flavour (15 mg), green tea extract (Camellia sinensis L.) (7.5 mg), sucralose (7.2 mg), pantothenic acid (calcium D-pantothenate) (3.6 mg), manganese sulphate (1.2 mg), vitamin B6 (pyridoxine hydrochloride) (1.2 mg), cinnamon extract (Cinnamomum verum J. Presl) (0.9 mg), folic acid (pteroylmonoglutamic acid) (120 µg), and vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) (0.6 µg)].

Ocoxin capsules [each capsule contains: maltodextrin (272.7 mg), L-arginine (72 mg), L-cysteine (61.2 mg), microcrystalline cellulose (42 mg), talc (21 mg), vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) (20 mg), zinc sulphate (12 mg), green tea extract (Camellia sinensis L.) (7.5 mg), manganese sulphate (3 mg), cinnamon extract (Cinnamomum verum J. Presl) (0.9 mg), and vitamin B6 (pyridoxine hydrochloride) (0.66 mg)].

Viusid oral solution [per 30 mL, contains: glucosamine sulphate potassium chloride (600 mg), L-arginine (600 mg), malic acid (600 mg), L-glycine (300 mg), liquorice extract (Glycyrrhiza glabra L.) (30 mg), sodium benzoate (30 mg), potassium sorbate (30 mg), vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) (18 mg), lemon flavour (15 mg), sucralose (7.2 mg), zinc sulphate (4.5 mg), pantothenic acid (calcium D-pantothenate) (1.8 mg), vitamin B6 (pyridoxine hydrochloride) (0.6 mg), folic acid (pteroylmonoglutamic acid) (60 µg), and vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) (0.3 µg)].

Viusid Biotic [each 4 g sachet contains: fructooligosaccharides (1201.56 mg), maltodextrin (1200 mg), L-glutamine (985 mg), malic acid (666 mg), L-arginine (656.02 mg), glucosamine sulphate potassium chloride (652.68 mg), orange flavour (648.34 mg), citric acid (400 mg), L-glycine (328 mg), alfalfa extract (Medicago sativa L.) (40 mg), liquorice extract (Glycyrrhiza glabra L.) (32.34 mg), vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) (19.8 mg), aspartame (16 mg), zinc sulphate (5 mg), honey (4 mg), sodium benzoate (4 mg), potassium sorbate (4 mg), pantothenic acid (calcium D-pantothenate) (1.8 mg), vitamin B6 (pyridoxine hydrochloride) (0.48 mg), folic acid (pteroylmonutamic acid) (64 µg), vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) (0.292 µg), and a probiotic bacteria mixture (1000 mg) with a potency of 1.25 million CFU/g per strain].

The daily administration schedule was as follows:

The administration schedule was monitored and supervised by the clinical team, and possible adverse reactions related to the supplement were recorded. Adverse events monitored included gastrointestinal symptoms, allergic reactions, and any other unexpected clinical manifestations. All patients completed the full 30-day protocol. No other nutritional counselling, enteral feeding, or dietitian input was provided during the study period.

 2.4. Nutritional Assessment

Assessment of nutritional status was carried out using the PG-SGA tool, validated in its Spanish version [87] . This tool was used at two time points: at the beginning of the protocol (before the supplement was administered) and at the end of the four-week intervention period. The PG-SGA (Supplementary Material are available in Appendix) was used, with risk categories defined as low (0 - 3), moderate (4 - 8), and high (≥9). Weight, height, and body mass index (BMI) were recorded at both time points. In addition, nutritional risk, overall nutritional status, and the type of nutritional intervention recommended according to the PG-SGA triage were classified.

 2.5. Ethical Aspects

All participants signed an informed consent form prior to their enrollment in the study. The research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee and the Scientific Council of the Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology, in agreement number 54, established in Havana on 19 July 2023. The study was conducted in accordance with the national good clinical practice guidelines for observational studies.

 2.6. Statistical Analysis

The data were analysed using SPSS software, version 22. Student’s t-test was used for related samples to compare quantitative variables with normal distribution. For non-parametric variables, the Wilcoxon and McNemar tests were used. Differences between ratios were analysed using the chi-squared test (χ2). A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

 3. Results 3.1. Demographic Results <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.145785-"></xref>Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients enrolled in the study. Distribution by age, gender, tumour localization, neoadjuvant treatments, performance status, and clinical stage.

Variable

N

%

Age (median, 95% CI; years)

67

(63 - 71)

Minimum (years)

31

Maximum (years)

81

Sex

Female

12

32.4%

Male

25

67.6%

Tumour localisation

Pancreas

9

24.3%

Colon

8

21.6%

Oesophagus

6

16.2%

Stomach

5

13.5%

Rectum

4

10.8%

Duodenum

3

8.2%

Liver

1

2.7%

Gallbladder

1

2.7%

Neoadjuvant treatment

Chemotherapy

12

32.4%

Radiation therapy

4

10.8%

Performance status (ECOG)

0

5

13.5%

1

12

32.4%

2

13

35.1%

3

7

18.9%

Clinical Stage

I

7

18.9%

II

11

29.7%

III

11

29.7%

IV

8

21.6%

Notes: 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; N: absolute number of patients; %: percentage of the total sample (n = 37).

37 patients with a confirmed histopathological diagnosis of digestive tract cancer, with surgical indication, were included in the study. The median age was 67 years (95% CI: 63 - 71), with a predominance of male patients (67.6%). The general characteristics are shown in Table 1 .

The Oncology Pack supplement was administered for two weeks prior to surgery and two weeks post-surgery. No adverse effects or treatment discontinuations were reported.

 3.2. Nutritional Status and Clinical Course

Nutritional assessment using the short form of the PG-SGA showed a significant improvement in the distribution of nutritional risk after treatment (see Table 2 ). At baseline, there were no patients with low nutritional risk. After treatment, 21.6% of patients were classified in this category, representing a significant improvement in the overall nutritional status of the cohort.

Patient distribution by nutritional risk level changed significantly (p = 0.019), with a notable reduction in the high-risk group (from 89.2% to 40.5%), and an increase in the low- and medium-risk groups after the use of Oncology Pack.

<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.145785-"></xref>Table 2. Nutritional risk classification before and after use of Oncology Pack. Distribution of patients according to the level of nutritional risk (low, medium, high) at both assessment time-points.

Nutritional Risk Level

Before Oncology Pack

After Oncology Pack

p

No. of patients (%)

No. of patients (%)

Low

0 (0.0%)

8 (21.6%)

0.019

Moderate

4 (10.8%)

14 (37.8%)

High

33 (89.2%)

15 (40.5%)

Note: A chi-squared test was performed to assess the association between nutritional risk before and after treatment. The p-value obtained was p = 0.019, indicating a statistically significant difference.

Likewise, statistically significant improvements were observed in the individual components of the PG-SGA (see Table 3 ). After use of Oncology Pack, the median weight increased from 60.0 kg (95% CI: 58.0 - 62.0) to 62.0 kg (95% CI: 60.0 - 64.0), with a significant difference (p = 0.0001). The PG-SGA food intake score decreased from a median of 2 (95% CI: 1 - 3) to 1 (95% CI: 0 - 2), also with significance (p = 0.002). For the symptom component, the score was reduced from 3 (95% CI: 2 - 4) to 1 (95% CI: 0 - 2), with p = 0.0001. No significant differences were found in the functionality component, which remained stable after the use of Oncology Pack, at a value of 1 (p = 0.134).

The overall classification of nutritional status also showed improvement (see Figure 1 ). A notable increase is observed in the percentage of patients classified as well nourished (Category A: 0% → 67.5%) and a significant reduction in cases of moderate malnutrition (Category B: 43.2% → 32.4%) and severe malnutrition (Category C: 56.8% → 0%) after treatment. These results suggest a substantial improvement in preoperative nutritional status attributable to the immunonutritional support administered.

<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.145785-"></xref>Table 3. Differences in PG-SGA (short form) component scores before and after treatment. Medians and confidence intervals for weight, food intake, symptoms, and functionality.

Component

Before

After

p

Median

95% CI

Median

95% CI

Weight

60.0 kg

58.0 - 62.0 kg

62.0 kg

60.0 - 64.0 kg

0.0001

Food Intake

2

1 - 3

1

0 - 2

0.002

Symptoms

3

2 - 4

1

0 - 2

0.0001

Functionality

1

0 - 2

1

0 - 2

0.134

Note: The weight component assesses recent body weight loss; food intake assesses the amount and type of food consumed in the last few days; the symptom component reflects any problems that interfere with eating (such as nausea, anorexia, or dysgeusia); and functionality reflects the patient’s level of physical activity. In all cases, a higher score indicates worse nutritional status. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. The Wilcoxon test was used for related samples.

<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.145785-"></xref>Figure 1. Percentage distribution of patients according to nutritional status assessed by PG-SGA before (blue) and after (orange) treatment with the perioperative immunonutritional protocol (Oncology Pack). 3.3. Nutritional Triage

Triage for nutritional intervention showed significant improvement (see Figure 2 ): before treatment, 100% of patients required dietary or critical intervention. After supplement use, 8.1% did not require intervention, 70.3% were classified as needing dietary education, and 21.6% required dietary intervention (p = 0.0173).

<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.145785-"></xref>Figure 2. Distribution of nutritional triage before (blue) and after (orange) use of Oncology Pack. Grouped bar chart with the four nutritional triage categories: 0 (no nutritional interventionrequired), 1 (patient or caregiver nutrition education recommended), 2 (dietitian intervention required with patient and/or caregiver), and 3 (immediate critical and symptomatic nutritional intervention required). 3.4. Association with BMI

No significant association was found between changes in BMI and nutritional risk (p = 0.480) or with the PG-SGA category (p = 0.113). However, a significant association was observed between changes in BMI and nutritional triage (p = 0.001), as shown in Table 4 .

<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.145785-"></xref>Table 4. Frequency distribution of PG-SGA components and changes in BMI.

PG-SGA Component

Changes in BMI

Lower

Unchanged

Higher

Total

p

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Nutritional Risk

Low

0

(0.0)

2

(25.0)

6

(75.0)

8

(21.6)

0.480

Moderate

3

(21.4)

3

(21.4)

8

(57.2)

14

(37.8)

High

3

(20.0)

1

(6.7)

11

(73.3)

15

(40.5)

PG-SGA

Classification

Well nourished

0

(0.0)

1

(9.1)

10

(90.9)

11

(29.7)

0.113

Moderate malnutrition

4

(22.2)

5

(27.8)

9

(50.0)

18

(48.7)

Severe malnutrition

2

(25.0)

0

(0.0)

6

(75.0)

8

(21.6)

Nutritional recommendation triage

No intervention

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

(100.0)

3

(8.1)

0.001

Dietary education

1

(3.8)

4

(15.4)

21

(80.8)

26

(70.3)

Dietary intervention

5

(62.5)

2

(25.0)

1

(12.5)

8

(21.6)

Total

6

(16.2)

24

(64.9)

7

(18.9)

37

(100.0)

Notes: BMI: body mass index; N (%): number of patients and percentage within each category; p: statistical significance value (chi-squared test); PG-SGA: Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment.

 3.5. Post-Operative Course

In terms of clinical course, the most frequent surgery was pancreatectomy (16.2%). Median hospital stay was 5 days (95% CI: 4 - 6). Only one patient had postoperative complications (surgical wound dehiscence). The use of antimicrobials was 40.5% as prophylaxis and 59.5% in the postoperative period (see Table 5 ).

<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.145785-"></xref>Table 5. Type of surgery performed and postoperative clinical course. Frequency of surgical procedures and postoperative events.

Type of Surgery

N

(%)

Resection with curative intent

Pancreatectomy

6

(16.2)

Hemicolectomy

4

(10.8)

Oesophagectomy

3

(8.1)

Dixon

3

(8.1)

Gastrectomy

3

(8.1)

LAR + metastasectomy

1

(2.4)

Hepatectomy

1

(2.7)

Colostomy closure

1

(2.4)

Palliative Intent

Biliodigestive Shunt

6

(16.2)

Laparotomy + jejunostomy

4

(10.8)

Shunt + metastasectomy

2

(5.4)

Colostomy + biliodigestive shunt

2

(5.4)

Gastrostomy

1

(2.4)

Post-operative course

Hospital stay (median, 95% CI)

5 days (4 - 6)

Complications (wound dehiscence)

1

Prophylactic antimicrobials

15

Postoperative antimicrobials

22

Notes: LAR (lower anterior resection); 95% CI: 95% confidence interval for median hospital stay; N: absolute number of procedures or events; Complications: only one case was reported (surgical wound dehiscence).

 4. Discussion

This prospective case series provides preliminary evidence on the beneficial effect of the Oncology Pack supplement on the nutritional status of patients with operable gastrointestinal cancer, as assessed by the PG-SGA tool. The high prevalence of elevated nutritional risk at baseline (89.2%) coincides with that reported in the literature for cancer patients with digestive tract tumours, where tumour localisation, disease progression, and cancer-specific treatments contribute to malnutrition [1] - [9] . After treatment, a significant reduction in high nutritional risk was observed (from 33 to 15 patients), with a proportional increase in the medium and low risk categories (from 4 to 14 and from 0 to 8 patients, respectively), suggesting a clinically relevant impact of the supplement on the nutritional status of the patients in the study.

The individual components of the PG-SGA also showed significant improvements, particularly in weight (median increase from 60.0 kg to 62.0 kg), food intake [from 2 points (only a few solid foods) to 1 point (less than usual amount of food)], and associated symptomatology [from 3 points (severe symptoms such as vomiting or diarrhoea) to 1 point (mild symptoms such as nausea or dry mouth)], reinforcing the hypothesis that the supplement contributes to improving food and digestive tolerance, as well as nutrient availability in a context of high metabolic demand [88] - [90] . The absence of significant changes in the functionality component could be explained by the short duration of postoperative follow-up and the lack of structured physical intervention such as motor rehabilitation, an aspect that has been indicated in the ESPEN guidelines and in the ERAS protocols as an essential part of multimodal prehabilitation.

It is important to consider that 32.4% of patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 21.6% were classified as stage IV. These factors are known to negatively affect nutritional status due to treatment-related symptoms and advanced disease burden. Despite this, significant improvements were observed in PG-SGA scores, suggesting that the Oncology Pack may have helped mitigate these negative effects. However, tumour stage and prior therapies may act as confounding variables, and future studies should consider stratified analyses to better isolate the impact of the intervention.

The improvement in the overall classification of nutritional status, with an increase in well-nourished patients (from 4 to 11) and a reduction in severely malnourished cases (from 15 to 8), reinforces the usefulness of the Oncology Pack supplement in preventing the risk of associated complications in cancer patients with surgical indication. Likewise, nutritional triage showed a favourable redistribution of patients, with a reduction in patients requiring critical intervention and an increase in those who only needed dietary education or no intervention, which could have implications for the optimisation of care resources and minimisation of the risk of complications.

Although no significant association was observed between changes in BMI and PG-SGA classification, a correlation was identified between the change in BMI and nutritional triage, suggesting that the supplement could indirectly influence anthropometric parameters through the improvement of symptomatology and food intake. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have pointed to the limitations of BMI as the sole marker of nutritional status in cancer patients, especially in the presence of sarcopenia or redistribution of body mass [91] .

Clinically, the treatment was well tolerated, with no reports of adverse events or treatment discontinuations, and it was associated with a favourable postoperative course, with a median hospital stay of five days and a low incidence of surgical complications. These results are consistent with the evidence supporting the perioperative use of immunonutrients to reduce infectious complications, improve healing, and shorten hospital recovery time.

The limitations of this study included the observational design, the absence of a control group, the reduced sample size, and the lack of biochemical or immunological biomarkers, which would enable the exploration of underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. The absence of a control group may introduce placebo or Hawthorne effects, limiting causal inference. However, the results obtained justify conducting controlled clinical trials to confirm these findings, establish comparisons with other nutritional strategies, and assess their impact on clinical outcomes such as postoperative complications, quality of life, and survival.

 5. Conclusion

In this prospective case series, perioperative administration of the immunonutritional supplement Oncology Pack was associated with a significant improvement in nutritional status in patients with operable gastrointestinal cancer, evidenced by reduction of high nutritional risk, improvement in the individual components of the PG-SGA (weight, food intake, and symptoms), and favourable shifts in the overall classification of nutritional status and nutritional triage. The treatment was well tolerated by the patients, with no reported adverse events, and was accompanied by a favourable postoperative course, with a low incidence of complications and a median hospital stay of five days. These findings support the use of Oncology Pack as a safe and potentially effective immunonutritional support strategy in the context of enhanced recovery programmes in gastrointestinal cancer surgery, warranting controlled studies with a larger number of patients to confirm its clinical impact on postoperative outcomes, quality of life, and survival.

 Author Contributions

A.S.C. (Dr. Alberto Suárez Cuevas) and I.R.C.C. (Dr. Ivanis Ruíz Calderón Cabrera) contributed to the study design, patient recruitment, and performed the surgical procedures. O.N.R.M. (Dr. Olga N. Rodríguez Marrero), R.M.O.R. (Dr. Rosa M. Ortiz Reyes), and R.J.R.T. (MSc. Ramón de J. Ropero Toirac) participated in the study design, data interpretation, manuscript preparation, and performed the statistical analysis. M.L.L. (MSc. Marta Lugioyo Lugo) and M.B.C. (MSc. Mircea Betancourt Cabeza) were responsible for patient data collection, product administration, and clinical follow-up as part of the nursing team. D.M.S. (MSc. David Márquez Soriano) contributed to the literature review, scientific contextualization of the nutritional intervention, and editorial support of the manuscript.

 Study Funding

This study did not receive external funding. The nutritional supplements included in the Oncology Pack protocol were provided free of charge by Catalysis S.L. for use in the clinical setting at INOR (Havana, Cuba).

 Appendix

GLOBAL SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT GENERATED BY THE PATIENT – SHORT FORM

Identification ID: ____________________ Date: /__/__//__/__//__/__/__/__/

1. WEIGHT

Considerations about my current weight and its evolution over the past weeks:

My current weight is approximately:

My height is approximately:

One month ago, I weighed approximately:

Six months ago, I weighed approximately:

Over the last two weeks, my weight has:

Decreased

☐

Not changed

☐

Increased

☐

2. DIET

Compared to my usual state, I would rate my diet over the past month as:

No changes

☐

Better than usual

☐

Worse than usual

☐

Currently, I eat:

Normal foods but in smaller quantities than usual

☐

Few solid foods

☐

Only liquids

☐

Only nutritional supplements

☐

Very little

☐

Only tube or intravenous feeding

☐

3. SYMPTOMS

I have had the following problems that prevented me from eating enough over the past two weeks (check all that apply):

No problems with eating

☐

Loss of appetite

☐

Nausea

☐

Vomiting

☐

Constipation

☐

Mouth sores

☐

Diarrhea

☐

Dry mouth

☐

Food tastes strange or tasteless

☐

Difficulty swallowing

☐

Dislike of smells

☐

Feeling full quickly

☐

Pain (where?)

Other (e.g., depression, dental, financial issues)

4. FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY

Over the past month, I would rate my general activity level as:

Normal, no limitations

☐

Not completely normal, but able to stay active and perform fairly normal activities

☐

No desire to do most things, but spend LESS than half the day in bed or seated

☐

Able to do small activities, but spend MOST of the day in bed or seated

☐

Bedridden, rarely out of bed

☐

GLOBAL SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT GENERATED BY THE PHYSICIAN

Diseases

Select the disease (s) the patient presents:

☐ Cancer

☐ HIV/AIDS

☐ Pulmonary or cardiac cachexia

☐ chronic kidney disease

☐ Pressure ulcers, open wounds or fistulas

☐ Presence of trauma

☐ Age over 65 years

☐ Other relevant conditions (specify):

______________________________________________

Stage

Oncological treatment

Other treatments

Weight change:

Weight loss in 1 month (%): __________

Weight loss in 6 months (%): __________

Physical examination:

Loss of adipose tissue:

☐ Yes. Grade: __________ (Orbital fat pads, triceps skinfold, waist fat deposits)☐ No

Loss of muscle mass:

☐ Yes. Grade: __________

☐ No

Muscle Groups

Category

Temporal muscles:

Clavicles (pectorals and deltoids):

Shoulders (deltoids)

Interosseous muscles

Scapula (latissimus dorsi, trapezius, deltoids)

Quadriceps

Gastrocnemius

Edema and/or ascites: ☐ Yes. Grade: __________ ☐ No

Pressure Ulcers: ☐ Yes ☐ No

Fever: ☐ Yes ☐ No

Edema

Category

Ankle

Sacrum

Ascites

Albumin before oncological treatment: ______ g/dl

Prealbumin after oncological treatment: ______ mg/dl

Metabolic Demand

Stress Level

None

Mild (1)

Moderate (2)

High (3)

Fever

No fever

37˚C < 38˚C

38˚C < 39˚C

≥39˚C

Duration of Fever

No fever

<72 hours

72 hours

>72 hours

Steroids

None

Low dose (<10 mg/day Prednisone or equivalent)

Moderate dose (10 - 30 mg/day)

High dose (≥30 mg/day)

☐ No metabolic stress

☐ Mild metabolic stress

☐ Moderate metabolic stress

☐ High metabolic stress

 References Antasouras, G., Papadopoulou, S.K., Tolia, M., Pandi, A., Spanoudaki, M., Tsoukalas, N., et al. (2023) May Nutritional Status Positively Affect Disease Progression and Prognosis in Patients with Esophageal and Pharyngeal Cancers? A Scoping Review of the Current Clinical Studies. Medical Sciences, 11, Article No. 64. >https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci11040064 Levonyak, N.S., Hodges, M.P., Haaf, N., Brown, T.J., Hardy, S., Mhoon, V., et al. (2021) Importance of Addressing Malnutrition in Cancer and Implementation of a Quality Improvement Project in a Gastrointestinal Cancer Clinic. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 37, 215-223. >https://doi.org/10.1002/ncp.10753 Park, J., Kim, E., Seol, E., Kong, S., Park, D.J., Yang, H., et al. (2021) Prediction Model for Screening Patients at Risk of Malnutrition after Gastric Cancer Surgery. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 28, 4471-4481. >https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09559-3 Seid, A., Debebe, Z., Ayelign, A., Abeje, M., Endris, B.S., Assefa, M., et al. (2025) Malnutrition Diagnosed by Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment and the Risk of All-Cause Mortality in Adults with Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 38, e70012. >https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.70012 Carrillo Lozano, E., Osés Zárate, V. and Campos del Portillo, R. (2021) Nutritional Management of Gastric Cancer. Endocrinología, Diabetes y Nutrición (English ed.), 68, 428-438. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endien.2020.09.005 Corriveau, J., Alavifard, D. and Gillis, C. (2022) Demystifying Malnutrition to Improve Nutrition Screening and Assessment in Oncology. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 38, Article ID: 151336. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2022.151336 Gilliland, T., Villafane-Ferriol, N., Shah, K., Shah, R., Tran Cao, H., Massarweh, N., et al. (2017) Nutritional and Metabolic Derangements in Pancreatic Cancer and Pancreatic Resection. Nutrients, 9, Article No. 243. >https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9030243 Gupta, A., Gupta, E., Hilsden, R., Hawel, J.D., Elnahas, A.I., Schlachta, C.M., et al. (2021) Preoperative Malnutrition in Patients with Colorectal Cancer. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 64, E621-E629. >https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.016820 Shen, Y., Cong, Z., Ge, Q., Huang, H., Wei, W., Wang, C., et al. (2024) Effect of Nutrition-based Prehabilitation on the Postoperative Outcomes of Patients with Esophagogastric Cancer Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancer Medicine, 13, e70023. >https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.70023 Arends, J., Baracos, V., Bertz, H., Bozzetti, F., Calder, P.C., Deutz, N.E.P., et al. (2017) ESPEN Expert Group Recommendations for Action against Cancer-Related Malnutrition. Clinical Nutrition, 36, 1187-1196. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2017.06.017 Muscaritoli, M., Arends, J., Bachmann, P., Baracos, V., Barthelemy, N., Bertz, H., et al. (2021) ESPEN Practical Guideline: Clinical Nutrition in Cancer. Clinical Nutrition, 40, 2898-2913. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.02.005 Thibault, R., Abbasoglu, O., Ioannou, E., Meija, L., Ottens-Oussoren, K., Pichard, C., et al. (2021) ESPEN Guideline on Hospital Nutrition. Clinical Nutrition, 40, 5684-5709. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.09.039 Jogiat, U., Sisson, D., Sasewich, H., Islam, T., Low, D., Darling, G., et al. (2023) ERAS Guidelines for Esophagectomy: Adherence Patterns among Canadian Thoracic Surgeons. Updates in Surgery, 75, 1203-1210. >https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01478-8 Melloul, E., Lassen, K., Roulin, D., Grass, F., Perinel, J., Adham, M., et al. (2020) Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Pancreatoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Recommendations 2019. World Journal of Surgery, 44, 2056-2084. >https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05462-w Han, C.J., Ning, X., Burd, C.E., Spakowicz, D.J., Tounkara, F., Kalady, M.F., et al. (2024) Chemotoxicity and Associated Risk Factors in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers, 16, Article No. 2597. >https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16142597 Loge, L., Florescu, C., Alves, A. and Menahem, B. (2020) Radiation Enteritis: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Issues. Journal of Visceral Surgery, 157, 475-485. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2020.08.012 Retornaz, F., Guillem, O., Rousseau, F., Morvan, F., Rinaldi, Y., Nahon, S., et al. (2019) Predicting Chemotherapy Toxicity and Death in Older Adults with Colon Cancer: Results of MOST Study. The Oncologist, 25, e85-e93. >https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0241 Yazbeck, V., Alesi, E., Myers, J., Hackney, M.H., Cuttino, L. and Gewirtz, D.A. (2022) An Overview of Chemotoxicity and Radiation Toxicity in Cancer Therapy. In: Advances in Cancer Research, Elsevier, 1-27. >https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acr.2022.03.007 Kasprzak, A. (2021) The Role of Tumor Microenvironment Cells in Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Cachexia. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22, Article No. 1565. >https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22041565 Marusawa, H. and Jenkins, B.J. (2014) Inflammation and Gastrointestinal Cancer: An Overview. Cancer Letters, 345, 153-156. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2013.08.025 Tuomisto, A.E., Mäkinen, M.J. and Väyrynen, J.P. (2019) Systemic Inflammation in Colorectal Cancer: Underlying Factors, Effects, and Prognostic Significance. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 25, 4383-4404. >https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i31.4383 Waldum, H. and Fossmark, R. (2023) Inflammation and Digestive Cancer. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24, Article No. 13503. >https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241713503 Webster, J.M., Kempen, L.J.A.P., Hardy, R.S. and Langen, R.C.J. (2020) Inflammation and Skeletal Muscle Wasting during Cachexia. Frontiers in Physiology, 11, Article ID: 597675. >https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.597675 Deftereos, I., Djordjevic, A., Carter, V.M., McNamara, J., Yeung, J.M. and Kiss, N. (2021) Malnutrition Screening Tools in Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Concurrent Validity. Surgical Oncology, 38, Article ID: 101627. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101627 Gupta, D., Vashi, P.G., Lammersfeld, C.A. and Braun, D.P. (2011) Role of Nutritional Status in Predicting the Length of Stay in Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Epidemiological Literature. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 59, 96-106. >https://doi.org/10.1159/000332914 Wang, W.J., Li, T.T., Wang, X., Li, W. and Cui, J.W. (2020) Combining the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and Objective Nutrition Assessment Parameters Better Predicts Malnutrition in Elderly Patients with Colorectal Cancer. Journal of Nutritional Oncology, 5, 22-30. >https://doi.org/10.34175/jno202001003 Zhang, L., Lu, Y. and Fang, Y. (2014) Nutritional Status and Related Factors of Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer. British Journal of Nutrition, 111, 1239-1244. >https://doi.org/10.1017/s000711451300367x Zhang, Z., Zhu, J., Qiao, Y., Jiang, X., Jin, W. and Li, J. (2025) Diagnostic Value of a Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition Criteria in Patients with Malignant Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrition Reviews, 83, 1861-1872. >https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf043 Cho, J.W., Youn, J., Kim, E.M., Choi, M. and Lee, J.E. (2022) Associations of Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and NUTRISCORE with Survival in Gastric Cancer Patients: Timing Matters, a Retrospective Cohort Study. BMC Gastroenterology, 22, Article No. 468. >https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-022-02515-3 De Groot, L.M., Lee, G., Ackerie, A. and van der Meij, B.S. (2020) Malnutrition Screening and Assessment in the Cancer Care Ambulatory Setting: Mortality Predictability and Validity of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form (PG-SGA SF) and the GLIM Criteria. Nutrients, 12, Article No. 2287. >https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082287 Fu, Z., Zhang, R., Wang, K., Cong, M., Li, T., Weng, M., et al. (2021) Development and Validation of a Modified Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment as a Nutritional Assessment Tool in Cancer Patients. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 13, 343-354. >https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12872 Al-Mahtab, M., Akbar, S.M.F., Khan, M.S.I. and Rahman, S. (2015) Increased Survival of Patients with End-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma Due to Intake of ON-COXIN®, a Dietary Supplement. Indian Journal of Cancer, 52, 443-446. Benedicto, A., Sanz, E. and Márquez, J. (2021) Ocoxin as a Complement to First Line Treatments in Cancer. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 18, 835-845. >https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.50122 Díaz-Rodríguez, E., El-Mallah, A., Sanz, E. and Pandiella, A. (2017) Antitumoral Effect of Ocoxin in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Oncology Letters, 14, 1950-1958. >https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6440 García-Perdomo, H.A., Gómez-Ospina, J.C. and Reis, L.O. (2021) Immunonutrition Hope? Oral Nutritional Supplement on Cancer Treatment. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 75, e14625. >https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14625 Hernandez-Unzueta, I., Benedicto, A., Romayor, I., Herrero, A., Sanz, E., Arteta, B., et al. (2019) Ocoxin Oral Solution Exerts an Antitumoral Effect in Pancreatic Cancer and Reduces the Stromal-Mediated Chemoresistance. Pancreas, 48, 555-567. >https://doi.org/10.1097/mpa.0000000000001277 Márquez, J., Mena, J., Hernandez-Unzueta, I., Benedicto, A., Sanz, E., Arteta, B., et al. (2015) Ocoxin® Oral Solution Slows down Tumor Growth in an Experimental Model of Colorectal Cancer Metastasis to the Liver in Balb/c Mice. Oncology Reports, 35, 1265-1272. >https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2015.4486 Pérez-Peña, J., Díaz-Rodríguez, E., Sanz, E. and Pandiella, A. (2019) Central Role of Cell Cycle Regulation in the Antitumoral Action of Ocoxin. Nutrients, 11, Article No. 1068. >https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11051068 Shumsky, A., Bilan, E., Sanz, E. and Petrovskiy, F. (2019) Oncoxin Nutritional Supplement in the Management of Chemotherapy-and/or Radiotherapy-Associated Oral Mucositis. Molecular and Clinical Oncology, 11, 463-468. >https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2019.1809 Gomez, E.V., Perez, Y.M., Sanchez, H.V., et al. (2010) Antioxidant and Immunomodulatory Effects of Viusid in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 16, 2638-2647. >https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v16.i21.2638 Morenko, M., Shnayder, K., Tsechoeva, T. and Smagulova, Z. (2022) Viusid and Asbrip Combination versus Remdesivir in the Management of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19. Izvestiya GGTU. Nauka i Praktika, 4, 76-82. >https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04980534 Vilar Gomez, E., Gra Oramas, B., Arus Soler, E., Llanio Navarro, R. and Ruenes Domech, C. (2007) Viusid, a Nutritional Supplement, in Combination with Interferon Α-2b and Ribavirin in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C. Liver International, 27, 247-259. >https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-3231.2006.01411.x Vilar Gomez, E., Rodriguez de Miranda, A., Gra Oramas, B., Arus Soler, E., Llanio Navarro, R., Calzadilla Bertot, L., et al. (2009) Clinical Trial: A Nutritional Supplement Viusid, in Combination with Diet and Exercise, in Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 30, 999-1009. >https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04122.x Vilar Gomez, E., Sanchez Rodriguez, Y., Torres Gonzalez, A., Calzadilla Bertot, L., Arus Soler, E., Martinez Perez, Y., et al. (2011) Viusid, a Nutritional Supplement, Increases Survival and Reduces Disease Progression in HCV-Related Decompensated Cirrhosis: A Randomised and Controlled Trial. BMJ Open, 1, e000140. >https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000140 Geiger, R., Rieckmann, J.C., Wolf, T., Basso, C., Feng, Y., Fuhrer, T., et al. (2016) L-Arginine Modulates T Cell Metabolism and Enhances Survival and Anti-Tumor Activity. Cell, 167, 829-842.e13. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.09.031 Inoue, M., Okamoto, K., Terashima, A., Nitta, T., Muro, R., Negishi-Koga, T., et al. (2018) Arginine Methylation Controls the Strength of γc-Family Cytokine Signaling in T Cell Maintenance. Nature Immunology, 19, 1265-1276. >https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-018-0222-z Wang, W., Wu, Z., Dai, Z., Yang, Y., Wang, J. and Wu, G. (2013) Glycine Metabolism in Animals and Humans: Implications for Nutrition and Health. Amino Acids, 45, 463-477. Zhang, Y., Jia, H., Jin, Y., Liu, N., Chen, J., Yang, Y., Zhang, L. and Wang, L. (2020). Glycine Attenuates LPS-Induced Apoptosis and Inflammatory Cell Infiltration in Mouse Liver. The Journal of Nutrition, 150, 1116-1125. de Oliveira, D.C., da Silva Lima, F., Sartori, T., Santos, A.C.A., Rogero, M.M. and Fock, R.A. (2016) Glutamine Metabolism and Its Effects on Immune Response: Molecular Mechanism and Gene Expression. Nutrire, 41, Article No. 14. >https://doi.org/10.1186/s41110-016-0016-8 Kim, M.-H. and Kim, H. (2017) The Roles of Glutamine in the Intestine and Its Implication in Intestinal Diseases. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18, Article No. 1051. >https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18051051 Newsholme, E.A., Crabtree, B. and Ardawi, M.S.M. (1985) Glutamine Metabolism in Lymphocytes: Its Biochemical, Physiological and Clinical Importance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology, 70, 473-489. >https://doi.org/10.1113/expphysiol.1985.sp002935 Achamrah, N., Déchelotte, P. and Coëffier, M. (2017) Glutamine and the Regulation of Intestinal Permeability: From Bench to Bedside. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 20, 86-91. >https://doi.org/10.1097/mco.0000000000000339 Kuo, Y.R., Lin, C.H., Lin, W.S. and Pan, M.H. (2024) L-Glutamine Substantially Improves 5-Fluorouracil-Induced Intestinal Mucositis by Modulating Gut Microbiota and Maintaining the Integrity of the Gut Barrier in Mice. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 68, e2300704. >https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.202300704 Wang, B., Wu, G., Zhou, Z., Dai, Z., Sun, Y., Ji, Y., et al. (2014) Glutamine and Intestinal Barrier Function. Amino Acids, 47, 2143-2154. >https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-014-1773-4 Calder, P.C., Carr, A.C., Gombart, A.F. and Eggersdorfer, M. (2020) Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect against Viral Infections. Nutrients, 12, Article No. 1181. >https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12041181 Fishman, S.M., Christian, P. and West, K.P. (2000) The Role of Vitamins in the Prevention and Control of Anaemia. Public Health Nutrition, 3, 125-150. >https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980000000173 Henry, C.J., Nemkov, T., Casás-Selves, M., Bilousova, G., Zaberezhnyy, V., Higa, K.C., et al. (2017) Folate Dietary Insufficiency and Folic Acid Supplementation Similarly Impair Metabolism and Compromise Hematopoiesis. Haematologica, 102, 1985-1994. >https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2017.171074 Morris, M.S., Jacques, P.F., Rosenberg, I.H. and Selhub, J. (2007) Folate and Vitamin B-12 Status in Relation to Anemia, Macrocytosis, and Cognitive Impairment in Older Americans in the Age of Folic Acid Fortification. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 85, 193-200. >https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/85.1.193 da Silva Lopes, K., Yamaji, N., Rahman, M.O., Suto, M., Takemoto, Y., Garcia-Casal, M.N., et al. (2021) Nutrition-Specific Interventions for Preventing and Controlling Anaemia throughout the Life Cycle: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2022, CD013092. >https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013092.pub2 Calderón-Ospina, C.A. and Nava-Mesa, M.O. (2019) B Vitamins in the Nervous System: Current Knowledge of the Biochemical Modes of Action and Synergies of Thiamine, Pyridoxine, and Cobalamin. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, 26, 5-13. >https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.13207 Mathew, A.R., Di Matteo, G., La Rosa, P., Barbati, S.A., Mannina, L., Moreno, S., et al. (2024) Vitamin B12 Deficiency and the Nervous System: Beyond Metabolic Decompensation—Comparing Biological Models and Gaining New Insights into Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 25, Article No. 590. >https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25010590 Erikson, K.M. and Aschner, M. (2019) Manganese: Its Role in Disease and Health. In: Sigel, A., Freisinger, E. and Sigel, R.K.O., Eds., Metal Ions in Life Sciences, Vol. 19, De Gruyter, 253-266. >https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110527872-016 Jomova, K., Makova, M., Alomar, S.Y., Alwasel, S.H., Nepovimova, E., Kuca, K., et al. (2022) Essential Metals in Health and Disease. Chemico-Biological Interactions, 367, Article ID: 110173. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2022.110173 Maywald, M. and Rink, L. (2022) Zinc in Human Health and Infectious Diseases. Biomolecules, 12, Article No. 1748. >https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12121748 Prasad, A.S. (2013) Discovery of Human Zinc Deficiency: Its Impact on Human Health and Disease. Advances in Nutrition, 4, 176-190. >https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.003210 Stiles, L.I., Ferrao, K. and Mehta, K.J. (2024) Role of Zinc in Health and Disease. Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 24, Article No. 38. >https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-024-01302-6 Wang, Y., Li, J., Zhuang, J., Wu, Y., Liu, J. and Han, S. (2025) Manganese in Health and Disease. Nutrition Research Reviews, 1-11. >https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954422425100139 Almatroodi, S.A., Almatroudi, A., Khan, A.A., Alhumaydhi, F.A., Alsahli, M.A. and Rahmani, A.H. (2020) Potential Therapeutic Targets of Epigallocatechin Gallate (EGCG), the Most Abundant Catechin in Green Tea, and Its Role in the Therapy of Various Types of Cancer. Molecules, 25, Article No. 3146. >https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25143146 Ding, S., Xu, S., Fang, J. and Jiang, H. (2020) The Protective Effect of Polyphenols for Colorectal Cancer. Frontiers in Immunology, 11, Article No. 1407. >https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01407 Fiore, C., Eisenhut, M., Krausse, R., Ragazzi, E., Pellati, D., Armanini, D., et al. (2007) Antiviral Effects of Glycyrrhiza Species. Phytotherapy Research, 22, 141-148. >https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.2295 Sasaki, H., Takei, M., Kobayashi, M., Pollard, R.B. and Suzuki, F. (2002) Effect of Glycyrrhizin, an Active Component of Licorice Roots, on HIV Replication in Cultures of Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells from HIV-Seropositive Patients. Pathobiology, 70, 229-236. Aggarwal, V., Tuli, H.S., Tania, M., Srivastava, S., Ritzer, E.E., Pandey, A., Khan, M.A., Yerer, M.B., Sethi, G. and Bishayee, A. (2020) Molecular Mechanisms of Action of Epigallocatechin Gallate in Cancer: Recent Trends and Advancement. Seminars in Cancer Biology, 80, 256-275. Piwowarczyk, L., Stawny, M., Mlynarczyk, D.T., Muszalska-Kolos, I., Goslinski, T. and Jelińska, A. (2020) Role of Curcumin and (−)-Epigallocatechin-3-O-Gallate in Bladder Cancer Treatment: A Review. Cancers, 12, Article No. 1801. >https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12071801 Sadeghi, S., Davoodvandi, A., Pourhanifeh, M.H., Sharifi, N., ArefNezhad, R., Sahebnasagh, R. and Mirzaei, H. (2019) Anti-Cancer Effects of Cinnamon: Insights into Its Apoptosis Effects. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 178, 131-140. Yan, Y.B., Tian, Q., Zhang, J.F. and Xiang, Y. (2020) Antitumor Effects and Molecular Mechanisms of Action of Natural Products in Ovarian Cancer. Oncology Letters, 20, Article No. 141. Ohtsuki, K. and Iahida, N. (1988) Inhibitory Effect of Glycyrrhizin on Polypeptide Phosporylation by Polypeptide-Dependent Protein Kinase (Kinase P) Invitro. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 157, 597-604. >https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-291x(88)80292-4 Sabater-Molina, M., Larqué, E., Torrella, F. and Zamora, S. (2009) Dietary Fructooligosaccharides and Potential Benefits on Health. Journal of Physiology and Biochemistry, 65, 315-328. >https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03180584 de Vrese, M. and Schrezenmeir, J. (2008) Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics. In: Stahl, U., et al., Eds., Food Biotechnology, Springer, 1-66. >https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2008_097 Quigley, E.M.M. (2019) Prebiotics and Probiotics in Digestive Health. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 17, 333-344. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2018.09.028 Liu, H., Cui, S.W., Chen, M., li, Y., Liang, R., Xu, F., et al. (2019) Protective Approaches and Mechanisms of Microencapsulation to the Survival of Probiotic Bacteria during Processing, Storage and Gastrointestinal Digestion: A Review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 59, 2863-2878. >https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.1377684 Moore, S.R., Quinn, L.A., Maier, E.A., Guedes, M.M., Quetz, J.S., Perry, M., et al. (2020) Intervention and Mechanisms of Alanyl-Glutamine for Inflammation, Nutrition, and Enteropathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 71, 393-400. >https://doi.org/10.1097/mpg.0000000000002834 Fiore, C., Eisenhut, M., Krausse, R., Ragazzi, E., Pellati, D., Armanini, D., et al. (2007) Antiviral Effects of Glycyrrhiza Species. Phytotherapy Research, 22, 141-148. >https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.2295 Wintergerst, E.S., Maggini, S. and Hornig, D.H. (2006) Immune-Enhancing Role of Vitamin C and Zinc and Effect on Clinical Conditions. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 50, 85-94. >https://doi.org/10.1159/000090495 Co, E.L., Hameed, M., Sebastian, S.A., Garg, T., Sudan, S., Bheemisetty, N., et al. (2023) Narrative Review of Probiotic Use on the Recovery of Postoperative Patients with Esophageal Cancer. Current Nutrition Reports, 12, 635-642. >https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-023-00490-z Rakab, M.S., Rateb, R.M., Maamoun, A., Radwan, N., Shubietah, A., Manasrah, A., et al. (2025) Impact of Probiotic/Synbiotic Supplementation on Post-Bariatric Surgery Anthropometric and Cardiometabolic Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients, 17, Article No. 2193. >https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17132193 Azam, F., Latif, M.F., Farooq, A., Tirmazy, S.H., AlShahrani, S., Bashir, S., et al. (2019) Performance Status Assessment by Using ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Score for Cancer Patients by Oncology Healthcare Professionals. Case Reports in Oncology, 12, 728-736. >https://doi.org/10.1159/000503095 Fuchs-Tarlovsky, V., Velasco Gimeno, C., Arias-Soberón, M.D., Silva-Sánchez, C., Álvarez-Altamirano, K., Vedenne-Gutierrez, F., et al. (2024) Translation, Cultural Adaptation, and Assessment of the Linguistic and Content Validity of the PG-SGA to the Spanish Linguistic Setting by Cancer Patients and Healthcare Professionals. Nutrition, 128, Article ID: 112567. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2024.112567 McKenna, H.T., O’Brien, K.A., Fernandez, B.O., Minnion, M., Tod, A., McNally, B.D., et al. (2021) Divergent Trajectories of Cellular Bioenergetics, Intermediary Metabolism and Systemic Redox Status in Survivors and Non-Survivors of Critical Illness. Redox Biology, 41, Article ID: 101907. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redox.2021.101907 Ocón Bretón, M.J., Tapia Guerrero, M.J., Ramírez Rodriguez, J.M., Peteiro Miranda, C., Ballesteros Pomar, M.D., Botella Romero, F., et al. (2022) Multidisciplinary Consensus on Nutritional and Metabolic Therapy in Enhanced Recovery after Abdominal Surgery Programs: NutRICA Project. Endocrinología, Diabetes y Nutrición (English ed.), 69, 98-111. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endien.2021.02.005 Stevens, J.L., Feelisch, M. and Martin, D.S. (2019) Perioperative Oxidative Stress: The Unseen Enemy. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 129, 1749-1760. >https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000004455 Holmes, C.J. and Racette, S.B. (2021) The Utility of Body Composition Assessment in Nutrition and Clinical Practice: An Overview of Current Methodology. Nutrients, 13, Article No. 2493. >https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13082493