This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Ningbo No.2 Hospital (Approval No. YJ-NBEY-KY-2023-038-01). The requirement for written informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee.
Study design and participants
This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of routinely collected clinical records from outpatients with GI cancer who received nutritional counseling between December 2021 and December 2023. It was neither a secondary analysis of a clinical trial nor a prospective quasi-experimental study. Patients were identified from medical records based on their diagnosis of GI cancer, initiation of chemotherapy, and documented nutritional status. The inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed GI cancer requiring chemotherapy; (2) age 18–80 years with a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score ≥6015; (3) malnutrition or risk of malnutrition, as determined by the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA)16; and (4) the ability to tolerate enteral nutrition. The exclusion criteria were: (1) the presence of another primary malignancy or distant metastasis of GI cancer; (2) known allergy to omega-3 PUFAs or any component of the ONS; and (3) loss to follow-up or discontinuation of chemotherapy due to severe adverse events. A total of 160 patients attended nutritional counseling, of whom 72 elected to receive omega-3 PUFA-enriched ONS in addition to their usual diet (ONS group), whereas 88 received dietary counseling alone (control group). To be included in the analytical cohort, patients were required to have both baseline and week-3 measurements available for at least one laboratory or anthropometric outcome. Patients with missing measurements for a specific outcome were retained in analyses of other outcomes for which paired baseline and week-3 data were available. Consequently, the analytical sample size varied across outcomes, and no missing values were imputed. Ultimately, 87 patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis, comprising 46 patients in the ONS group and 41 patients in the control group. Additional details of this real-world clinical study have been reported previously17.
Omega-3 PUFA-enriched ONS
The ONS group received omega-3 PUFA-enriched ONS for 3 weeks in addition to dietary counseling. The omega-3 PUFA-enriched ONS was an energy-dense nutritional supplement containing 1.2 g/100 kJ protein, 1.08 g/100 kJ fat (EPA: DHA = 3:2), 2.27 g/100 kJ carbohydrate, and 0.13 g/100 kJ fiber. The composition and dosage of the ONS were standardized in accordance with clinical guidelines for cancer nutrition support. The prescribed daily ONS dose was 400 mL, administered as two 200-mL bottles with meals. The formula contained a total of 3.0 g/L of EPA plus DHA; therefore, the prescribed daily dose provided 720 mg of EPA and 480 mg of DHA. Daily energy intake was targeted at 25–30 kcal/kg, with protein intake of 1.2–1.5 g/kg18.
During the 3-week observation period, patients in both groups received weekly telephone follow-up as part of routine post-discharge nutritional care. However, the medical records and telephone follow-up notes did not contain patient-level documentation of actual ONS consumption or patient-reported adherence. Therefore, no quantitative or reliable qualitative adherence data could be extracted, and adherence to the prescribed ONS regimen could not be formally assessed.
Demographic, anthropometric and clinical data
Baseline demographic characteristics, including age and sex, tumor site (sigmoid colon, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, rectum, and stomach), body weight status (normal/underweight or overweight/obese), body weight change (maintained or increased vs. decreased), and the oncological and supportive treatments administered during the 3-week observation period, were collected for both groups. Oncological treatments were categorized as follows: (1) oxaliplatin-based combination chemotherapy, including FOLFOX, TOMOX, XELOX, and SOX; (2) fluoropyrimidine monotherapy, including capecitabine and S-1; (3) irinotecan-based combination chemotherapy, represented by FOLFIRI; and (4) no concurrent systemic chemotherapy, including surgery alone (Supplementary Table 1). Supportive treatments were categorized as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, oral leukopoietic agents, or no supportive treatment (Supplementary Table 1).
Anthropometric measurements (body weight and BMI) and blood samples for hematological, inflammatory, nutritional, and metabolic assessments were collected at two time points for all patients: baseline (before initiation of ONS or at the beginning of the 3-week observation period for the control group) and after 3 weeks. For patients receiving systemic chemotherapy, blood samples were collected before administration of the next scheduled chemotherapy cycle. For patients without concurrent systemic chemotherapy, samples were collected during routine outpatient assessments at the corresponding baseline and week-3 time points. Measured laboratory parameters included white blood cell count (WBC), neutrophil count (NE), platelet count (PLT), lymphocyte count (LY), C-reactive protein (CRP), hemoglobin, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), total protein (TP), albumin (ALB), creatinine, and uric acid. Derived indices included the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI)19, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII)20. All laboratory measurements were performed in the Department of Clinical Laboratory, Ningbo No. 2 Hospital. Complete blood count parameters were measured in EDTA-anticoagulated whole-blood samples, whereas CRP and biochemical parameters were measured in serum samples. These biomarkers were selected based on their clinical relevance and availability in routine medical records. WBC, NE, PLT, hemoglobin, and LY were used to assess hematological changes. CRP, NLR, PLR, and SII were evaluated as indicators of systemic inflammation and immune status. Body weight, BMI, TP, ALB, and PNI were assessed as nutritional indicators, whereas TC, TG, creatinine, and uric acid were included to characterize metabolic and organ function. Missing data were handled using an outcome-specific complete-case approach. Patients with missing baseline or week-3 measurements were excluded only from analyses of the corresponding outcome but were retained in analyses of other outcomes for which paired data were available. No missing values were imputed.
The formulas used to calculate these indices are presented below:




Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 17.0. Given the exploratory retrospective study design, short-term changes in hematological parameters, particularly white blood cell (WBC), neutrophil (NE), and platelet (PLT) counts, were designated as the primary analytical focus. Anthropometric and nutritional parameters, including body weight, BMI, albumin (ALB), and the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), were evaluated as secondary exploratory outcomes. No a priori sample size or statistical power calculation was performed because the study was based on retrospectively collected clinical records.
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Continuous variables were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) for normally distributed data or as the median (interquartile range [IQR]) for non-normally distributed data. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Baseline characteristics were compared between the two groups using independent-samples t-tests or Mann–Whitney U tests for continuous variables and chi-square or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables, as appropriate. Within-group changes from baseline to week 3 were assessed using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
Change scores (Δ = week 3 − baseline) were calculated for each parameter to quantify changes over the observation period. Unadjusted between-group comparisons of Δ values were performed using independent-samples t-tests or Mann–Whitney U tests, as appropriate. To partially account for baseline imbalances, adjusted between-group differences at week 3 were estimated using multivariable linear regression models. For each outcome, the week-3 value was entered as the dependent variable, with study group (ONS vs. control) as the primary independent variable. The corresponding baseline value, tumor site, and baseline weight-loss status were included as covariates. The control group served as the reference category, and robust standard errors were applied. Adjusted regression coefficients, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and P values are reported. The de-identified individual-level dataset used for these analyses is provided in Supplementary Table 2.