Inger Ottestad
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Inger Ottestad has a total of 16 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Astrid Nygaard
Cancer and Hematology Center, Vestfold Hospital Trust, 3103 Tønsberg, Norway
1 shared publication - Cathrine Vestnor
Department of Public Health and Nursing, NTNU—Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7030 Trondheim, Norway
1 shared publication - Emilie H. Markhus
Clinical Nutrition Center, Haukeland University Hospital, 5007 Bergen, Norway
1 shared publication - Erik Torbjørn Løhre
Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
1 shared publication - Gunnhild Jakobsen
Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, 7030 Trondheim, Norway
1 shared publication - Ingvild Paur
Department of Clinical Medicine, Clinical Nutrition Research Group, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, 9019 Tromsø, Norway
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 18 November 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Current Oncology
- Vol. 32 (11) , 644
Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Incurable Cancer: Exploring the Heterogenous and Non-Randomised Clinical Landscape
Background: There is an insufficient knowledge base for optimal parenteral nutrition (PN) use for patients with incurable cancer, leading to vague guidelines and varied practices. The aim of the study is to describe the practices and actual outcomes of PN in patients with incurable cancer at Norwegian hospitals. Methods: This multicentre study retrospectively reviewed 507 deceased patients (>18 years) receiving PN between 2011 and 2017. Data were collected from PN initiation until death, and analyses were descriptive. Results: Fifty-one percent had upper and lower gastrointestinal cancers, and the main PN indications were insufficient intake (75%) and gastrointestinal malfunction (47%). Sixty-seven percent received no anticancer treatment. Forty-three (8%) received PN as temporary bridging to anticancer treatment, of whom fifteen (35%) resumed or initiated treatment. The median PN dose corresponded to 53% of estimated energy requirements, and 94% of the patients had complementary energy intake. The most common reason for discontinuation was expected imminent death (47%). While common symptoms during PN were nausea (52%), vomiting (46%), and oedema (37%), 15% reported improved wellbeing. Conclusions: In this real-world cohort, up to 80% of the patients would not meet the eligibility criteria of previous trials due to cancer diagnosis and treatment, gastrointestinal tract function, weight loss criteria or complications such as ascites. This study highlights the heterogeneity in how patients with incurable cancer receive PN, and emphasises the importance of individualised PN treatment, carefully and safely managed to meet the patients’ palliative care situation. Future real-world pragmatic patient-centred protocols bridging the gap between clinical trials and patients in clinical practice are warranted.
- 18 November 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Current Oncology
- Vol. 32 (11) , 644
Open AccessParenteral Nutrition in Patients with Incurable Cancer: Exploring the Heterogenous and Non-Randomised Clinical Landscape
Background: There is an insufficient knowledge base for optimal parenteral nutrition (PN) use for patients with incurable cancer, leading to vague guidelines and varied practices. The aim of the study is to describe the practices and actual outcomes of PN in patients with incurable cancer at Norwegian hospitals. Methods: This multicentre study retrospectively reviewed 507 deceased patients (>18 years) receiving PN between 2011 and 2017. Data were collected from PN initiation until death, and analyses were descriptive. Results: Fifty-one percent had upper and lower gastrointestinal cancers, and the main PN indications were insufficient intake (75%) and gastrointestinal malfunction (47%). Sixty-seven percent received no anticancer treatment. Forty-three (8%) received PN as temporary bridging to anticancer treatment, of whom fifteen (35%) resumed or initiated treatment. The median PN dose corresponded to 53% of estimated energy requirements, and 94% of the patients had complementary energy intake. The most common reason for discontinuation was expected imminent death (47%). While common symptoms during PN were nausea (52%), vomiting (46%), and oedema (37%), 15% reported improved wellbeing. Conclusions: In this real-world cohort, up to 80% of the patients would not meet the eligibility criteria of previous trials due to cancer diagnosis and treatment, gastrointestinal tract function, weight loss criteria or complications such as ascites. This study highlights the heterogeneity in how patients with incurable cancer receive PN, and emphasises the importance of individualised PN treatment, carefully and safely managed to meet the patients’ palliative care situation. Future real-world pragmatic patient-centred protocols bridging the gap between clinical trials and patients in clinical practice are warranted.