Systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions with dietary supplements, including pre-, pro- and synbiotics, to reduce acute and late gastrointestinal side effects in patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy
=====================================================================================================================================================================================================================

* Benjamin Bartsch
* Chee Kin Then
* Elinor Harriss
* Christiana Kartsonaki
* Anne E. Kiltie

## ABSTRACT

**Objective** Pelvic radiotherapy (RT) often results in toxicity to the gastrointestinal tract and clinical trials have demonstrated a potentially beneficial role of dietary supplements in overcoming this problem, mainly acute effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken with the aim of evaluating the efficacy of several dietary supplement interventions in preventing or alleviating symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity in patients undergoing RT for a range of common pelvic malignancies.

**Design** The search protocol was prospectively submitted to PROSPERO at the University of York. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and [http://ClinicalTrials.gov](http://ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched up to June 2020 for randomised controlled clinical trials. Interventions included four supplement categories: biotics, amino acids, poly-unsaturated fatty acids and polyphenols. Efficacy was determined with reference to outcomes based on symptoms of acute gastrointestinal toxicity, including diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting.

**Results** Twenty-three randomised controlled trials (1919 patients) were identified in this review. Compared with placebo, probiotics, synbiotics and polyphenols were significantly associated with a lower risk of diarrhoea. Biotic supplements also reduced the risk of moderate to severe diarrhoea and the need for anti-diarrhoeal medication. In contrast, amino acid supplements had no effect on acute symptoms. There was a non-significant trend for reduction in nausea and mean bowel movements per day using dietary supplements.

**Conclusions** Biotic supplements, especially probiotics and synbiotics, reduce acute symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity in patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy. More randomised placebo-controlled studies with larger numbers of patients are needed to define specific formulations for supplement interventions that will be of greatest benefit to patients.

**What is already known about this subject?**Clinical trials have indicated a potentially beneficial role of dietary supplements for the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced gastrointestinal symptoms.

**What are the new findings?**In this systematic review, we found biotics and polyphenols can significantly reduce the risk of diarrhoea, while biotics were also associated with a lower incidence of moderate to severe diarrhoea and anti-diarrhoeal medication use. Among biotic supplements, both synbiotics and probiotics were found to be potentially beneficial in the prevention of diarrhoea.

**How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future?**Cancer patients undergoing pelvic RT may benefit from taking biotic supplements for alleviation of gastrointestinal toxicity symptoms following pelvic radiation. More randomised controlled trials are required to determine the optimum formulations and combinations.

**Trial registration number** The study protocol was published on the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42020183304).

Keywords
*   amino acids
*   dietary supplements
*   meta-analysis
*   pelvic radiotherapy
*   polyphenols
*   poly-unsaturated acids
*   prebiotics
*   probiotics
*   synbiotics
*   systematic review

## BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is a major cancer treatment modality, used to treat approximately 50% of patients1. Chemoradiation (concurrent delivery of systemic chemotherapy) is generally preferred over radiotherapy alone for most pelvic malignancies, including tumours of the lower gastrointestinal, gynaecological and urological (with the exception of prostate cancer) tracts2. Over 200,000 patients in the US are treated with pelvic or abdominal radiotherapy each year3. It is inevitable that normal gastrointestinal tissues are exposed to radiation during pelvic radiotherapy4, with approximately 80% of patients developing acute symptoms of radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity5. However, despite their impact on patients’ quality of life, no prophylactic agents for the alleviation of gastrointestinal side-effects from pelvic radiation have been approved to date6.

The intestine is particularly radiosensitive due to the presence of rapidly replicating crypt cells. Following irradiation, mucosal biopsies show evidence of extensive surface epithelial atrophy, widespread disruption of absorptive and secretory activity and acute crypt inflammation crypts7. Acute symptoms usually develop during or immediately after RT, and typically improve within three months following RT8. The most common acute side effect is diarrhoea, affecting up to 80% of all patients9. Other symptoms, such as abnormal stool output, vomiting and gastrointestinal discomfort are also very common. Late symptoms include GI bleeding, fistula, stricture and colostomy10.

Use of a dietary supplement is aimed at boosting daily intake of specific nutrients, to much higher levels than obtained from the diet, to alleviate symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity. Such dietary supplements include biotics, amino acids, poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and polyphenols. Probiotics, mainly of the *Lactobacillus* and *Bifidobacteria* genera, are live microorganisms thought to produce health benefits following passage to the intestine11. Prebiotics are soluble or non-soluble dietary fibres, that pass undigested through the upper gastrointestinal tract and are metabolised by bacteria in the colon, thus enhancing gut microbiota beneficial to the host’s health12. Examples of prebiotics include inulin, fructo-oligosaccharide, psyllium husk and alpha-amylase resistant starch. The use of synbiotics refers to administration of a combination of prebiotics and probiotics; the presence of the prebiotic enhances survival of the probiotics in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Administration of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics can alter the gut microbiota and production of key metabolites, resulting in reduced symptoms of disease and promotion of well-being13,14.

Amino acids, poly-unsaturated acids (PUFAs) and polyphenolic compounds have also been employed in supplement intervention strategies in pelvic RT. Dietary PUFAs comprise a number of molecules. Anti-inflammatory effects of the omega-6 PUFA conjugated linolenic acids (CLA) are seen in inflammatory bowel disease15. Furthermore, the omega-3 fatty acids, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), may be capable of boosting cancer cell sensitivity to drugs16. Glutamine is the most abundant amino acid with important roles in support of mucosal growth and function. Evidence from animal studies confirms that dietary glutamine supplementation can protect the small intestinal epithelium from radiation damage17. Polyphenolic compounds extracted from plants, such as flavanols, flavandiols, epigallocatchin and genistein, can also suppress or alleviate radiation-induced intestinal injury. Oral administration of curcumin reversed morphological damage caused by radiation treatment to rat ileal villi18. Genistein and other isoflavones extracted from soy bean are similarly implicated in anti-inflammatory responses, protecting irradiated mouse jejunum from adverse changes and attenuating tumour growth19.

This review tests the hypothesis that administration of oral dietary supplements for cancer patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy may trigger changes in the lower gastrointestinal tract which lead to a reduction in gastrointestinal toxicity. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with the aim of determining whether dietary interventions using supplements can alleviate symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity in pelvic RT patients, including diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, flatulence/bloating and bowel movement frequency.

## METHODS

### Search strategy and study selection

The following electronic databases were searched from inception to the search date (19/06/2020) for relevant literature: Cochrane CENTRAL, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and [http://ClinicalTrials.gov](http://ClinicalTrials.gov). The search strategies included both medical subject heading and free text terms to retrieve relevant RCTs and non-randomised studies about the gastrointestinal side effects in cancer patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy, limiting to studies in humans only. The full set of search strategies is available in Appendix 1 to 3, and inclusion and exclusion criteria are available in the PROSPERO registration20. Relevant articles were identified on PubMed. Handsearching of meta-analyses, systematic reviews and papers identified studies not indexed in the electronic databases used for this review. All titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searches were downloaded and duplications removed using EndNote reference management software. Full-text copies of short-listed titles were obtained to determine if they met the eligibility criteria. Multiple reports of the same study data were eliminated, thus any original data were only included once.

### Data extraction

Systematic data collection from included studies was conducted using a data collection form designed specifically for this review. It included the following information (where available) for each dataset: publication year, study design, participants (number, age distribution, gender distribution, details of malignancy, details relevant to inclusion and exclusion criteria), current cancer treatment (duration, fractionation and dose of RT and details of any chemotherapy), intervention (type of supplement, route of intervention, formulation, dose, timing with respect to RT, length of treatment and follow-up) and measured outcomes (diarrhoea incidence and severity and details of other GI symptoms recorded as toxicity scores, patient-reported outcome measure scores, questionnaires or interview scores). Details of included studies were summarised according to the PICO model21. Where raw data were unavailable, EndNote was used to facilitate extraction of data from charts and graphs of the included studies22. Details of outcomes included time points at which they were reported by study authors.

### Outcome assessment

Different measures of treatment effects were used for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, namely, risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) between the intervention and control arms for continuous outcomes. Standardised mean difference (SMD) was used to compare to compare results from studies that reported the same outcomes measured on different scales.

### Study quality

Risk of bias assessment was carried out for all studies that met the inclusion criteria, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool23. The ROB2 framework investigates five domains in a study, namely, the biases arising from the randomisation process, due to deviations from intended interventions, due to missing outcome data, in measurement of the outcome and in the selection of the reported result, with three levels of risk of bias, namely, low risk, some concerns and high risk. The risk of bias across the five domains was then used to derive an overall risk score. Judgements were based on assessment of statements in the included studies relevant to study design. In some instances, key information was incomplete, unclear or omitted from published protocols.

### Assessment of heterogeneity and publication bias

To assess the heterogeneity, we used a chi-squared test and *I*2,24,25. P values less than 0.1 were considered as evidence of heterogeneity. *I*2 values between 0% to 40% indicated ‘might not be important’, 30% to 60% indicated ‘may represent moderate heterogeneity’, 50% to 90% indicated ‘may represent substantial heterogeneity’ and 75% to 100% indicated ‘considerable heterogeneity’ based on the Cochrane handbook26. Tau-squared is the estimated standard deviation of underlying effects across studies. Begg’s funnel plots were used to visually assess asymmetry potentially due to publication bias.

### Data synthesis and statistical analysis

Meta-analyses were performed to measure the effect of dietary supplements on an outcome, in instances where there were three or more studies that reported the same outcome. All analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 and R version 4.0.2 with package ‘meta’27,28. For dichotomous outcomes, risk ratios (RR) were estimated and were meta-analysed using a random effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) method29. For continuous outcomes, mean differences (MD) were estimated and were pooled using a random effects model with the inverse variance (IV) method. 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all estimates were calculated. For each outcome, the studies selected for quantitative analysis were divided into subgroups, based on the class of intervention. Studies that met inclusion criteria investigated the effect of one of the following classes: biotics, amino acids, PUFAs and polyphenols. Subgroup analysis by subclass of biotic intervention (prebiotic, probiotic and synbiotic) was also performed. Meta-regression by mean age, proportion of male participants and sample size was used to assess whether the effects of interventions on incidence of diarrhoea varied by these study characteristics.

### Patient and public involvement

There was no patient or public involvement in the design or conduct of this study.

## RESULTS

The search of the four primary databases identified 23,542 titles published between 1946 and June 2020 (search process summarised in Figure 1). After 5,825 duplications were removed, a total of 17,717 entries remained. These studies were manually reviewed by title and abstract and 17 met the inclusion criteria. Six further studies were identified from manual searches of the reference sections of research articles. Finally, 23 studies met the inclusion criteria and could be used for quantitative analysis. The effects of interventions on incidence of diarrhoea did not vary by mean age, proportion of male participants or sample size (Figure S1). Results of the overall and individual risk of bias assessments for each of the five domains are presented in Figure S2. Fourteen studies had low risk, three studies had moderate risk, and six studies had high overall risk of bias.

![Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F1)

Figure 1 
PRISMA flow chart of studies evaluated in the systematic review.

### Included studies and characteristics of included studies

In total 23 studies involving a total of 1,919 patients met the inclusion criteria and for each outcome, they were grouped by intervention category. These studies were all randomised controlled trials and their characteristics are shown in the Table 1. All included studies investigated the effect of dietary supplements on acute symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity. However, the individual trials differed widely in the symptoms and outcomes they reported. In total, the trials included in the review reported ten different relevant symptoms. For each symptom, data could be expressed according to the following three outcomes: number of events, severity and time, as shown in Table S1.

View this table:
[Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/T1)

Table 1 
Characteristics of included studies

### Efficacy of dietary supplements in preventing diarrhoea

The meta-analysis comprising 1,625 patients showed that dietary supplements reduced the risk of diarrhoea (Figure 2). The pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66 to 0.94; P = 0.007) and there was significant heterogeneity amongst the studies (I2 = 73%; P< 0.001). The funnel plot for this meta-analysis (Figure 3) was largely symmetrical, implying only mild publication bias in the references included. There was no evidence that heterogeneity was due to mean age or sex of participants or sample size of the studies. Meta-analyses were then carried out for biotic, amino acid, poly-unsaturated fatty acid and polyphenol interventions.

![Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F2)

Figure 2 
Forest plot of effects of biotic, amino acid, PUFA and polyphenol supplements on incidence of diarrhoea.

![Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F3)

Figure 3 
Funnel plot for the meta-analysis that investigated the effect of dietary supplements on incidence of diarrhoea.

#### Efficacy of biotics in preventing diarrhoea

Biotic interventions significantly reduced the risk of diarrhoea with a RR of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.51 to 0.86; P = 0.002) (Figure 2). All studies, except Giralt *et al*30, had a RR of less than 1, suggesting the protective role of biotics against diarrhoea. The heterogeneity, I2, among these studies was 76% (P< 0.001), so further analysis of the subclasses of probiotics and synbiotics was performed (Figure 4). The risk ratio for synbiotics (RR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.73) was lower than for probiotics (RR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.99). There was little heterogeneity among studies on synbiotics (I2 = 0%; P = 0.50).

![Figure 4](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F4)

Figure 4 
Forest plot of effect of prebiotic, probiotic and synbiotic supplements on incidence of diarrhoea.

#### Efficacy of amino acids in preventing diarrhoea

Amino acid interventions were not associated with risk of diarrhoea with a RR of 1.05 (95% CI = 0.86 to 1.29; P = 0.65, Figure 2). Five studies which included 348 patients were used to compare the incidence of diarrhoea between intervention and control groups. We found that four studies had consistent results of RR which were close to 1, but only Vidal-Cassariego *et al* reported a high RR of 2.75. There was high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 62%, P = 0.03).

#### Efficacy of poly-unsaturated fatty acids in preventing diarrhoea

There was only one study in the category of poly-unsaturated fatty acids reporting the outcome incidence of diarrhoea (Figure 2). This was a relatively small randomised controlled trial with only 40 patients. This study had a RR of 0.63 (95% CI = 0.25 to 1.58; P = 0.32).

#### Efficacy of polyphenol in preventing diarrhoea

Two studies compared polyphenols and placebo among 64 patients (Figure 2). Both showed that the intervention was associated with lower incidence of diarrhoea. The overall RR was 0.30 (95% CI = 0.13 to 0.70, P = 0.005). There was no evidence of heterogeneity between these two studies (I2 = 0%, P = 0.86).

### Efficacy of dietary supplements in preventing moderate to severe diarrhoea

Efficacy of dietary supplements was assessed against moderate to severe diarrhoea, with the incidence of moderate to severe diarrhoea defined as the incidence of grade 2 or higher diarrhoea, based on Common Technology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)31 (Figure 5). Dietary supplements were associated with a lower risk of moderate to severe diarrhoea (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.98; P = 0.04). There was high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 65%, P = 0.009). The subgroup analysis suggested that the association was mainly driven by biotic interventions for which the RR was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.36 to 0.67; P< 0.001), but not amino acids (RR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.34; P = 0.70).

![Figure 5](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure 5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F5)

Figure 5 
Forest plot of effect of dietary supplements on incidence of moderate to severe diarrhoea.

### Efficacy of dietary supplements in preventing the use of anti-diarrhoeal medication

Anti-diarrhoeal medication, such as loperamide, is often employed for patients who experience diarrhoea during or after radiotherapy. Therefore, we measured the effect of dietary supplements against the incidence of anti-diarrhoeal medication use (Figure 6), and found that dietary supplements were associated with lower risk of anti-diarrhoeal medication use in patients (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.96; P = 0.03) and there was high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 62%, P = 0.01). For biotic interventions, the RR was 0.64 (95%CI: 0.44 to 0.92) and heterogeneity was intermediate (I2 = 45%; P = 0.11).

![Figure 6](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F6.medium.gif)

[Figure 6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F6)

Figure 6 
Forest plot of effect of dietary supplements on incidence of anti-diarrhoeal medication use.

### Effects of dietary supplements on nausea, vomiting, flatulence/bloating and bowel movement frequency

Table 2 lists the results of meta-analysis of the other outcomes, including nausea, vomiting, flatulence/bloating and bowel movement frequency. Dietary supplements tended to decrease the risk of nausea (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.50; P = 0.40) and the mean number of bowel movements per day (mean difference = –3.88; 95% CI: –10.29 to 2.52; P< 0.001). The results also showed that the interventions had no effect on vomiting and flatulence/bloating with relative risks of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.79 to 1.25, P = 0.95) and 1.12 (95% CI: 0.59 to 2.12; P = 0.72) respectively.

View this table:
[Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/T2)

Table 2 
Meta-analyses of other gastrointestinal outcomes

## DISCUSSION

In this review, 23 randomised controlled trials met inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. Risk of bias assessment was conducted for each of these studies. Meta-analyses were carried out for seven of these outcomes. These showed that dietary supplements are effective in reducing the risk of diarrhoea, experiencing moderate to severe diarrhoea and anti-diarrhoeal medication use. Subgroup analysis showed that biotic supplements and polyphenols were effective in reducing the risk of these outcomes, but amino acids were ineffective. Among the subclasses of biotic interventions, both probiotic and synbiotic supplements were shown to be effective in reducing the risk of diarrhoea. Taken together, these results indicate that biotic supplements can reduce the risk of acute diarrhoea and the severity of diarrhoea in patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy.

There are important differences within and among the intervention groups regarding the administration of the dietary supplements. This includes amount, timing and composition of the supplement. Biotics represent a diverse range of interventions, including prebiotic, probiotic and synbiotic interventions. Probiotic and synbiotic interventions can be administered as a single strain/species of bacteria or a mixture of different strains/species. Since little is known their interactions with the gut microbiota32, it is difficult to directly compare the included trials. For the included studies, dose and choice of strains were likely based on empirical observations of perceived benefits to lower gastrointestinal tract health in other settings. For example, there is a history of treating inflammatory bowel disease using bacteria with well-established dosage and strain parameters. Even within a bacterial genus, biological activities are strain-specific. For example, *Lactobacillus casei* has a different functional repertoire to other *Lactobacillus* strains33, making a comparison with studies using *L. acidophilus* or *L. rhamnosus* difficult. This hampers interpretation of results of using a mixture of different strains. Delia *et al* used a cocktail of eight strains, including four strains of *Lactobacilli*, three strains of *Bifidobacterium*, and *Streptococcus salivarius*34.

Polyphenol interventions are complicated in several respects. Firstly, they are administered as plant extracts, rather than a single purified active agent. Secondly, polyphenols are subject to chemical modification in the small intestine35 and limited bioavailability can be a problem. Conversely, the amino acid interventions in this review are all based on pure glutamine, with a comparatively narrow range of doses administered (8g – 45g/day). This standardisation should enable high levels of comparability between trials in this intervention category. The studies investigating PUFA interventions were based on omega-6 CLA or omega-3 fatty acids supplements. Only two studies in this intervention category met inclusion criteria, as many such trials investigate symptoms of radiation-induced cachexia, including weight and skeletal muscle loss36.

Our study is the only reported meta-analysis that investigates the efficacy of four different classes of dietary supplements on acute symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity. Most previous meta-analyses investigated only a single class of dietary supplement. This review includes more studies (23) and patients (1,919) than other published reviews, increasing confidence in the quantitative analysis. Several meta-analyses have been conducted for probiotic and synbiotic supplements over the last decade, but the category of prebiotics has not yet been analysed. Therefore, the inclusion of prebiotics in this review is another key distinguishing feature. The previous meta-analyses investigating the effects of biotic supplements on acute symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity are listed in Table S2. Overall, the trials included in each meta-analysis are largely identical. Where different selections were made, this is mainly due to variations in search strategy and the statistical methods used. A Cochrane systematic review has also investigated the efficacy of interventions, including radiotherapy techniques and pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, on acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic cancers4. Compared to their study of non-pharmacological interventions, including dietary interventions, probiotics, glutamine, counselling, and protein supplements, our focused approach showed that the beneficial effects mainly came from the probiotics and synbiotics. Also, the focus of the Cochrane review was on prevention, rather than treatment, of acute symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity, an important difference to our review. Additionally, their search was only updated to November 2017; our search to June 2020 included three more recent studies of biotic supplements (224 patients) and one study focusing on PUFA supplements (40 patients). Currently, there are no published meta-analyses that investigate the effect of PUFA or polyphenol supplements on acute symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity, and two included studies of polyphenols suggested that they are beneficial in preventing diarrhoea. One analysis investigating amino acid supplements (glutamine) was identified37 but rejected because of different endpoints used. The authors included 13 RCTs investigating acute symptoms of radiation enteritis, with the following outcomes, abdominal cramping, blood in bowel movement and tenesmus. The researchers found that amino acid supplements were not effective in improving symptoms. This finding is consistent with the result of this review that amino acid supplements are ineffective in improving acute symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity.

A strength of our meta-analysis is that the data relate to patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy. They are not derived from cell lines or animal model systems. A further strength is that the trials are based on direct measurements of the symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity, rather than less direct measures of effect, such as immunological, biochemical or histological markers. Therefore, the findings of this review can be directly applied to clinical practice. However, patient-related factors of low numbers (< 40) of participants in 26% of included studies represent a weakness in the statistical treatment of data sets, resulting in wider confidence intervals. Most data were derived from single-centre trials, thus limiting the ability to recruit larger numbers of patients. Furthermore, the baseline heterogeneity of the patient cohorts is high, as it is not possible to subdivide patients into meaningfully representative sub-groups in terms of age, sex, lifestyle-related factors, co-morbidities and type of cancer.

The underlying protective effects of dietary supplements against GI toxicities may be mediated as shown in Figure 7. A direct effect on the intestinal immune environment following intake of specific dietary agents may lead to anti-inflammatory changes that alleviate gastrointestinal toxicity. There may also be an indirect effect, whereby the above immunomodulatory actions are developed in response to changes in the gut microbiota and their metabolites, particularly SCFAs.

![Figure 7](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F7.medium.gif)

[Figure 7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/23/2020.08.21.20178814/F7)

Figure 7 
Schematic overview of potential benefits of dietary supplement intervention to alleviate symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity caused by pelvic radiotherapy.

In terms of probiotics, these can act in three beneficial ways. Firstly, their presence may down-regulate epithelial apoptosis and reduce inflammatory activity of the digestive tract, possibly involving intact signalling of TLR-2, MyD88 and COX-238. Secondly, in the presence of dietary fibre, probiotics produce the SCFA butyrate. Butyrate is implicated in the reduction of mucosal inflammation and promotion of epithelial repair following injury. Thirdly, probiotics may provide resistance against infection of the damaged mucosa by pathogens. The scientific consensus is that two classes of mechanisms are involved39, namely direct and indirect effects. Direct effects involve competition between commensal and pathogenic bacteria for the same ecological niche. This competition comprises competition for nutrients and production of antimicrobial peptides and toxins40. By contrast, indirect effects involve improvement in intestinal mucosal function and stimulation of the innate and adaptive immune systems by commensal bacteria41.

In our meta-analysis, two studies demonstrated that polyphenols reduced the risk of diarrhoea with an overall RR of 0.30 (95% CI = 0.13 to 0.70; P = 0.005). In line with this finding, polyphenols have anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory effects in human42. As anti-oxidants, polyphenols reduce oxidative damage by preventing the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), and by preventing the generation of these species43. In this way, polyphenols protect tissues against oxidative stress from ROS and RNS which are both products of radiotherapy44. It is important to acknowledge that polyphenols also have other important properties, such as anti-histamine, anti-bacterial and anti-viral effects. We can speculate that the mechanisms underlying these effects are similar to those responsible for the anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, with possibly overlap.

This review aimed to investigate the effect of dietary supplements on acute and late symptoms, but there were no studies reporting on late side effects among included studies. Chronic symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity typically emerge a few months to years following irradiation and occur in most of the intestinal compartments45. The prevalence of chronic symptoms is reported to be between 5 and 15%46 and can result in potentially fatal complications such as fistulation, sepsis and perforation of the colon4.35. Due to improvements in pelvic cancer treatment, the number of cancer survivors is increasing. Consequently, more patients are potentially at risk of chronic symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity. However, improvements in pelvic cancer treatment, such as the use of image guided radiotherapy, have in turn resulted in a decrease in chronic radiation effects47. The pathophysiology of chronic effects is more complicated than acute effects48. Evidence from clinical studies suggests that acute and chronic effects are linked, with the risk of developing late effects greater in patients that have developed acute effects (consequential late effects)49–51. Consistent with this finding, a systematic review that investigated the relationship between acute and late gastrointestinal toxicity after RT for prostate cancer concluded that acute GI toxicity may be predictive of high risk of developing late effects51. Taken together, the evidence suggests that dietary supplements could ameliorate chronic symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity in two ways: directly, by minimising the pathophysiology underlying chronic effects, including differentiation of mitotic fibroblasts into post-mitotic fibroblasts, and indirectly, by reducing the magnitude of acute symptoms and the resulting consequential late effects.

## CONCLUSION

Findings from our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that biotic supplements, specifically probiotics and synbiotics, are effective in reducing the risk and severity of acute symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity caused by pelvic radiotherapy. The data also broadly confirm that they are safe to use.

## Data Availability

N/A

## DECLARATIONS

## Funding

This work was funded by Cancer Research UK Programme grant C5255/A23755. The funding body had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.

## Authors’ contributions

BB performed the title/abstract selection, data extraction, interpretation of the data, risk of bias assessment and drafted the manuscript. CKT reviewed the title/abstract selection, performed the analysis, and did the risk of bias assessment. EH ran the search strategy through the databases and clinical trials registry. CK performed meta-regression and reviewed the results of statistical analysis. AEK conceived the study, supervised the work, and revised the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version.

## Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

## Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

N/A

## Acknowledgements

N/A

*   Received August 21, 2020.
*   Revision received August 21, 2020.
*   Accepted August 23, 2020.


*   © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## REFERENCES

1.  1.Begg AC, Stewart FA, Vens C. Strategies to improve radiotherapy with targeted drugs. Nat Rev Cancer 2011;11(4):239–53.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrc3007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21430696&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000288741300010&link_type=ISI) 

2.  2.Morris KA, Haboubi NY. Pelvic radiation therapy: Between delight and disaster. World J Gastrointest Surg 2015;7(11):279–88.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4240/wjgs.v7.i11.279&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26649150&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

3.  3.Frazzoni L, La Marca M, Guido A, et al. Pelvic radiation disease: Updates on treatment options. World J Clin Oncol 2015;6(6):272–80.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5306/wjco.v6.i6.272&link_type=DOI) 

4.  4.Lawrie TA, Green JT, Beresford M, et al. Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic cancers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;1:CD012529.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/14651858.CD012529.pub2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

5.  5.Andreyev J. Gastrointestinal complications of pelvic radiotherapy: are they of any importance? Gut 2005;54(8):1051–4.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiZ3V0am5sIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjU0LzgvMTA1MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzIzLzIwMjAuMDguMjEuMjAxNzg4MTQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

6.  6.Gibson RJ, Keefe DM, Lalla RV, et al. Systematic review of agents for the management of gastrointestinal mucositis in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2013;21(1):31326.
    
    

7.  7.Larsen A, Bjorge B, Klementsen B, et al. Time patterns of changes in biomarkers, symptoms and histopathology during pelvic radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2007;46(5):639–50.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17562440&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

8.  8.Stacey R, Green JT. Radiation-induced small bowel disease: latest developments and clinical guidance. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 2014;5(1):15–29.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/2040622313510730&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24381725&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

9.  9.Visich KL, Yeo TP. The prophylactic use of probiotics in the prevention of radiation therapy-induced diarrhea. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2010;4(14):467–73.
    
    

10. 10.Kim S, Shen S, Moore DF, et al. Late gastrointestinal toxicities following radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;60(5):908–16.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.eururo.2011.05.052&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21684064&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

11. 11.Fijan S. Microorganisms with claimed probiotic properties: an overview of recent literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014;11(5):4745–67.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph110504745&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24859749&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

12. 12.Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, et al. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;11(8):506–14.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24912386&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

13. 13.Pineiro M, Asp NG, Reid G, et al. FAO Technical meeting on prebiotics. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008;42 Suppl 3 Pt 2:S156–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MCG.0b013e31817f184e&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18685504&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000259181500002&link_type=ISI) 

14. 14.Dinan TG, Cryan JF. The impact of gut microbiota on brain and behaviour: implications for psychiatry. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2015;18(6):552–8.
    
    

15. 15.Bassaganya-Riera J, Hontecillas R. Dietary conjugated linoleic acid and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in inflammatory bowel disease. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2010;13(5):569–73.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MCO.0b013e32833b648e&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20508519&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

16. 16.Hajjaji N, Bougnoux P. Selective sensitization of tumors to chemotherapy by marine-derived lipids: a review. Cancer Treat Rev 2013;39(5):473–88.
    
    

17. 17.Jensen JC, Schaefer R, Nwokedi E, et al. Prevention of chronic radiation enteropathy by dietary glutamine. Ann Surg Oncol 1994;1(2):157–63.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/BF02303560&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7834441&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1994NM32900013&link_type=ISI) 

18. 18.Akpolat M, Kanter M, Uzal MC. Protective effects of curcumin against gamma radiation-induced ileal mucosal damage. Arch Toxicol 2009;83(6):609–17.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00204-008-0352-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18754102&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

19. 19.Son TG, Gong EJ, Bae MJ, et al. Protective effect of genistein on radiation-induced intestinal injury in tumor bearing mice. BMC Complement Altern Med 2013;13:103.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1472-6882-13-103&link_type=DOI) 

20. 20.Kiltie A, Bartsch B, Then CK, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions with dietary supplements, including pre-, pro- and synbiotics, to reduce acute and late gastrointestinal side effects in patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy: PROSPERO; 2020 [Available from: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display\_record.php?RecordID=183304](https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=183304).
    
    

21. 21.Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995;123(3):A12–3.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7599994&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

22. 22.EndNote [program]. EndNote X9 version. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate, 2013.
    
    

23. 23.Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNjYvYXVnMjhfMi9sNDg5OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzIzLzIwMjAuMDguMjEuMjAxNzg4MTQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

24. 24.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557–60.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMjcvNzQxNC81NTciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wOC8yMy8yMDIwLjA4LjIxLjIwMTc4ODE0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

25. 25.Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21(11):1539–58.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.1186&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12111919&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000176016900005&link_type=ISI) 

26. 26.JPT H, J T, J C, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane, 2019.
    
    

27. 27.Review Manager (RevMan) [program]. Version 5.4 version. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
    
    

28. 28.Balduzzi S, Rucker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health 2019;22(4):153–60.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiZWJtZW50YWwiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMjIvNC8xNTMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wOC8yMy8yMDIwLjA4LjIxLjIwMTc4ODE0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

29. 29.Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959;22(4):719–48.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=13655060&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1959WD28900006&link_type=ISI) 

30. 30.Giralt J, Regadera JP, Verges R, et al. Effects of probiotic Lactobacillus casei DN-114 001 in prevention of radiation-induced diarrhea: Results from multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled nutritional trial. Int J Radiat Oncol 2008;71(4):1213–19.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.11.009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18243569&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000257299200034&link_type=ISI) 

31. 31.Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. In: SERVICES USDOHAH, ed.: National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 2017.
    
    

32. 32.Coyte KZ, Schluter J, Foster KR. The ecology of the microbiome: Networks, competition, and stability. Science 2015;350(6261):663–6.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzNTAvNjI2MS82NjMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wOC8yMy8yMDIwLjA4LjIxLjIwMTc4ODE0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

33. 33.Salminen S, Isolauri E, Salminen E. Clinical uses of probiotics for stabilizing the gut mucosal barrier: successful strains and future challenges. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 1996;70(2–4):347–58.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/BF00395941&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8992950&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996VG09400015&link_type=ISI) 

34. 34.Delia P, Sansotta G, Donato V, et al. Use of probiotics for prevention of radiation-induced diarrhea. World J Gastroentero 2007;13(6):912–15.
    
    

35. 35.Marin L, Miguelez EM, Villar CJ, et al. Bioavailability of Dietary Polyphenols and Gut Microbiota Metabolism: Antimicrobial Properties. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015
    
    

36. 36.Aredes MA, da Camara AO, de Paula NS, et al. Efficacy of omega-3 supplementation on nutritional status, skeletal muscle, and chemoradiotherapy toxicity in cervical cancer patients: A randomized, triple-blind, clinical trial conducted in a middle-income country. Nutrition 2019;67–68:110528.
    
    

37. 37.Cao DD, Xu HL, Xu M, et al. Therapeutic role of glutamine in management of radiation enteritis: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials. Oncotarget 2017;8(18):30595–605.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18632/oncotarget.15741&link_type=DOI) 

38. 38.Ciorba MA, Riehl TE, Rao MS, et al. Lactobacillus probiotic protects intestinal epithelium from radiation injury in a TLR-2/cyclo-oxygenase-2-dependent manner. Gut 2012;61(6):829–38.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiZ3V0am5sIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjYxLzYvODI5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDgvMjMvMjAyMC4wOC4yMS4yMDE3ODgxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

39. 39.Sassone-Corsi M, Raffatellu M. No Vacancy: How Beneficial Microbes Cooperate with Immunity To Provide Colonization Resistance to Pathogens. J Immunol 2015;194(9):4081–87.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiamltbXVub2wiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjE5NC85LzQwODEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wOC8yMy8yMDIwLjA4LjIxLjIwMTc4ODE0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

40. 40.Kim S, Covington A, Pamer EG. The intestinal microbiota: Antibiotics, colonization resistance, and enteric pathogens. Immunol Rev 2017;279(1):90–105.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/imr.12563&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28856737&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

41. 41.Buffie CG, Pamer EG. Microbiota-mediated colonization resistance against intestinal pathogens. Nat Rev Immunol 2013;13(11):790–801.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nri3535&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24096337&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

42. 42.Ogawa K, Hirose S, Nagaoka S, et al. Interaction between Tea Polyphenols and Bile Acid Inhibits Micellar Cholesterol Solubility. J Agric Food Chem 2016;64(1):204–9.
    
    

43. 43.Hussain T, Tan B, Yin Y, et al. Oxidative Stress and Inflammation: What Polyphenols Can Do for Us? Oxid Med Cell Longev 2016;2016:7432797.
    
    

44. 44.Gupta SC, Hevia D, Patchva S, et al. Upsides and downsides of reactive oxygen species for cancer: the roles of reactive oxygen species in tumorigenesis, prevention, and therapy. Antioxid Redox Signal 2012;16(11):1295–322.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/ars.2011.4414&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22117137&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000302951200010&link_type=ISI) 

45. 45.Shah V, Lyford G, Gores G, et al. Nitric oxide in gastrointestinal health and disease. Gastroenterology 2004;126(3):903–13.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.gastro.2003.11.046&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14988844&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000220179600033&link_type=ISI) 

46. 46.Olcina MM, Giaccia AJ. Reducing radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity – the role of the PHD/HIF axis. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2016;126(10):3708–15.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1172/JCI84432&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27548524&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

47. 47.Murray J, Griffin C, Gulliford S, et al. A randomised assessment of image guided radiotherapy within a phase 3 trial of conventional or hypofractionated high dose intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2020;142:62–71.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.radonc.2019.10.017&link_type=DOI) 

48. 48.Dorr W. Radiobiology of tissue reactions. Ann ICRP 2015;44(1 Suppl):58–68.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0146645314560686&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25816259&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

49. 49.Bourne RG, Kearsley JH, Grove WD, et al. The Relationship between Early and Late Gastrointestinal Complications of Radiation-Therapy for Carcinoma of the Cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol 1983;9(10):1445–50.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0360-3016(83)90316-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=6415005&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

50. 50.Wang CJ, Leung SW, Chen HC, et al. The correlation of acute toxicity and late rectal injury in radiotherapy for cervical carcinoma: Evidence suggestive of consequential late effect (CQLE). Int J Radiat Oncol 1998;40(1):85–91.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00560-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9422562&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000071164200014&link_type=ISI) 

51. 51.Peach MS, Showalter TN, Ohri N. Systematic Review of the Relationship between Acute and Late Gastrointestinal Toxicity after Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. Prostate Cancer 2015;2015
    
    

52. 52.Sasidharan BK, Ramadass B, Viswanathan PN, et al. A phase 2 randomized controlled trial of oral resistant starch supplements in the prevention of acute radiation proctitis in patients treated for cervical cancer. J Cancer Res Ther 2019;15(6):138–391.
    
    

53. 53.Linn YH, Thu KK, Win NHH. Effect of Probiotics for the Prevention of Acute Radiation-Induced Diarrhoea Among Cervical Cancer Patients: a Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study. Probiotics Antimicro 2019;11(2):638–47.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s12602-018-9408-9&link_type=DOI) 

54. 54.de Loera-Rodriguez LH, Ortiz GG, Rivero-Moragrega P, et al. Effect of symbiotic supplementation on fecal calprotectin levels and lactic acid bacteria, Bifidobacteria, Escherichia coli and Salmonella DNA in patients with cervical cancer. Nutr Hosp 2018;35(6):1394–400.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.20960/nh.1762&link_type=DOI) 

55. 55.Mansouri-Tehrani HS, Khorasgani MR, Roayaei M. Effects of Probiotics with or without Honey on Radiation-induced Diarrhea. International Journal of Radiation Research 2016;14(3):205–13.
    
    

56. 56.Garcia-Peris P, Velasco C, Lozano MA, et al. Effect of a mixture of inulin and fructo-oligosaccharide on lactobacillus and bifidobacterium intestinal microbiota of patients receiving radiotherapy; a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Nutr Hosp 2012;27(6):1908–15.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3305/nh.2012.27.6.5992&link_type=DOI) 

57. 57.Itoh Y, Mizuno M, Ikeda M, et al. A Randomized, Double-Blind Pilot Trial of Hydrolyzed Rice Bran versus Placebo for Radioprotective Effect on Acute Gastroenteritis Secondary to Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Cervical Cancer. Evid-Based Compl Alt 2015
    
    

58. 58.Demers M, Dagnault A, Desjardins J. A randomized double-blind controlled trial: Impact of probiotics on diarrhea in patients treated with pelvic radiation. Clin Nutr 2014;33(5):761–67.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.clnu.2013.10.015&link_type=DOI) 

59. 59.Chitapanarux I, Chitapanarux T, Traisathit P, et al. Randomized controlled trial of live lactobacillus acidophilus plus bifidobacterium bifidum in prophylaxis of diarrhea during radiotherapy in cervical cancer patients. Radiat Oncol 2010;5
    
    

60. 60.Castro MG, Sanchez PX, Glasberg J, et al. Effects of probiotic in prevention of radiation-induced diarrhea. Clinical Nutrition Supplements 2009;4(2):72–73.
    
    

61. 61.Urbancsek H, Kazar T, Mezes I, et al. Results of a double-blind, randomized study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Antibiophilus (R) in patients with radiation-induced diarrhoea. Eur J Gastroen Hepat 2001;13(4):391–96.
    
    

62. 62.Murphy J, Stacey D, Crook J, et al. Testing control of radiation-induced diarrhea with a psyllium bulking agent: a pilot study. Can Oncol Nurs J 2000;10(3):96–100.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5737/1181912X10396100&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11894282&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

63. 63.Salminen E, Elomaa I, Minkkinen J, et al. Preservation of Intestinal Integrity during Radiotherapy Using Live Lactobacillus-Acidophilus Cultures. Clin Radiol 1988;39(4):435–37.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0009-9260(88)80296-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3141101&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

64. 64.Vidal-Casariego A, Calleja-Fernandez A, de Urbina-Gonzalez JJ, et al. Efficacy of glutamine in the prevention of acute radiation enteritis: a randomized controlled trial. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2014;38(2):205–13.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0148607113478191&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23471208&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

65. 65.Manir K, Kallol B, Gaurav K, et al. Role of glutamine versus placebo in prevention of acute gastrointestinal toxicity in pelvic radiotherapy: A randomized control study. Clinical Cancer Investigation Journal 2014;3(6):508–13.
    
    

66. 66.Kucuktulu E, Guner A, Kahraman I, et al. The protective effects of glutamine on radiation-induced diarrhea. Supportive Care in Cancer 2013;21(4):1071–75.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00520-012-1627-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23064902&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

67. 67.Kozjek NR, Kompan L, Soeters P, et al. Oral glutamine supplementation during preoperative radiochemotherapy in patients with rectal cancer: A randomised double blinded, placebo controlled pilot study. Clin Nutr 2011;30(5):567–70.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.clnu.2011.06.003&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21733605&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

68. 68.Kozelsky TF, Meyers GE, Sloan JA, et al. Phase III double-blind study of glutamine versus placebo for the prevention of acute diarrhea in patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(9):1669–74.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjIxLzkvMTY2OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzIzLzIwMjAuMDguMjEuMjAxNzg4MTQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

69. 69.Faramarzi E, Mahdavi R, Mohammad-Zadeh M, et al. Effect of conjugated linoleic acid supplementation on quality of life in rectal cancer patients undergoing preoperative Chemoradiotherapy. Pak J Med Sci 2017;33(2):383–88.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.12669/pjms.332.11925&link_type=DOI) 

70. 70.Emami H, Nikoobin F, Roayaei M, et al. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness of green tea in preventing acute gastrointestinal complications due to radiotherapy. J Res Med Sci 2014;19(5):445–50.
    
    

71. 71.Ahmad IU, Forman JD, Sarkar FH, et al. Soy Isoflavones in Conjunction With Radiation Therapy in Patients With Prostate Cancer. Nutr Cancer 2010;62(7):996–1000.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/01635581.2010.509839&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20924975&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

72. 72.Qiu G, Yu Y, Wang Y, et al. The significance of probiotics in preventing radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2019;65:61–69.
    
    

73. 73.Wei D, Heus P, van de Wetering FT, et al. Probiotics for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related diarrhoea in people with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;8:CD008831.
    
    

74. 74.Liu MM, Li ST, Shu Y, et al. Probiotics for prevention of radiation-induced diarrhea: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2017;12(6):e0178870.
    
    

75. 75.Hamad A, Fragkos KC, Forbes A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of probiotics for the management of radiation induced bowel disease. Clinical Nutrition 2013;32(3):353–60.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.clnu.2013.02.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23453637&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom) 

76. 76.Fuccio L, Guido A, Eusebi LH, et al. Effects of Probiotics for the Prevention and Treatment of Radiation-induced Diarrhea. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009;43(6):506–13.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181a1f59c&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19398930&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F23%2F2020.08.21.20178814.atom)