Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jan 2;19(1):e0296523. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296523

Feasibility and metabolic outcomes of a well-formulated ketogenic diet as an adjuvant therapeutic intervention for women with stage IV metastatic breast cancer: The Keto-CARE trial

Alex Buga 1, David G Harper 2, Teryn N Sapper 1, Parker N Hyde 3, Brandon Fell 1, Ryan Dickerson 1, Justen T Stoner 1, Madison L Kackley 1, Christopher D Crabtree 1, Drew D Decker 1, Bradley T Robinson 1, Gerald Krystal 4, Katherine Binzel 5, Maryam B Lustberg 6, Jeff S Volek 1,*
Editor: Rainer J Klement7
PMCID: PMC10760925  PMID: 38166036

Abstract

Purpose

Ketogenic diets may positively influence cancer through pleiotropic mechanisms, but only a few small and short-term studies have addressed feasibility and efficacy in cancer patients. The primary goals of this study were to evaluate the feasibility and the sustained metabolic effects of a personalized well-formulated ketogenic diet (WFKD) designed to achieve consistent blood beta-hydroxybutyrate (βHB) >0.5 mM in women diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer (MBC) undergoing chemotherapy.

Methods

Women (n = 20) were enrolled in a six month, two-phase, single-arm WFKD intervention (NCT03535701). Phase I was a highly-supervised, ad libitum, personalized WFKD, where women were provided with ketogenic-appropriate food daily for three months. Phase II transitioned women to a self-administered WFKD with ongoing coaching for an additional three months. Fasting capillary βHB and glucose were collected daily; weight, body composition, plasma insulin, and insulin resistance were collected at baseline, three and six months.

Results

Capillary βHB indicated women achieved nutritional ketosis (Phase I mean: 0.8 mM (n = 15); Phase II mean: 0.7 mM (n = 9)). Body weight decreased 10% after three months, primarily from body fat. Fasting plasma glucose, plasma insulin, and insulin resistance also decreased significantly after three months (p < 0.01), an effect that persisted at six months.

Conclusions

Women diagnosed with MBC undergoing chemotherapy can safely achieve and maintain nutritional ketosis, while improving body composition and insulin resistance, out to six months.

Introduction

In 2020, breast cancer became the most diagnosed cancer worldwide–with an estimated 2.3 million new cases–surpassing lung cancer [1]. Early detection and treatment have improved breast cancer survival rates to almost 90% [2], however, approximately only one in three women with stage IV metastatic breast cancer (MBC) survive past five years [3].

Previous dietary interventions, exploring MBC outcomes, focused on low-fat/high-carbohydrate regimens that produced disappointing results [46] indicating limited efficacy. Observational studies examining the role of fat in breast cancer have also demonstrated mixed results [7, 8]. The ambient dietary carbohydrate intake is likely to be an important consideration in how dietary fat is metabolized, which in turn might explain inconsistent associations between fat consumption and cancer risk. We previously demonstrated that in the context of a carbohydrate-restricted well-formulated ketogenic diet (WFKD), increased consumption of saturated fat does not lead to increased levels of circulating saturated fat; in fact, blood saturated fat usually decreases [912]. Beyond positively influencing saturated fat metabolism, a WFKD is associated with broad-spectrum health benefits, many of which might have favorable impact on breast cancer [13] treatment and outcomes.

The daily carbohydrate restriction (20 – 50g/day) inherent to a WFKD leads to a reduction in plasma insulin and glucose levels, thereby increasing reliance on fatty acid oxidation over glucose, which may favorably influence local tumor and systemic metabolism. Ketogenic diets may also improve cancer outcomes through additional pleiotropic mechanisms such as altering tumor metabolism (i.e., downregulate aerobic glycolysis; Warburg effect), improving mitochondrial hormesis, restoring normal oxidative phosphorylation, influencing epigenetic modulation, reducing ’cancer-related upregulation of phosphoinositol-3 kinase (PI3K) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling, and lessening hyperglycemia induced by cancer medication [1418].

While there are many hypothetical reasons a metabolic state of nutritional ketosis may benefit individuals with cancer, there are only a few published studies demonstrating feasibility and metabolic outcomes in humans. These include case studies [19, 20] and preclinical models [2123]; only a few involved longitudinal studies in breast cancer populations [2427]. These small trials reported that ketogenic diets are safe and effective at improving fasting glucose, insulin [26], body composition [24, 25], and quality of life [27]. There are no previous studies on MBC patients lasting longer than three months that monitored plasma glucose and ketones daily to track adherence and guide sustainability.

The KETOgenic diet in Chemotherapy to Affect REcurrence of breast cancer (Keto-CARE) trial is among the few exploratory safety trials designed to investigate the feasibility and metabolic effects of a WFKD in women with stage IV MBC undergoing chemotherapy. A major focus was to design the WFKD intervention to be enjoyable and sustainable by tailoring it for each participant with the goal of achieving and maintaining nutritional ketosis throughout six-months. Feasibility was evaluated by monitoring safety and attrition. Dietary adherence was defined by daily capillary beta hydroxybutyrate (βHB) concentrations maintained within a confined nutritional ketosis range (0.5–4.0 mM βHB). Phase I (highly supervised; months 0–3) provided all the food and coaching for the WFKD; phase II (self-administered; months 3–6) provided coaching only. Blood parameters such as fasting plasma glucose and insulin, and body composition were assessed at baseline and after each phase.

Methods

Study participants

Participants were recruited through the Stefanie Spielman Comprehensive Breast Center at The Ohio State University from October 2017 to September 2019. Data collection and last the last follow-up ended in March 2020. The goal was to enroll 20 women with diagnosed MBC, currently undergoing standard-of-care anticancer therapies, into a WFKD intervention. A summary of patients’ specific disease subtypes (i.e., hormone phenotype), anatomical sites of metastases, and treatment regimens are summarized in Table 1. Detailed drug descriptions are summarized in the supplement (S1 Table). To maximize recruitment and sample size requirements, the trial did not limit participants to specific histological subtypes and/or treatment regimen. A list of inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 2. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03535701) prior to commencing data collection. Approvals for the clinical protocols and clinical oversight were provided by The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board (IRB; #2017C0020) and the Clinical Scientific Review Committee (CSRC; OSU-16289) at the OSU Comprehensive Cancer Center. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study, prior to commencing data collection, and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki 2013. A detailed CONSORT diagram depicts the study enrolment (Fig 1).

Table 1. Participant descriptives.

Treatment Subtype Metastases Age BMI Total Body Fat (%)
ER PR HER2
Capecitabine - - - LU, BO, BR 52 41 53.1
Capecitabine + + - LI, BO 48 24 36.4
Capecitabine - - - BO, LI 67 22 41.4
Capecitabine - - - LI 57 23 45.8
Capecitabine - - - BO, LU, BR 60 29 49.9
Capecitabine - - - LU 55 30 41.9
Capecitabine + + - BO 72 44 53.9
Capecitabine - - - LU, LY, BO 60 22 42.3
Capecitabine/Paclitaxel + + - BO, PE 87 24 37.4
Docetaxel/Peruzumab/Trastuzumab + + + LI, BO 57 33 45.7
Doxorubicin + + - LI, BO 51 26 37.4
Exemestane + + - BO, LI 60 26 43.8
Paclitaxel + + - LI, BO 43 26 34.5
Paclitaxel +—+ LI 53 35 52.1
Paclitaxel +—- LI, BO, LU 61 25 41.5
Paclitaxel - - - LU, LY, LI 59 31 43.5
Palbociclib + + - BO 68 31 49.5
Palbociclib + + - BO 51 35 44.0
Palbociclib/Letrozole/Denosumab + + - BO 39 38 51.7
Palbociclib/Letrozole/Denosumab/Goserelin + + - BO 35 46 54.5
Mean ± SD 57 ± 12 31 ± 7 45.0 ± 6.2

ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2

BO, bone; BR, brain; LI, liver; LU, lung; LY, lymph; PE, peritoneum.

Table 2. Inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
  • Age ≥ 18 years

  • Body mass index (BMI) ≥ 22 kg/m2

  • Confirmed diagnosis of metastatic or stage IV breast cancer

  • FDG-PET avid tumors

  • Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance status of 0–1 (0 = participant has normal activity, 1 = participant has some symptoms but is nearly full ambulatory)

  • Able and willing to follow prescribed diet intervention.

  • Life expectancy > 6 months

  • Greater than 3 rounds of prior chemotherapy for MBC (prior to adjuvant chemotherapy permitted as long as > 12 months)

  • BMI <22 kg/m2

  • Weight change > 5% within 3 months of enrollment

  • Type 1 diabetes

  • Current use of insulin or sulfonylureas for glycemic control or history of ketoacidosis

  • History of diabetes with retinopathy requiring treatment

  • Intestinal obstruction

  • Abnormal liver or kidney function

  • Congestive heart failure

  • Pregnant or nursing

  • Uncontrolled medical conditions that would limit compliance with study requirements.

  • Unable to provide informed consent

Fig 1. CONSORT diagram.

Fig 1

Experimental design

Keto-CARE was originally designed as a two-arm, biphasic trial aimed at establishing the feasibility and clinical use of a WFKD compared to the standardized control diet for women with MBC. To address our primary aim of adherence and feasibility, we used daily fasting capillary βHB trends over six months as the main outcome. The secondary exploratory outcomes included the effects of WFKD on glucose, insulin, body weight, and body composition.

Participants had the choice to self-select into either group following standard dietary recommendations as reported by the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCR/AICR) [28]. Two major events prevented the enrollment into the control group. First, all the eligible participants self-selected into the WFKD dietary arm. Second, by the time we focused on recruitment to the control group, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a sustained cessation of clinical trials. Therefore, the study was redesigned into a single-arm intervention, similar to other small sample size oncology studies [26, 2932] (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Experimental design.

Fig 2

Women diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer (n = 20) were recruited and assigned to participate in a single-arm, well-formulated ketogenic diet (WFKD) intervention. The highly supervised WFKD portion (Phase I) provided three months of food and counseling from a specialized ketogenic-trained registered dietitian. The self-administered WFKD (Phase II) consisted of a 3-month free-living period where the feasibility of consuming a WFKD without food provision was evaluated. Figure was created with BioRender.com.

During the first, three month phase of the study (Phase I), team registered dietitians provided “highly-supervised” dietetic support to participants as daily WFKD coaching and nutrition guidance, and similar to previous continuous-care models [33]. To overcome possible WFKD challenges (i.e., ketosis maintenance) and attrition described by a similar trial [34], the grant award from the Hecht Foundation provided the funds necessary to rent out a metabolic kitchen space, purchase all the raw-food items from local grocery stores, and cook/assemble daily breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and snacks for participants throughout Phase I. During the second, three month phase of the study (Phase II), the study team remained in daily contact with participants to monitor plasma ketones and glucose, and participants were responsible for maintaining a “self-administered” WFKD while receiving continued coaching and guidance as requested.

All participants received their standard-of-care chemotherapy treatment, prescribed by their oncologist, most often paclitaxel or capecitabine. The tumor subtypes of the group included estrogen (ER) positive/negative, progesterone (PR) positive/negative, hormone estrogen receptor (HER) positive/negative, and combinations of those subtypes.

Dietetic intervention

Phase I: Highly supervised WFKD

Prior to initiating the diet intervention, participants met with registered dietitians to receive education on the principles of a WFKD and ketone metabolism. The individualized WFKD consisted of 20–50 g/day of carbohydrate, 1.2–1.5 g of protein/kg of reference weight [35], and dietary fat consumed to satiety. All meals were prepared fresh in a state-of-the-art metabolic kitchen (Instructional Research Kitchen, Ohio Union, Columbus, OH); frozen meals were provided by a private supplier (PangeaKeto, North Canton, OH). Additional groceries were purchased by the study team based on individual preferences and requirements. All meals and groceries were provided ad libitum and customized to individual participant preference. The primary benchmark of Phase I was to achieve blood ketones ≥0.5 mM βHB, as determined by fasting capillary finger sticks performed each morning and alike to prior methods [36]. In addition to the initial education session, the study team was in daily communication with participants via phone, emails, and/or text messages, to monitor adherence and support participants in maintaining nutritional ketosis.

A wide variety of foods were incorporated into the nutritional program including non-starchy vegetables (e.g., leafy greens, broccoli, cauliflower, zucchini), low-glycemic fruits (e.g., berries, olives, tomatoes, lemons/limes), animal-based protein (e.g., eggs, beef, poultry, pork, seafood), nuts, seeds, oils (olive, avocado, coconut), high-fat dairy (cheese, butter, cream). Saturated and monounsaturated fats were the primary fat sources, while polyunsaturated fats were consumed in low to moderate amounts. Participants were encouraged to increase their sodium intake by 1–2 g/day by liberally salting foods, drinking bouillon or broth daily, or making an electrolyte beverage to avoid hyponatremia while in nutritional ketosis [37]. To increase tolerability and sustainability, we did not require tracking of daily macronutrients and calories. Participants were instructed to eat to satiety and were allowed to lose, gain, or maintain weight as desired and as advised by their attending medical oncologist. In addition to the unlimited amounts of fresh and frozen study foods, participants were free to eat ketogenic-appropriate foods outside of what the study provided (e.g., at restaurants, work, or family gatherings). A sample menu template is depicted in Fig 3 and a summarized list of food items is provided in the supplement (S2 Table).

Fig 3. Menu template.

Fig 3

Panel A: Sample breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks (~2000 kcal) prepared in the metabolic kitchen during the highly-supervised study phase (Phase I). Panel B: Sample lunches and dinners prepared by participants, at home, during the self-administered diet feasibility evaluation phase (Phase II). Featured meals comprise salmon with cream of asparagus soup, chicken with sautéed mushrooms, zucchini cakes, beef soup, chicken and squash soup, and mushroom risotto.

At the beginning of Phase I, participants relied heavily on the fresh and frozen meals provided by the study to achieve nutritional ketosis. As participants demonstrated that they could maintain capillary ketone concentrations of ≥0.5 mM βHB, they transitioned to a hybrid approach where the study team provided them with weekly groceries and meal/recipe guidance to prepare WFKD meals at home. The transition from ready-to-eat meals to weekly grocery procurement was intended to prepare women for Phase II of the study.

Phase II: Self-administered WFKD

For the second 3-month experimental phase participants ‘self-administered’ the WFKD, allowing us to investigate the feasibility of maintaining the dietary approach without the intense supervision and food provision as provided in Phase I. Participants were encouraged to follow the same WFKD principles as Phase I. Food was no longer provided, but the research team was available for daily communication with the participants to help facilitate the maintenance of nutritional ketosis. Daily fasting capillary βHB and glucose continued to be reported during this phase.

Metabolic measurements, blood collection and analysis

Fasting βHB and glucose were measured daily–in the morning and before breakfast–in capillary blood using enzymatic reagent strips fitted for a portable Precision Xtra© glucometer/ketometer (Abbott, Inc., Columbus, OH). Participants reported their values by submitting pictures of the meter readings to study staff to minimize self-reporting bias. Fasting blood samples were collected by a trained phlebotomist via venipuncture in the antecubital fossa (Eppendorf 21G Butterfly, Hamburg, Germany) or port access. All participants reported to the testing facility before 9:00am for their assessments (Martha Morehouse, Columbus, OH). Arrival conditions stipulated that subjects consume no caffeine for >12h, no food for >8h, and sleep 6-8h the night before testing. Blood was collected into a single 10mL spray coated K2EDTA vacutainer tube (BD Vacutainer, Franklin Lakes, NJ). Blood collection tubes were then centrifuged at 1200 g for 10 minutes at 4°C. Plasma was aliquoted and snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen. Samples were stored at -80°C and thawed immediately prior to analysis. Serum insulin was determined via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with an average within-samples CV of 2.1% (Quantikine, Catalog No. DINS00, R&D Systems Minneapolis, MN). Insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was determined from capillary glucose and plasma insulin [38].

Body composition

Body weight and composition were analyzed at baseline and end of each phase. Weight was measured at each visit on an electronic stadiometer (SECA 703 Digital, Hamburg, Germany) calibrated to the nearest ±0.01 kg while participants wore light clothing and no shoes. Body composition was assessed by a licensed technician using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (Lunar iDXA; GE, Madison, WI, USA). Regional fat mass and lean body mass were quantified from a whole-body scan at each visit (CoreScan enCORE software version 14.10).

Statistical analysis

Analyses and graphs were performed using GraphPad Prism (ver. 9.1.0, GraphPad Software, San Diego, California USA). Two-tail α significance was set at p < 0.05. All the variables of interest were screened for normality and homogeneity of variance using the Shapiro-Wilk test and Mauchly’s sphericity test, respectively. Violations of sphericity were treated with the Greenhouse-Geisser adjustment. For Phase I endpoints, we analyzed the main effects of time using paired samples t-tests (BL vs. 3 MO). When including Phase II endpoints, we used a 1 (condition) x 3 (time) repeated-measures mixed-effects analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) with Bonferroni post-hoc corrections to analyze the differences between BL and 3 MO; BL and 6 MO; and 3 MO and 6 MO. We additionally compared weekly fasting glucose/βHB mean concentrations and variability between phases using an unpaired t-test (Phase I vs. Phase II).

We planned to recruit 20 participants to provide a reasonable representation of variability in diet adherence and metabolic outcomes to inform future studies. Additionally, due to the novel nature of this protocol we also anticipated substantial attrition and baseline variance. Due to a lack of comparison arm and the fact that non-compliance (as guided by capillary βHB) was a primary outcome, we did not perform an intent-to-treat analysis. To preserve power, we instead analyzed participants based on their enrollment in the study as follows: those who completed the study up to and including the three-month outcome were treated as “Phase I only” participants; those who completed the six-month outcome were treated as “Phase I+II” completers. Detailed information regarding the study design and de-identified data are publicly available in the supplement (S1 and S2 Files and the online dataset [39].

Results

Enrollment and participant characteristics

Out of the 20 enrolled participants, 5 dropped out during Phase I, and 6 prior to completing Phase II. Thus, 15 participants completed Phase I and 9 participants completed both Phase I and II. Baseline characteristics, disease subtype, study duration, chemotherapy regimen, and brief rationale for withdrawal are presented in Fig 4. In no instance was the primary reason for subject withdrawal attributed to the WFKD. There were also no adverse events associated with the adoption or maintenance of the WFKD.

Fig 4. Enrollment Gantt chart.

Fig 4

A: completed six-months of WFKD but failed to report back to study center for post-testing. B: lost job/stress of treatment regimen. C: early side effects of chemotherapy. D: progressive disease before starting trial. E: progressive disease. F: family problems/challenges. G: did not maintain contact with study team. H: completed six-months of WFKD but was restricted from research center for post-testing due to COVID I: completed six-months of WFKD but passed away from cancer-related complications before post testing. J: passed away after surgery. K: chose not to maintain ketosis. L: family and work issues. M: preference for non-ketogenic desserts as comfort food.

Phase I: Highly supervised WFKD

Capillary ketones and glucose

Results for Phase I are summarized in Table 3, with individual results shown for blood markers (Fig 5). Participants reported fasting capillary βHB and glucose readings to the staff 92% of the days during Phase I. All participants (n = 15) attained nutritional ketosis after the first week on WFKD and maintained βHB ≥0.5 mM 87% of the time over the three months. Mean fasting βHB increased over three months, and into the predicted range of nutritional ketosis (Δ: 0.6 ± 0.1 mM, p < 0.001).

Table 3. Results and main effects during the highly-supervised WFKD intervention.
Variable n Baseline Phase I Δ % Δ Effect Size (Cohen’s d) Paired t-test (p-value)
Mean SEM Mean SEM
Ketones (βHB; mM) 15 0.18 0.02 0.81 0.11 0.63 450% 1.99 0.001
Glucose (mg/dL) 15 119 5.3 105 2.6 -14 -12% 0.86 0.009
Insulin (μU/mL) 14 24.5 3.5 17.0 1.8 -7.5 -31% 0.72 0.008
HOMA-IR 14 7.4 1.0 4.5 0.5 -2.9 -39% 0.94 0.002
Body Weight (kg) 15 86.4 4.9 77.5 4.5 -8.9 -10% 0.49 0.001
Body Fat Mass (kg) 15 39.4 3.7 32.7 3.4 -6.7 -17% 0.49 0.001
Lean Body Mass (kg) 15 46.9 1.5 44.8 1.4 -2.1 -4% 0.38 0.006
Body Fat Percentage (%) 15 44.5 1.7 40.9 1.8 -3.6 0.55 0.001

n = 1 blood sample was excluded for Insulin/HOMA-IR measurement due to hemolysis.

Effect size thresholds: 0.2 –weak effect; 0.5 –moderate effect; 0.8 –large effect.

Δ = change from BL. Bold face denotes significant effects.

Fig 5. Blood parameters.

Fig 5

Baseline (BL) and three month (3 MO) data points for ketones and glucose are reported as the test visit capillary blood measures collected during the clinically controlled WFKD phase. Insulin was measured in fasting plasma and quantified using ELISA. Data presented as mean ± SEM. Time effects:**,*** < 0.01/0.001 from BL. HOMA-IR, homeostatic model of insulin resistance. HOMA-IR = [glucose (mg/dL) x insulin (μU/mL)] / 405.

Fasting capillary glucose decreased 12% from baseline (Δ: -14 ± 5 mg/dL, p = 0.009). One participant with hyperglycemia demonstrated a 62 mg/dL decrease in glucose (-34%); the remaining participants demonstrated a more modest but still significant decrease in glucose (mean -11 mg/dL, 95% CI: -18 to -3 mg/dL; p < 0.01).

Plasma insulin

Fasting plasma insulin decreased 30% from baseline (Δ: -7 ± 2 μU/mL; p = 0.007), which corresponded to a 38% decrease in HOMA-IR (Δ: 2.7 ± 0.7; p = 0.002). Thirteen participants (87%) experienced an improvement in insulin sensitivity.

Body weight and composition

All participants lost body weight and body fat mass during Phase I (Fig 6). On average, weight decreased by 10% from baseline (Δ: -8.5 ± 1.4 kg; p > 0.001). Mean body composition changes were mainly driven by a decrease in body fat percentage (Δ: -3.7 ± 0.5%; p < 0.001). ’The overall ratio of fat mass to lean body mass lost was 3.5:1 kg:kg, with 78% of the weight loss derived from body fat mass (Δ: -6.6 ± 1.0 kg; p > 0.001) and 22% from lean body mass (Δ: -1.8 ± 0.7 kg; p = 0.02).

Fig 6. Body composition.

Fig 6

Data presented as mean ± SEM. Time effect:.**,*** < 0.01/0.001 from BL.

Phase II: Self-administered WFKD

Capillary ketones and glucose

Phase II outcomes are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. Participants reported a weekly fasting βHB ≥ 0.5 mM for 93% of the daily capillary measurements. When examining within-group differences both phases demonstrated significantly elevated ketones from baseline (p < 0.001). There were no differences between blood βHB in the women who only completed Phase I and those who completed both Phase I+II (0.7 ± 0.1 vs. 0.6 ± 0.1; p = 0.12).

Table 4. Monthly capillary ketone and glucose variability.
Variable Completion Date Completed Phase I Only Completed Phase I+II Totals
n Mean 95% CI n Mean 95% CI n
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Ketones (βHB; mM) 1 Month 8 0.90 0.40 1.40 9 0.78 0.42 1.14 17
2 Months 6 0.61 0.29 0.93 9 0.73 0.40 1.05 15
3 Months 5 0.43 0.06 0.79 9 0.75 0.49 1.01 14
4 Months 9 0.65 0.47 0.83 9
5 Months 9 0.61 0.45 0.77 9
6 Months 9 0.60 0.41 0.79 9
Glucose (mg/dL) 1 Month 8 111 97 125 9 104 97 110 17
2 Months 6 111 93 130 9 102 97 107 15
3 Months 5 107 87 126 9 103 98 108 14
4 Months 9 104 97 111 9
5 Months 9 101 94 107 9
6 Months 9 100 93 107 9
Table 5. Results and main effects during the highly supervised and self-administered WFKD intervention.
Variable n Baseline Phase I Phase II Post-hoc comparisons (p-value)
Mean SEM Mean SEM Mean SEM BL vs. Phase I BL vs. Phase II Phase I vs. Phase II
Ketones (βHB; mM) 5 0.20 0.0 0.74 0.2 0.72 0.1 0.005 0.006 0.99
Glucose (mg/dL) 5 119 4.5 102 3.2 103 2.6 0.035 0.040 0.99
Insulin (μU/mL) 5 26.6 5.7 17.6 1.6 14.8 2.8 0.087 0.026 0.99
HOMA-IR 5 7.6 1.5 4.5 0.5 3.8 0.7 0.017 0.005 0.99
Body Weight (kg) 5 76.7 3.3 67.6 2.5 65.9 1.6 0.059 0.026 0.99
Body Fat Mass (kg) 5 31.0 2.1 25.2 1.3 23.8 1.6 0.090 0.034 0.99
Lean Body Mass (kg) 5 45.7 2.0 42.4 1.8 42.1 1.6 0.061 0.041 0.99
Body Fat Percentage (%) 5 40.3 1.5 37.4 1.2 36.1 2.1 0.246 0.070 0.99

All p-values were generated from a 1x3 RM ANOVA using the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Bold face denotes p < 0.05.

Weekly fasting capillary glucose values did not decrease from the beginning of phase I and throughout Phase II. Between-group comparisons revealed that participants who completed Phase I had a 7 mg/dL higher fasting blood glucose (110 ± 1 vs. 103 ± 0.4 mg/dL; p < 0.001) and more than twice the variability (7% vs. 16%; p < 0.001) compared to Phase I+II completers (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Weekly fasting capillary βHB and glucose.

Fig 7

Each data point represents a 7-day fasting capillary blood collection average. The clouds surrounding the moving average denote the 95% confidence interval.

Blood parameters and body composition

Of the nine women who finished Phase II, four did not complete all the requirements for the blood parameters and body composition testing. Therefore, only five women were included in the Phase I+II analysis. Capillary βHB remained elevated after Phase I and thereafter and was significantly greater throughout both phases compared to baseline. Capillary glucose and insulin sensitivity improved after Phase I and remained significantly lower thereafter compared to baseline. Body weight, fat mass, and lean body mass decreased non-significantly after Phase I but reached significance after Phase II. Body fat percentage decreased from baseline non-significantly.

Discussion

We demonstrated that a three-month highly supervised WFKD, followed by a three-month self-administered WFKD, was a well-tolerated and sustainable dietary approach for most women with MBC undergoing chemotherapy. Nutritional ketosis was achieved in all the women who completed the first three months, facilitated by using prepared/procured food and frequent nutrition coaching guided by daily monitoring of fasting βHB and glucose. After three months participants received less intense coaching, but maintained nutritional ketosis, improved body weight, body composition, glucose, and insulin sensitivity. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that nutritional ketosis can be safely sustained with proper nutritional guidance and monitoring in women with MBC undergoing chemotherapy over six-months.

Consistent with our results, prior studies that implemented a ketogenic diet in breast cancer patients reported maintenance of nutritional ketosis as guided by capillary ketones [2426]. The attrition rate after Phase I (47%) and Phase II (75%) is higher than our previous studies in non-cancer populations [11, 34, 40, 41], but matched expectations from a previous WFKD feasibility trial in cancer populations that reported ~70% attrition over three months [31]. Our feasibility results are positively corroborated by non-breast cancer studies that established carbohydrate-restriction feasibility in glioblastoma, melanoma, endometrial, and several other advanced forms of cancer [32, 4244], thereby strengthening our exploratory approach to breast cancer feasibility and adherence, specifically in women with stage IV MBC. Importantly, the reasons for withdrawal from the study were not due to the switch to a WFKD, but instead were attributed to medical and non-medically related complications described in greater detail on Fig 2. Irrespective of study duration women diagnosed with MBC demonstrated a strong interest in understanding the principles of WFKD and adhering to the diet over several months as guided by daily capillary βHB.

After nutritional ketosis was attained (βHB ≥0.5 mM), participants remained in this metabolic state 90% of the time, demonstrating excellent adherence to the ketogenic diet. This is especially noteworthy as chemotherapy sessions and concomitant administration of steroids are associated with hyperglycemia and an overall anti-ketogenic effect [14, 26, 4548]. The frequency of capillary βHB reporting agrees with prior maintenance of nutritional ketosis maintenance in short-term cancer trials [26, 45]. Daily capillary BHB objectively assessed dietary adherence and that data was then used by the team to adjust meal composition (e.g., adjust carbohydrate and/or protein intake) to ensure that βHB concentrations remained in nutritional ketosis range [49]. Dietary adjustments were of particular importance in this study because they reveal the feasibility of clinical guidance and help minimize confounding diet effects. Our daily capillary βHB monitoring model and continuous dietitian counseling during Phase I obviated the need for diet journaling [44, 50] and the burden associated with dietary recall, an effect that later confirmed the efficacy of the dietary education when participants implemented the diet on their own during Phase II. Collectively, the preliminary results of this trial suggest that nutritional ketosis can be attained within the first week on a WFKD and can be sustained in women with MBC who receive proper ketogenic nutrition coaching and guidance.

Thirteen participants (80%) experienced a decrease in fasting glucose after the highly-supervised Phase I. WFKDs are well documented to reduce blood glucose in both healthy and clinical populations, an effect that is a magnitude order greater in patients with hyperglycemia [5153]. In our trial we observed statistical differences in glucose variability between-phases, which prompted further investigation into predicting long-term dietary success. Almost half of the women who decided to discontinue the study after Phase I (47%) exhibited more than 2-fold glucose variability over three months (± 10% deviation from the mean) compared to participants who completed Phase II. This effect may be partly explained by the self-reported stress and cancer/chemotherapy treatment concurrent with participation in the study, which was largely heterogeneous at baseline.

The chemotherapy drugs used during the study were documented to induce mild hyperglycemic effects, specifically paclitaxel in combination with dexamethasone [48, 54]. We speculate that self-reported stress and drug heterogeneity may collectively be responsible for skewing higher fasting glucose values between women who completed Phase I only and Phase I+II (Δ phase difference: 6%), thereby possibly obfuscating the true glucose effects of WFKD. Although hyperglycemia is a common side-effect in cancer interventions [55], we were able to demonstrate that fasting glucose can significantly decrease after three months of highly-supervised WFKD, concurrent with drug use, and likely mediated by ongoing dietary carbohydrate restriction and weight loss. Due to the nature of our single-arm diet assignment that was informed by prior similar studies [26, 31], the results presented herein must be viewed with the understanding of drug heterogeneity and attrition. Future studies are encouraged to randomize and stratify by drug use, when possible, to provide more conclusive interpretations regarding variability in metabolic outcomes.

Fasting insulin and insulin sensitivity improved in 13 patients (87%) after 3 months, revealing a highly positive outcome for adjuvant cancer treatment. Impaired insulin clearance and insulin resistance are germane to anti-tumor therapy because pharmacological inhibition of insulin-signaling (i.e., GLUT4 stimulation) decreases tumor glucose uptake, thereby limiting substrate availability for growth [14, 54, 56]. While anti-tumor medication helps to restrict tumor proliferation, it can simultaneously downregulate insulin-mediated glucose disposal to skeletal muscle and promote hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia [46, 47, 54]. We demonstrated that a WFKD reduced the glycolytic demand of diet as evidenced by the Phase I and II insulin trends, effects that are consistent with previous interventions that employed supervised ketogenic diets [26, 27, 33, 45, 46, 52]. Collectively, ketogenic diets’ roles in anti-tumor therapy remain generally unclear [55], however, our intervention demonstrated that a supervised ad libitum WFKD consumed for three months can significantly improve insulin sensitivity and mitigate common side-effects induced by anti-tumor medication.

As expected, the ad libitum WFKD was associated with significant weight-loss, primarily derived from adipose tissue. Body composition change after Phase I were more favorable than results typically reported in ketogenic diet literature (i.e., significantly greater fat mass to lean mass loss) [57], although in line with body composition changes reported in intervention-based breast cancer studies [58]. The outcomes we presented are positive for several reasons. First, advanced imaging revealed no sign of sarcopenic obesity (loss of lean body mass and gain of fat mass), averting a main pitfall of chemotherapy and dysregulated eating patterns related to cancer treatment [59]. Secondly, reduction of total body fat mass was a desirable outcome with respect to the cancer risks previously described in the Women’s Health Initiative study [60] and other ketogenic interventions that used DXA to quantify body composition in breast cancer patients [24]. The pathophysiology of excess adiposity and cancer is increasingly complex; however, reduction of body fat mass has been positively associated with reduction in inflammatory cytokines and bioavailable estradiol, thereby inhibiting tumor growth and promoting the likelihood of cancer remission [59]. To increase precision in body composition assessments future work should concentrate on using advanced imaging software, such as DXA or MRI, and minimize standardized metrics (i.e., body mass index) to guide dietary success.

Although we intended to conduct a two-arm trial, a limitation of this study is the lack of control or standard of care group, which would have provided context for the normal progression of outcomes in women consuming a non-ketogenic eating pattern recruited from this single study site. During recruitment, there was a unanimous preference to self-select into the WFKD arm and explicit disinterest in the proposed control arm (i.e., low-fat treatment), thus, future randomized trials should be aware of the challenge associated with performing randomized trials within this population. Another limitation is the heterogeneity of chemotherapy treatments and tumor subtypes present in the cohort. Given this was an exploratory study focused on feasibility and efficacy, we wanted to keep it contained to a single site. To meet our enrollment goals, we were not overly restrictive in exclusion criteria by focusing on a specific tumor subtype or chemotherapy drug. Moreover, our feasibility and adherence findings must be viewed with the understanding of our study methods and research sample, and merit attention if extended to the general population.

Conclusion

Women with MBC undergoing chemotherapy were motivated to participate in a ketogenic intervention trial. Most of them transitioned successfully to a WFKD and demonstrated improved metabolic health consistent with responses observed in non-cancer populations. The WFKD was well tolerated by women who demonstrated high adherence as confirmed by daily capillary blood ketone monitoring and had no adverse diet-related events. After three months, women with MBC experienced significant improvements in fasting blood glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, body weight, and body composition, effects that have been observed in healthy individuals. These beneficial metabolic outcomes were sustained in a subset of women who completed six months of the WFKD. Given these positive outcomes, future research studies should explore the use of a similarly designed WFKD as an adjunct therapy in women with MBC, with emphasis on examining a larger cohort, including a control group, and possibly identifying key characteristics in responders and non-responders. Future studies should also consider including a follow-up protocol that assesses long-term benefits to metabolic health, quality of life, and progression-free survival.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Drug prescription.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Menu items.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Cancer clinical trial research protocol.

(DOCX)

S2 File. TREND checklist.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants, oncologists, research volunteers, and metabolic kitchen staff for their invaluable time and efforts that guaranteed this project’s success.

Data Availability

Data described in the manuscript will be made available immediately upon manuscript acceptance on the Ohio State Dryad database at: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.kh18932d4.

Funding Statement

Grant Recipient: JV Grant Award #: AWD-102893 Grant Organization: Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation Grant Website: https://www.hecht.org/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. Epub 20210204. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.National Cancer Institute (NCI): Surveillance EaERPS. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (SEER)2022.
  • 3.Mariotto AB, Etzioni R, Hurlbert M, Penberthy L, Mayer M. Estimation of the Number of Women Living with Metastatic Breast Cancer in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(6):809–15. Epub 20170518. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0889 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Prentice RL, Caan B, Chlebowski RT, Patterson R, Kuller LH, Ockene JK, et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of invasive breast cancer: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial. JAMA. 2006;295(6):629–42. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.6.629 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pierce JP, Natarajan L, Caan BJ, Parker BA, Greenberg ER, Flatt SW, et al. Influence of a diet very high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat on prognosis following treatment for breast cancer: the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) randomized trial. JAMA. 2007;298(3):289–98. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.3.289 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Champ CE, Mishra MV, Showalter TN, Ohri N, Dicker AP, Simone NL. Dietary recommendations during and after cancer treatment: consistently inconsistent? Nutrition and cancer. 2013;65(3):430–9. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2013.757629 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jain M, Miller AB, To T. Premorbid Diet and the Prognosis of Women With Breast Cancer. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1994;86(18):1390–7. doi: 10.1093/jnci/86.18.1390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Willett WC, Hunter DJ, Stampfer MJ, Colditz G, Manson JE, Spiegelman D, et al. Dietary fat and fiber in relation to risk of breast cancer. An 8-year follow-up. JAMA. 1992;268(15):2037–44. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Forsythe CE, Phinney SD, Feinman RD, Volk BM, Freidenreich D, Quann E, et al. Limited effect of dietary saturated fat on plasma saturated fat in the context of a low carbohydrate diet. Lipids. 2010;45(10):947–62. Epub 2010/09/08. doi: 10.1007/s11745-010-3467-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Forsythe CE, Phinney SD, Fernandez ML, Quann EE, Wood RJ, Bibus DM, et al. Comparison of low fat and low carbohydrate diets on circulating fatty acid composition and markers of inflammation. Lipids. 2008;43(1):65–77. Epub 2007/11/30. doi: 10.1007/s11745-007-3132-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hyde PN, Sapper TN, Crabtree CD, LaFountain RA, Bowling ML, Buga A, et al. Dietary carbohydrate restriction improves metabolic syndrome independent of weight loss. JCI insight. 2019;4(12). Epub 2019/06/21. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.128308 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hyde PN, Sapper TN, LaFountain RA, Kackley ML, Buga A, Fell B, et al. Effects of Palm Stearin versus Butter in the Context of Low-Carbohydrate/High-Fat and High-Carbohydrate/Low-Fat Diets on Circulating Lipids in a Controlled Feeding Study in Healthy Humans. Nutrients. 2021;13(6). Epub 2021/07/03. doi: 10.3390/nu13061944 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hyde PN, Lustberg MB, Miller VJ, LaFountain RA, Volek JS. Pleiotropic effects of nutritional ketosis: Conceptual framework for keto-adaptation as a breast cancer therapy. Cancer Treatment and Research Communications; 2017. p. 32–9.30207285 [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hopkins BD, Pauli C, Du X, Wang DG, Li X, Wu D, et al. Suppression of insulin feedback enhances the efficacy of PI3K inhibitors. Nature. 2018;560(7719):499–503. Epub 20180704. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0343-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dobrowolska K, Regulska-Ilow B. The legitimacy and safety of using alternative diets in cancer. Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig. 2020;71(3):241–50. doi: 10.32394/rpzh.2020.0120 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sremanakova J, Sowerbutts AM, Burden S. A systematic review of the use of ketogenic diets in adult patients with cancer. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2018;31(6):793–802. Epub 20180730. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12587 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Weber DD, Aminzadeh-Gohari S, Tulipan J, Catalano L, Feichtinger RG, Kofler B. Ketogenic diet in the treatment of cancer—Where do we stand? Mol Metab. 2020;33:102–21. Epub 20190727. doi: 10.1016/j.molmet.2019.06.026 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Newman JC, Verdin E. β-Hydroxybutyrate: A Signaling Metabolite. Annu Rev Nutr. 2017;37:51–76. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071816-064916 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nebeling LC, Miraldi F, Shurin SB, Lerner E. Effects of a ketogenic diet on tumor metabolism and nutritional status in pediatric oncology patients: two case reports. J Am Coll Nutr. 1995;14(2):202–8. doi: 10.1080/07315724.1995.10718495 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jansen N, Walach H. The development of tumours under a ketogenic diet in association with the novel tumour marker TKTL1: A case series in general practice. Oncol Lett. 2016;11(1):584–92. Epub 20151116. doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.3923 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Poff AM, Ari C, Seyfried TN, D’Agostino DP. The ketogenic diet and hyperbaric oxygen therapy prolong survival in mice with systemic metastatic cancer. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e65522. Epub 20130605. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065522 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Stafford P, Abdelwahab MG, Kim DY, Preul MC, Rho JM, Scheck AC. The ketogenic diet reverses gene expression patterns and reduces reactive oxygen species levels when used as an adjuvant therapy for glioma. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2010;7:74. Epub 20100910. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-7-74 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Poff AM, Ward N, Seyfried TN, Arnold P, D’Agostino DP. Non-Toxic Metabolic Management of Metastatic Cancer in VM Mice: Novel Combination of Ketogenic Diet, Ketone Supplementation, and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0127407. Epub 20150610. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127407 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Klement RJ, Champ CE, Kämmerer U, Koebrunner PS, Krage K, Schäfer G, et al. Impact of a ketogenic diet intervention during radiotherapy on body composition: III-final results of the KETOCOMP study for breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2020;22(1):94. Epub 20200820. doi: 10.1186/s13058-020-01331-5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Khodabakhshi A, Akbari ME, Mirzaei HR, Mehrad-Majd H, Kalamian M, Davoodi SH. Feasibility, Safety, and Beneficial Effects of MCT-Based Ketogenic Diet for Breast Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study. Nutrition and cancer. 2020;72(4):627–34. Epub 20190909. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2019.1650942 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fine EJ, Segal-Isaacson CJ, Feinman RD, Herszkopf S, Romano MC, Tomuta N, et al. Targeting insulin inhibition as a metabolic therapy in advanced cancer: a pilot safety and feasibility dietary trial in 10 patients. Nutrition. 2012;28(10):1028–35. Epub 20120726. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2012.05.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Klement RJ, Weigel MM, Sweeney RA. A ketogenic diet consumed during radiotherapy improves several aspects of quality of life and metabolic health in women with breast cancer. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(6):4267–74. Epub 20210127. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.01.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Cancer Research,; 2007. http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/?p=ER http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/downloads/Second%5FExpert%5FReport.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Saccà L. The uncontrolled clinical trial: scientific, ethical, and practical reasons for being. Intern Emerg Med. 2010;5(3):201–4. Epub 20100219. doi: 10.1007/s11739-010-0355-z . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.White A, Ernst E. The case for uncontrolled clinical trials: a starting point for the evidence base for CAM. Complement Ther Med. 2001;9(2):111–6. doi: 10.1054/ctim.2001.0441 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schmidt M, Pfetzer N, Schwab M, Strauss I, Kämmerer U. Effects of a ketogenic diet on the quality of life in 16 patients with advanced cancer: A pilot trial. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2011;8(1):54. Epub 20110727. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-8-54 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tan-Shalaby JL, Carrick J, Edinger K, Genovese D, Liman AD, Passero VA, et al. Modified Atkins diet in advanced malignancies—final results of a safety and feasibility trial within the Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2016;13:52. Epub 20160812. doi: 10.1186/s12986-016-0113-y . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.McKenzie AMY, Hallberg S, Bhanpuri NH, Athinarayanan SJ, McCue J, McCarter JP, et al. Continuous Remote Care Model Utilizing Nutritional Ketosis Improves Type 2 Diabetes Risk Factors in Patients with Prediabetes. Diabetes. 2018;67(Supplement_1):293-OR. doi: 10.2337/db18-293-OR [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.LaFountain RA, Miller VJ, Barnhart EC, Hyde PN, Crabtree CD, McSwiney FT, et al. Extended Ketogenic Diet and Physical Training Intervention in Military Personnel. Military medicine. 2019;184(9–10):e538–e47. Epub 2019/03/17. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usz046 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. New weight standards for men and women. Statistical Bulletin. 1959;40:1–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Buga A, Kackley ML, Crabtree CD, Bedell TN, Robinson BT, Stoner JT, et al. Fasting and diurnal blood ketonemia and glycemia responses to a six-week, energy-controlled ketogenic diet, supplemented with racemic R/S-BHB salts. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2023;54:277–87. Epub 20230204. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2023.01.030 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.McSwiney FT, Wardrop B, Hyde PN, Lafountain RA, Volek JS, Doyle L. Keto-adaptation enhances exercise performance and body composition responses to training in endurance athletes. Metabolism. 2018;83:e1–e2. Epub 20171205. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2017.11.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Matthews DR, Hosker JP, Rudenski AS, Naylor BA, Treacher DF, Turner RC. Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia. 1985;28(7):412–9. doi: 10.1007/BF00280883 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Buga A. Feasibility and Metabolic Outcomes of a Well-Formulated Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant Therapeutic Intervention for Women with Stage IV Metastatic Breast Cancer: The Keto-CARE Trial [Dataset]. Dryad. doi: 10.5061/dryad.kh18932d42023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Buga A, Kackley ML, Crabtree CD, Sapper TN, McCabe L, Fell B, et al. The Effects of a 6-Week Controlled, Hypocaloric Ketogenic Diet, With and Without Exogenous Ketone Salts, on Body Composition Responses. Frontiers in nutrition. 2021;8:618520. Epub 2021/04/20. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.618520 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Crabtree CD, Kackley ML, Buga A, Fell B, LaFountain RA, Hyde PN, et al. Comparison of Ketogenic Diets with and without Ketone Salts versus a Low-Fat Diet: Liver Fat Responses in Overweight Adults. Nutrients. 2021;13(3). Epub 2021/04/04. doi: 10.3390/nu13030966 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Martin-McGill KJ, Marson AG, Tudur Smith C, Young B, Mills SJ, Cherry MG, et al. Ketogenic diets as an adjuvant therapy for glioblastoma (KEATING): a randomized, mixed methods, feasibility study. J Neurooncol. 2020;147(1):213–27. Epub 20200208. doi: 10.1007/s11060-020-03417-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Panhans CM, Gresham G, Amaral LJ, Hu J. Exploring the Feasibility and Effects of a Ketogenic Diet in Patients With CNS Malignancies: A Retrospective Case Series. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:390. Epub 20200519. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00390 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cohen CW, Fontaine KR, Arend RC, Gower BA. A Ketogenic Diet Is Acceptable in Women with Ovarian and Endometrial Cancer and Has No Adverse Effects on Blood Lipids: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Nutrition and cancer. 2020;72(4):584–94. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2019.1645864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.de Groot S, Lugtenberg RT, Cohen D, Welters MJP, Ehsan I, Vreeswijk MPG, et al. Fasting mimicking diet as an adjunct to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in the multicentre randomized phase 2 DIRECT trial. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3083. Epub 20200623. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16138-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Blow T, Hyde PN, Falcone JN, Neinstein A, Vasan N, Chitkara R, et al. Treating Alpelisib-Induced Hyperglycemia with Very Low Carbohydrate Diets and Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors: A Case Series. Integr Cancer Ther. 2021;20:15347354211032283. doi: 10.1177/15347354211032283 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tankova T, Senkus E, Beloyartseva M, Borštnar S, Catrinoiu D, Frolova M, et al. Management Strategies for Hyperglycemia Associated with the α-Selective PI3K Inhibitor Alpelisib for the Treatment of Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(7). Epub 20220322. doi: 10.3390/cancers14071598 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yim C, Hussein N, Arnason T. Capecitabine-induced hyperosmolar hyperglycaemic state. BMJ case reports. 2021;14(3). Epub 2021/03/26. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2020-241109 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dhatariya K. Blood Ketones: Measurement, Interpretation, Limitations, and Utility in the Management of Diabetic Ketoacidosis. The review of diabetic studies: RDS. 2016;13(4):217–25. Epub 2016/01/01. doi: 10.1900/RDS.2016.13.217 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ok JH, Lee H, Chung H-Y, Lee SH, Choi EJ, Kang CM, et al. The Potential Use of a Ketogenic Diet in Pancreatobiliary Cancer Patients After Pancreatectomy. Anticancer Research. 2018;38(11):6519. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.13017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Dashti HM, Mathew TC, Khadada M, Al-Mousawi M, Talib H, Asfar SK, et al. Beneficial effects of ketogenic diet in obese diabetic subjects. Mol Cell Biochem. 2007;302(1–2):249–56. Epub 20070420. doi: 10.1007/s11010-007-9448-z . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hallberg SJ, McKenzie AL, Williams PT, Bhanpuri NH, Peters AL, Campbell WW, et al. Effectiveness and Safety of a Novel Care Model for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes at 1 Year: An Open-Label, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9(2):583–612. Epub 20180207. doi: 10.1007/s13300-018-0373-9 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.McKenzie AL, Hallberg SJ, Creighton BC, Volk BM, Link TM, Abner MK, et al. A Novel Intervention Including Individualized Nutritional Recommendations Reduces Hemoglobin A1c Level, Medication Use, and Weight in Type 2 Diabetes. JMIR Diabetes. 2017;2(1):e5. Epub 20170307. doi: 10.2196/diabetes.6981 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Han GH, Huang JX. Hypertriglyceridemia and hyperglycemia induced by capecitabine: a report of two cases and review of the literature. Journal of oncology pharmacy practice: official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners. 2015;21(5):380–3. Epub 2014/05/02. doi: 10.1177/1078155214532508 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Yang YF, Mattamel PB, Joseph T, Huang J, Chen Q, Akinwunmi BO, et al. Efficacy of Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2021;13(5). Epub 2021/05/01. doi: 10.3390/nu13051388 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zakikhani M, Dowling R, Fantus IG, Sonenberg N, Pollak M. Metformin Is an AMP Kinase–Dependent Growth Inhibitor for Breast Cancer Cells. Cancer Research. 2006;66(21):10269–73. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Tinsley GM, Willoughby DS. Fat-Free Mass Changes During Ketogenic Diets and the Potential Role of Resistance Training. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2016;26(1):78–92. Epub 2015/08/19. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2015-0070 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Sheean PM, Hoskins K, Stolley M. Body composition changes in females treated for breast cancer: a review of the evidence. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2012;135(3):663–80. Epub 2012/08/21. doi: 10.1007/s10549-012-2200-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kałędkiewicz E, Milewska M, Panczyk M, Szostak-Węgierek D. The Prevalence of Sarcopenic Obesity in Postmenopausal Women with a History of Breast Cancer Depending on Adopted Methodology–A Case–Control Study. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 2020;13:1749. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S274660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Rohan TE, Heo M, Choi L, Datta M, Freudenheim JL, Kamensky V, et al. Body fat and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women: a longitudinal study. Journal of cancer epidemiology. 2013;2013:754815. Epub 2013/05/22. doi: 10.1155/2013/754815 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jennifer Tucker

16 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-27894Feasibility and Metabolic Outcomes of a Well-Formulated Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant Therapeutic Intervention for Women with Stage IV Metastatic Breast Cancer: The Keto-CARE TrialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Volek,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The manuscript has been evaluated by four reviewers, and their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of concerns that need attention. They request additional information on methodological aspects of the study (such as the inclusion of information on the sample size and response rate), revisions to the statistical analyses and they question the internal and external validity of the results reported.

Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jennifer Tucker, PhD

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have selected “Clinical Trial” as your article type. PLOS ONE requires that all clinical trials are registered in an appropriate registry (the WHO list of approved registries is at https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform/network/primary-registries"" https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform/network/primary-registries" https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform/network/primary-registries and more information on trial registration is at http://www.icmje.org/about-icmje/faqs/clinical-trials-registration/). Please state the name of the registry and the registration number (e.g. ISRCTN or ClinicalTrials.gov) in the submission data and on the title page of your manuscript. a) Please provide the complete date range for participant recruitment and follow-up in the methods section of your manuscript. b) If you have not yet registered your trial in an appropriate registry, we now require you to do so and will need confirmation of the trial registry number before we can pass your paper to the next stage of review. Please include in the Methods section of your paper your reasons for not registering this study before enrolment of participants started. Please confirm that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”. Please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-clinical-trials for our policies on clinical trials.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

[I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:

JSV receives royalties from book sales; is a founder and has equity in Virta Health; and is a science advisor for Simply Good Foods and Cook Keto.  MBL has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Biotheranostics, Novartis, Pfizer and PledPharma. The remaining authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.]. 

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. We note that Figure 1 and  3 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

A. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 and  3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

B. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript helps to build on a growing body of literature supporting the use of KD as an adjuvant therapy for cancer. As stated, a main strength of this project is the longevity of the intervention, as there is relatively little data beyond 3 months.

-Eligibility criteria: Were any efforts made to limit additional dietary practices (e.g., intermittent fasting or supplement use)?

-Adherence: It seems that the primary means of assessing adherence was daily capillary ketone measurements. Was diet composition assessed during either phase? Were 24-h recalls conducted during phone calls with dietitians? It is clear from the text as is that tracking of nutrients by participants was not required or encouraged, but I am curious to know if diet composition was analyzed by the study team.

-Protein goals: Why was the range 0.6-1.0g/kg selected for protein target?

Reviewer #2: Given the growing popularity of ketogenic diets among cancer patients, and breast cancer patients in particular, this is an important study, because it provides evidence that such a diet can safely and effectively be implemented even in advanced breast cancer patients. The results and discussion are well written and comprehensive. However, I think there are also some points in the current manuscript which can be improved or clarified.

1. Introduction, pages 3/4: Reference 14 is not enough as a reference for all the anti-tumor effects of a KD that you mention. Please cite 1-3 review articles which discuss these effects in more detail.

2. The outcomes of interest are not explicitly mentioned in the Materials and Methods section.

3. Page 8, line 105: Meals were free of cost, but I did not find a statement who sponsored these meals and therefore the study. Please mention the funding sources and their role in the study design.

4. Page 9, line 128: How was a protein intake of 0.6-1 g/kg lean body mass justified?

5. Page 11, line 176: At which time of the day were glucose and ketone measured? Was this specified for the participants?

6. Page 12, Statistics: The name of the test is Shapiro-Wilk, not Wilks. Did you consider an alternative test to the t-test in case of non-normality? What were the “exploratory objectives” you wanted to address? You also mention that you did repeated-measures mixed effects ANOVA followed by post-hoc correction. It would be good to write down an equation showing how this looks like in order to help the reader comprehend which variable is predicted and which are the predictors. Also, I found not results (p-values) of this analysis in the results section.

7. Were there any women with type 2 diabetes included?

Minor comments:

Page 14, line 243: Should be Figure 5, not 4.

Page 16, line 266: Should be Figure 6, not 5.

Page 17, line 288: Should be Figure 7, not 6.

Reviewer #3: 1. Please specify how sample size was estimated.

2. Please identify the secondary outcome.

3. How did you minimize the confounding effects of diet (adjust for carbohydrate or protein and energy intake) or BMI

4. Line 58 and 59 not true

Reviewer #4: This is an important addition to the body of work supporting the use of WFKD as adjuncts to treatment in this and other cancers.

Is it proper form to hyphenate "x-month" when it is not used as a compound adjective?

https://emareye.com/resource-center/hyphens/#:~:text=Hyphens%20are%20often%20used%20to,two%2Dyear%2Dold%20child.

32. Clarify: add 'dietary' = role of dietary fat

38. Is this true even in women with lower BMI than this cohort? (theoretical "lean mass hyper-responder" may demonstrate induced rather than congenital mixed hyperlipidemia)

39. Suggest 'impact' in place of 'effects'

47. Suggest adding 'cancer-related upregulation of phosphoinositol-3 kinase (PI3K) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling'

93. Hypenate 'two-arm'

98. Clarify: were the women you tried to recruit as controls also offered 3 months of free personalized perpared meals and daily dietetic coaching? If not, this may have been the primary reaon that they chose the WFKD option.

146. I think it's important to mention that there was no need to track intake given that their meals were deemed nutritionally complete by the dietetic team. And without food records, how did you determine if the meals were nutritionally adequate during Phase II?

172. It is unclear what 'pane zucchini cakes' are. Can you simply state 'zucchini cakes?'

233. 'Passed away' (a euphemism) doesn't belong in a research paper. Replace this with 'died' (a term more in line with medical definitions). This needs to be corrected with any mention of 'passed away' in the manuscript and supporting material.

237. Consider restating: 'preference for non-keto desserts as comfort food'

243. Was “fasting” considered to be any time up until their first meal? Or was it suggested that they test within a certain time frame after awakening? Any chance that women could have skipped a day if they believed their ketones might have been impacted by food choices from the prior day? Were their self-reports of ketones/glucose verified by the team, e.g., screen shots of meter readings? Or... by a review of the meter history by a team member at clinic check-ins? My apologies if somehow I missed seeing the details.

249. Consider rewording: 'One participant with hyperglycemia demonstrated a 62 mg/dL decrease in glucose (-34%); the remaining participants demonstrated a more modest but still significant decrease in glucose ()'

267. Body composition improved against what standard? In other words, is a decease in body fat percentage always considered to be an improvement, even in the women with lower BMI at baseline? Or... were you pooling the results rather than suggesting individual improvement? If so, please make that clearer. And perhaps add a mention that in future research, if women with a lower BMI (or more rigorous assessment of body fat percentage) were included, undesirable loss of body fat would need to be more closely monitored by the dietetic team.

269. Suggest rewording: To get around the awkwardness of including a percentage as the first 'word,' perhaps: 'The overall ratio of fat mass to lean body mass lost was 3.5:1 kg:kg, with 78% of the weight loss derived from body fat mass () and 22% from lean body mass ().'

331. Yes! Noteworthy indeed! Consider emphasizing that point here; for example, by adding an adjective, such as 'especially noteworthy' or changing this to 'of utmost importance.' The 2DIRECT trial of women with Her2 negative breast cancer presented findings in a paper comparing FMD and to standard diet: the women in the intervention were not given steroid medication. COnsidering that steroids are routinely administered as part of the SOC, perhaps add a mention of that paper? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16138-3

333. I know you understand that you can't manipulate food intake outside of force feeding. Consider changing this to: "Daily capillary BHB objectively assessed dietary adherence and that data was then used by the team to adjust meal composition ()' That also helps to highlight the importance of a diet that was responsive to changing needs of the individuals. This same approach can serve to limit unintended/undesirable weight loss, at times leading to the team's decision to modify the diet even when it means a loss of ketosis. I think this is an extremely important point, often lost in the push of some researchers that advocate any means necessary to maintain a low GKI.

337. Careful here: it sounds like you're saying that the monitoring model was 'obviating the need for diet journaling' when in fact it was your team's constant adjustments to the plan while still providing nutritonally complete meals that obviated the need for journaling.

368. A decrease in serum glucose would also result in a dampened insulin response, reducing non-pharm insulin signaling. This is important given the increase in the number of insulin receptors found on cancer cells.

370. You reference a paper on the impact of capecitabine. A strongly recommend that you add a reference to at least one paper demonstrating that same effect on women receiving PI3Ki.

392. Excellent! Changing to another assessment for LBM might also lead to less reluctance to include women with low BMI that are lean and metabolically healthy (other than their cancer). You may have noticed that this is more often true in women with TNBC. And in fact, it is seen here in your study with 2 of the 3 women with TNBC at the lowest BMI.

397. In future research, consider how to use language to present the control arm in a more positive light. For example, refering to it as a Mediterranean diet might be a draw considering the current emphasis on the perceived health benefits surrounding that term.

407. 'Motivated' is key here to the initial choice of a diet. Did you explore why they opted for the WFKD? If so, their input could help in the design of future studies. As you are well aware, failure to recruit adequate numbers of participants has doomed many other trials right at the start.

414. As you know, retention is extremely important for future clinical trials. Did you attempt to identify (or care to speculate on) the characteristics in the subset of women who completed 6 months?

417. Somewhat awkward ending here. How about, '... examining a larger cohort that includes a control group and attempts to identifiy key characteristics of both responders and non-responders. Future studies should also consider including a follow-up protocol that assesses long-term benefits to metabolic health, quality of life, and progression-free survival.

Questions:

Was MCT oil suggested? If not, why not?

Did the number of meals/snacks vary according to patient preferences?

In your Main Takeaways sidebar, you state that 'women improved metabolic health as evidenced by decreased body fat.' I think this is somewhat problematic for reasons I've stated above.

Although you don't menition supplementation, we know from real-world experience that many people in cancer treatment do include anywhere from a few to way too many. Care to include some mention on whether or not you believe this could have some impact on ketosis (e.g., ketone salts)? or. lowering glucose (e.g., berberine)?

Although this is outside of the scope of your study, did you compare CBC/CMP values to historical controls? It would be interesting to learn what if any differences you saw, eg Na+ levels, platelets, inflammatory markers.

Did I miss a list of the medications that women were taking at baseline or throughout the study? For example, statin drugs are known to raise glucose (and suppress ketones) in a subset of people. I would also like to see the amount of dex that was included for each woman. That might factor into future studies of subtypes where dex is mandatory.

Feasibility in the general population cannot be assumed from this study. Have you adequately addressed that here?

Did you consider any of these references?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2020.00390/full

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11060-020-03417-8

https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.e23173

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rainer J. Klement

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jan 2;19(1):e0296523. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296523.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Oct 2023

Please refer to the "Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-23-27894" document for detail regarding reviewer/editor responses.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-23-27894.docx

Decision Letter 1

Rainer J Klement

21 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-27894R1Feasibility and Metabolic Outcomes of a Well-Formulated Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant Therapeutic Intervention for Women with Stage IV Metastatic Breast Cancer: The Keto-CARE TrialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Volek,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it does not yet fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 05 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rainer J. Klement, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you very carefully addressing all comments provided by the reviewers. The quality of the manuscript has improved sufficiently to get published in principal, but there are two points remaining: In your response to reviewer #2 who advised to provide more statistical details you mentioned referred to the publicly available dataset. However, the link you provided is not working or does not exist, respectively (DOI 10.5061/dryad.kh18932d4). Furthermore, please specify more precisesly the sentence on line 226-229 "...we analyzed the main effects of time using dependent samples t-tests..." -> the main effects of time on which variables?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Rainer J Klement

11 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-27894R2Feasibility and Metabolic Outcomes of a Well-Formulated Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant Therapeutic Intervention for Women with Stage IV Metastatic Breast Cancer: The Keto-CARE Trial

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Volek,

Thank you again for making additional revisons to your manuscript according to the reviewer comments. In the meanwhile, however, a fifth reviewer with expertise in biostatistics has been assigned by the Staff Editor to review the manuscript. The comments of this reviewer are attached below and should be considered before we can make a final decision about the publication of your study.

I would be happy if you could adress these additional points and submit a newly revised verison of your manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 25 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rainer J. Klement, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #5: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #5: This manuscript reports a single arm clinical trial investigating feasibility and Metabolic outcomes of a well-formulated Ketogenic diet as an adjuvant therapeutic intervention for women with stage IV metastatic breast cancer. This design of this clinical trial is revised from a two arms study to a single arm study due to hard to recruit controls during pandemic. I have below comments.

Please provide statistical considerations about sample size for this study.

For the data shown in the uploaded Prism file, data needs to be confirmed. For example,

Data at 3 MO in “Ketones” are different from data at week 12 in “*Individual Ketone Data”. They should have been consistent.

In “*Clean Individual Ketone Data”, Partial has 8 samples, 5 of them have data at 3MO, which is different from n=6 described in manuscript.

In the manuscript, it reported 9 Completers and 6 Partial. But in data from “*T-test BHB Partial vs. Completers”, both Completers and Partial have same N=13.

It would be helpful to have one biostatistician in the team to reanalyze the data and confirm the results.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jan 2;19(1):e0296523. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296523.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


12 Dec 2023

Please refer to the attached document: "Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-23-27894R2"

Additional comment: the PRISM Dryad dataset was updated to reflect Reviewer 5 biostatistics comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-23-27894R2.docx

Decision Letter 3

Rainer J Klement

14 Dec 2023

Feasibility and Metabolic Outcomes of a Well-Formulated Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant Therapeutic Intervention for Women with Stage IV Metastatic Breast Cancer: The Keto-CARE Trial

PONE-D-23-27894R3

Dear Dr. Volek,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rainer J. Klement, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for adressing the remaining comments about the statistics. The paper is now suitable for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Rainer J Klement

21 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-27894R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Volek,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rainer J. Klement

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Drug prescription.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Menu items.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Cancer clinical trial research protocol.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. TREND checklist.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-23-27894.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-23-27894R1.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-23-27894R2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data described in the manuscript will be made available immediately upon manuscript acceptance on the Ohio State Dryad database at: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.kh18932d4.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES