Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2026

Post-treatment nutrition interventions for childhood cancer survivors (146299)

Susannah K Ayre 1 2 , Katie Jorss 1 , Brooke P Baker 1 , Claire Radford 3 , Shelley Rumble 3 , Kristie Bell 4 , Donruedee Kamkhoad 5 , Rebecca Byrne 2 , Kate Cantrell 6 , Natalie Bradford 1 7 , Lizzy Johnston 1 2 8
  1. Viertel Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
  2. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
  3. Oncology Services, Queensland Children's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
  4. Dietetics and Food Services, Queensland Children's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
  5. Ramathibodi School of Nursing, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  6. School of Business, Law, Humanities and Pathways, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia
  7. School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
  8. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

Aims: Compared with age-matched peers, childhood cancer survivors have poorer diet quality and higher morbidity. Nutrition interventions may therefore play an important role in improving long-term health outcomes. This scoping review of the global literature describes the characteristics of post-treatment nutrition interventions for childhood cancer survivors and describes how these interventions were developed, evaluated, and implemented.

Methods: A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Six electronic databases were searched in January 2026 for records published from 2013 onwards. Eligible sources described interventions targeting nutrition in survivors of childhood-onset cancer (diagnosed <21 years of age) following treatment completion. Interventions could also target informal carers (e.g., parents, siblings), provided they aimed to improve nutrition outcomes, directly or indirectly, among childhood cancer survivors.

Results: Of 8,103 records retrieved, 30 articles (n=24 interventions) met eligibility criteria. Most were conducted in the United States (n=18) and designed for childhood cancer survivors (n=14). Interventions primarily focused on diet-related behaviour change (n=19; e.g., individualised counselling, educational video games, cooking classes) or direct nutrition provision (n=5; e.g., dietary supplements, meal deliveries). Many also incorporated physical activity (n=18) and psychosocial wellbeing (n=9) components. Half reported consumer involvement in intervention development (n=12), primarily through consultation (e.g., needs assessments, feedback), with limited influence on intervention design. Clinicians were less involved (n=9) but typically contributed via collaborative partnerships which afforded them greater influence on intervention design. Interventions were predominantly evaluated for feasibility (n=12, e.g., number of completions) and/or effectiveness (n=15; e.g., change in dietary intake pre- and post-intervention). Only four interventions showed evidence of sustained implementation beyond the research setting.

Conclusions: Nutrition interventions for childhood cancer survivors are diverse in their content and delivery but rarely translated into service delivery. Future interventions should prioritise meaningful consumer co-design and strategies to support sustainability and scalability beyond research settings.