Many commercial weight loss programs offer meals as a key component of their plan, which may lead consumers to believe that these meals confer unique weight loss benefits. Consumers may not be aware that frozen meals found in the grocery store are similar nutritionally to diet meals, and may offer cost, accessibility and sensory benefits. This study compared perceptions about grocery store single serve frozen meals (frozen meals) and weight loss program single serve meals (diet meals). Women (n=114, age 43.9 ± 9.2) completed blinded sensory evaluations of 3 ravioli meals: Healthy Choice®(HC), Jenny Craig®(JC) and NutriSystem®(NS), then responded to statements about the broader categories of frozen and diet meals, before and after viewing nutrition facts. Line Average Nutrition Facts Wt., oz. Kcal Fat, g Sodium, mg Frozen Meals, HC 10 270 6 545 Diet Meals, NS, JC 10 330 9 715 Participants scored the HC frozen ravioli meal higher in overall liking than NS (6.3 vs. 5.6, p<0.05) and at parity with JC (6.3 vs. 5.9, p>0.05). After tasting all 3 entrees, participants rated the frozen meal as most preferred (44%, p<0.05). Responses to Statements Pre/Post Viewing Nutrition Facts Agree Pre, % Agree Post, % Diet meals are better suited nutritionally for weight management than frozen meals 60 11 Frozen meals have more calories, fat and sodium than diet meals 70 15 It is likely I would use diet meals to help manage my weight 72 32 It is likely I would use frozen meals to help manage my weight 51 85 Misperceptions existed about frozen meals' nutrient content compared to diet meals. Sensory testing and nutrition facts changed perceptions and increased intention to use frozen meals for weight loss. Single serve frozen meals are an economical, accessible alternative to meals available through commercial weight loss programs, but education is needed to help consumers overcome misperceptions and recognize frozen meals as a viable option for weight management.

Background: The main toxicity of irinotecan in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is delayed diarrhoea. Intestinal SN-38, released by deconjugation of the parent glucuronide excreted into the bile or produced in situ by intestinal carboxylesterase, is toxic to the intestinal epithelium. The canalicular transport of irinotecan and SN-38G is mediated by ABCC2 (MRP2) and ABCB1 (MDR1) which are both inhibited by ciclosporin. We tested whether irinotecan and ciclosporin was non-inferior for anti-cancer efficacy and superior for toxicity compared with single-agent irinotecan.Methods: Six hundred and seventy-two patients with advanced, measurable CRC following prior fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy were randomised to either irinotecan 3-weekly 350 mg/m(2) (or 300 mg/m(2) if age >70 or performance status (PS) = 2) or 3-weekly irinotecan at 140 mg/m(2) (120 mg/m(2) if age >70 or PS = 2) with ciclosporin 3 mg/kg t.d.s. for three days by mouth starting on the morning before irinotecan. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients alive and progression-free at 12 weeks. The key secondary end-point was the incidence of grade >= 3 diarrhoea within 12 weeks of randomisation.Results: The proportion of patients progression-free at 12 weeks with irinotecan was 53.4% compared to 47.2% with irinotecan plus ciclosporin (difference = -6.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-13.8%, 1.3%]). Since the lower limit of the 95% CI crossed the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10.6%, non-inferiority of irinotecan plus ciclosporin compared to irinotecan alone was not statistically demonstrated. 15.0% patients developed severe diarrhoea on irinotecan compared to 13.8% on irinotecan plus ciclosporin, a non-significant difference.Interpretation: The pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin does not improve the therapeutic index of irinotecan in advanced CRC.Funding: The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK and supported by Amgen Pharma. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.