BACKGROUND: There is lack of consensus on how nutritional screening and intervention should be provided to cancer patients. Nutritional screening and support of cancer patients are not well established in the Middle East. We report our systematic and practical experience led by a qualified specialist dietician in a cancer inpatient setting, using a novel nutritional screening tool. METHODS: Ninety-seven consecutive inpatients underwent nutritional screening and categorised into three nutritional risk groups based on oral intake, gastrointestinal symptoms, body mass index (BMI) and weight loss. Nutritional support was introduced accordingly. Statistical tests used included ANOVA, Bonferroni post hoc, chi-square and log rank tests. RESULTS: Median age was 48 (19-87)years. Patients were categorised into three nutritional risk groups: 55 % low, 37 % intermediate and 8 % high. Nutritional intervention was introduced for 36 % of these patients. Individually, weight, BMI, oral intake, serum albumin on admission and weight loss significantly affected nutritional risk and nutritional intervention (all significant P values). Eighty-seven, 60 and 55 % of patients admitted for chemotherapy, febrile neutropenia and other reasons, respectively, did not require specific nutritional intervention. There was a statistically significant relationship between nutritional risk and nutritional intervention (P=0.005). Significantly more patients were alive at 3 months in low (91 %) than intermediate (75 %) than high (37 %)-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: About a third of cancer inpatients require nutritional intervention. The adopted nutritional risk assessment tool is simple and practical. The validity of this tool is supported by its significant relation with known individual nutritional risk factors. This should be confirmed in larger prospective study and comparing this new tool with other established ones.
BACKGROUND: There is lack of consensus on how nutritional screening and intervention should be provided to cancerpatients. Nutritional screening and support of cancerpatients are not well established in the Middle East. We report our systematic and practical experience led by a qualified specialist dietician in a cancer inpatient setting, using a novel nutritional screening tool. METHODS: Ninety-seven consecutive inpatients underwent nutritional screening and categorised into three nutritional risk groups based on oral intake, gastrointestinal symptoms, body mass index (BMI) and weight loss. Nutritional support was introduced accordingly. Statistical tests used included ANOVA, Bonferroni post hoc, chi-square and log rank tests. RESULTS: Median age was 48 (19-87)years. Patients were categorised into three nutritional risk groups: 55 % low, 37 % intermediate and 8 % high. Nutritional intervention was introduced for 36 % of these patients. Individually, weight, BMI, oral intake, serum albumin on admission and weight loss significantly affected nutritional risk and nutritional intervention (all significant P values). Eighty-seven, 60 and 55 % of patients admitted for chemotherapy, febrile neutropenia and other reasons, respectively, did not require specific nutritional intervention. There was a statistically significant relationship between nutritional risk and nutritional intervention (P=0.005). Significantly more patients were alive at 3 months in low (91 %) than intermediate (75 %) than high (37 %)-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: About a third of cancer inpatients require nutritional intervention. The adopted nutritional risk assessment tool is simple and practical. The validity of this tool is supported by its significant relation with known individual nutritional risk factors. This should be confirmed in larger prospective study and comparing this new tool with other established ones.
Authors: I Gioulbasanis; V E Baracos; Z Giannousi; A Xyrafas; L Martin; V Georgoulias; D Mavroudis Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-10-11 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: W D Dewys; C Begg; P T Lavin; P R Band; J M Bennett; J R Bertino; M H Cohen; H O Douglass; P F Engstrom; E Z Ezdinli; J Horton; G J Johnson; C G Moertel; M M Oken; C Perlia; C Rosenbaum; M N Silverstein; R T Skeel; R W Sponzo; D C Tormey Journal: Am J Med Date: 1980-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Federico Bozzetti; Luigi Mariani; Salvatore Lo Vullo; Maria Luisa Amerio; Roberto Biffi; Giovanni Caccialanza; Giorgio Capuano; Giovanni Capuano; Isabel Correja; Luca Cozzaglio; Angelo Di Leo; Leonardo Di Cosmo; Concetta Finocchiaro; Cecilia Gavazzi; Antonello Giannoni; Patrizia Magnanini; Giovanni Mantovani; Manuela Pellegrini; Lidia Rovera; Giancarlo Sandri; Marco Tinivella; Enrico Vigevani Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.603