P Stegel1, N R Kozjek2, B A Brumen2, P Strojan1,3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana Slovenia. 2. Clinical Nutrition Unit, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Malnutrition and cachexia have a negative impact on the course of treatment in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Good evidence exists for the practical use of the bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) parameter phase angle (PA) for the evaluation of nutritional and overall health status in cancer patients. In the present study, two hypotheses were tested: that PA can distinguish between malnutrition and cachexia; in non-cachectic patients, pre-treatment PA is predictive for cachexia development during (chemo)radiation. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: In 55 head and neck cancer patients, nutritional status was determined by the NRS-2002, anthropometric, laboratory tests and BIA before and after (chemo)radiotherapy. For the diagnosis of cachexia, the international consensus criteria were used. Patients were categorized as well-nourished, malnourished or cachectic. The resulting group distribution was compared with pre- and post-treatment PA values. RESULTS: Before treatment, 69.1% of patients were well-nourished, 16.4% malnourished and 14.5% cachectic; post-treatment proportions were 16.4%, 45.4% and 38.2%, respectively. Well-nourished patients had a higher pre-treatment mean PA value compared with the others (P=0.045). The risk of malnutrition/cachexia increased by 1.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-2.66) per mean PA decrease by one unit (P=0.018). In 47 initially non-cachectic patients, PA failed to show any predictive value for cachexia (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.578, 95% CI 0.385-0.772, P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PA did not distinguish between malnourished and cachectic patients with HNSCC, and pre-treatment PA did not predict cachexia development during (chemo)radiation. Nevertheless, PA seems to be a good marker of nutritional status in HNSCC patients.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES:Malnutrition and cachexia have a negative impact on the course of treatment in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Good evidence exists for the practical use of the bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) parameter phase angle (PA) for the evaluation of nutritional and overall health status in cancerpatients. In the present study, two hypotheses were tested: that PA can distinguish between malnutrition and cachexia; in non-cachectic patients, pre-treatment PA is predictive for cachexia development during (chemo)radiation. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: In 55 head and neck cancerpatients, nutritional status was determined by the NRS-2002, anthropometric, laboratory tests and BIA before and after (chemo)radiotherapy. For the diagnosis of cachexia, the international consensus criteria were used. Patients were categorized as well-nourished, malnourished or cachectic. The resulting group distribution was compared with pre- and post-treatment PA values. RESULTS: Before treatment, 69.1% of patients were well-nourished, 16.4% malnourished and 14.5% cachectic; post-treatment proportions were 16.4%, 45.4% and 38.2%, respectively. Well-nourished patients had a higher pre-treatment mean PA value compared with the others (P=0.045). The risk of malnutrition/cachexia increased by 1.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-2.66) per mean PA decrease by one unit (P=0.018). In 47 initially non-cachectic patients, PA failed to show any predictive value for cachexia (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.578, 95% CI 0.385-0.772, P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PA did not distinguish between malnourished and cachectic patients with HNSCC, and pre-treatment PA did not predict cachexia development during (chemo)radiation. Nevertheless, PA seems to be a good marker of nutritional status in HNSCC patients.
Authors: Harriët Jager-Wittenaar; Pieter U Dijkstra; Arjan Vissink; Rob P van Oort; Bernard F A M van der Laan; Jan L N Roodenburg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Harriët Jager-Wittenaar; Pieter U Dijkstra; Arjan Vissink; Bernard F A M van der Laan; Rob P van Oort; Jan L N Roodenburg Journal: Head Neck Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Luke M Richey; Jonathan R George; Marion E Couch; Brian K Kanapkey; Xiaoying Yin; Trinitia Cannon; Paul W Stewart; Mark C Weissler; Carol G Shores Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 12.531
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
Authors: Teresa Małecka-Massalska; Tomasz Powrózek; Monika Prendecka; Radosław Mlak; Grzegorz Sobieszek; Wojciech Brzozowski; Anna Brzozowska Journal: In Vivo Date: 2019 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Vengadesan Kowshik; Subramanian Velkumary; Pooja Sethi; Jothi Marie Feula; Soundirarajan Subhashri; Manikandan Abirami Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2021-02-27