Literature DB >> 31655470

A comparison of four common malnutrition risk screening tools for detecting cachexia in patients with curable gastric cancer.

Xi-Yi Chen1, Xian-Zhong Zhang2, Bing-Wei Ma2, Bo Li3, Dong-Lei Zhou2, Zhong-Chen Liu2, Xiao-Lei Chen4, Xian Shen5, Zhen Yu6, Cheng-Le Zhuang7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although there is international consensus regarding the importance of cachexia, no tools exist, to our knowledge, for cachexia screening among patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients with cancer and cachexia could be identified using the four most commonly used nutritional screening tools: the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS)-2002, the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), and the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ).
METHODS: Clinical data were prospectively collected for patients who underwent elective radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer in two large centers between August 2014 and February 2018. Patients were also screened using the MUST, NRS-2002, MST, and SNAQ tools. The screening results were subsequently compared with the international consensus diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia.
RESULTS: A total of 1001 patients were evaluated, including 363 patients (36.3%) with cancer cachexia. Among the patients "at nutritional risk" based on each tool, the proportions of cachexia were 87.3% for the MUST tool, 84.3% for the MST tool, 76.6% for the NRS-2002 tool, and 54.3% for the SNAQ tool. The MST tool provided the largest area under the curve for identifying cancer cachexia (0.914; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Among the tools examined, the MST had the greatest ability to detect cancer cachexia among patients with gastric cancer.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cachexia; Gastric cancer; Malnutrition; Nutrition screening tools

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31655470     DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2019.04.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nutrition        ISSN: 0899-9007            Impact factor:   4.008


  5 in total

1.  Nutritional Risk Index as a Prognostic Factor Predicts the Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Stage III Gastric Cancer.

Authors:  Haibin Song; Hongkai Sun; Laishou Yang; Hongyu Gao; Yongkang Cui; Chengping Yu; Haozhi Xu; Linqiang Li
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 5.738

2.  Frequency and prognostic impact of cachexia during drug treatment for unresectable advanced gastric cancer patients.

Authors:  Tsutomu Namikawa; Akira Marui; Keiichiro Yokota; Yuki Fujieda; Masaya Munekage; Sunao Uemura; Hiromichi Maeda; Hiroyuki Kitagawa; Michiya Kobayashi; Kazuhiro Hanazaki
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 2.549

3.  Relationship Between Nutritional Status and Clinical Outcome in Patients With Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor After Surgical Resection.

Authors:  Ping'an Ding; Honghai Guo; Chenyu Sun; Peigang Yang; Yuan Tian; Yang Liu; Zhidong Zhang; Dong Wang; Xuefeng Zhao; Bibo Tan; Yu Liu; Yong Li; Qun Zhao
Journal:  Front Nutr       Date:  2022-02-02

Review 4.  Malnutrition Screening and Assessment.

Authors:  Carlos Serón-Arbeloa; Lorenzo Labarta-Monzón; José Puzo-Foncillas; Tomas Mallor-Bonet; Alberto Lafita-López; Néstor Bueno-Vidales; Miguel Montoro-Huguet
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 6.706

Review 5.  Effectiveness of Oral Nutritional Supplements on Older People with Anorexia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Mengqi Li; Si Zhao; Shuang Wu; Xiufen Yang; Hui Feng
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 5.717

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.