Literature DB >> 34306480

Application value of NRS2002 and PG-SGA in nutritional assessment for patients with cervical cancer surgery.

Min Tian1,2, Huaping Fu1,2, Juan Du3,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study explored and analyzed the application value of nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS2002) and patient-generated subjective nutrition assessment (PG-SGA) in nutritional assessment for patients with cervical cancer surgery.
METHODS: A total of 165 cervical cancer patients that received elective cervical cancer surgery from February 2017 to December 2019 were chosen as the research subjects. NRS 2002 and PG-SGA were employed to evaluate the nutritional status of patients, and detect their nutrition-related laboratory examination indexes. By using albumin (ALB)≤30 g/L as the criterion of malnutrition, the accuracy of NRS2002 and PG-SGA in evaluating the nutritional status of patients was analyzed.
RESULTS: The differences between scores of NRS2002 and PG-SGA in age, BMI, tumor stage, pelvic lymph node metastasis were statistically significant (P<0.05); while the difference between scores of NRS2002 and PG-SGA in different education degree, pathological type and growth type of patients was statistically insignificant (P>0.05). By using ALB≤30 g/L as the gold standard to determine malnutrition, 64 malnourished patients were detected, with a detection rate of 38.79%. Compared with this gold standard, the judgment of NRS 2002 and PG-SGA have high consistency with the gold standard, and the Youden indexes were 0.550 and 0.795 respectively. In addition, the nutritional or malnutrition risk of cervical cancer patients was assessed by NRS2002 and PG-SGA, respectively. Among them, 33 patients received co-diagnosis, the results had remarkably correlation (P<0.05) with contingency coefficient r of 0.523.
CONCLUSION: Both NRS2002 and PG-SGA are suitable for preoperative nutritional risk screening of patients with cervical cancer surgery. PG-SGA has a higher positive rate but poor time requirement than that of RS2002. Therefore, clinicians can choose the appropriate tool on the basis of an individual patient's situation for nutritional assessment. AJTR
Copyright © 2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Nutritional risk screening 2002; cervical cancer; nutritional assessment; patient-generated subjective nutrition assessment; surgery

Year:  2021        PMID: 34306480      PMCID: PMC8290634     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Transl Res        ISSN: 1943-8141            Impact factor:   4.060


  26 in total

Review 1.  Barriers to cancer nutrition therapy: excess catabolism of muscle and adipose tissues induced by tumour products and chemotherapy.

Authors:  Dalton L Schiessel; Vickie E Baracos
Journal:  Proc Nutr Soc       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 6.297

2.  Nutrition and cancer: prevention and survival.

Authors:  Martin J Wiseman
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 3.718

3.  Helping Patients Eat Better During and Beyond Cancer Treatment: Continued Nutrition Management Throughout Care to Address Diet, Malnutrition, and Obesity in Cancer.

Authors:  Heather Greenlee; Margarita Santiago-Torres; Kerry K McMillen; Kate Ueland; Anne M Haase
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2019 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.360

Review 4.  Nutrition Implications for Long-Term Survivors of Pancreatic Cancer Surgery [Formula: see text].

Authors:  Maria Q B Petzel; Leah Hoffman
Journal:  Nutr Clin Pract       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 3.080

Review 5.  Nutritional status and nutritional management in children with cancer.

Authors:  Edward P T Gaynor; Peter B Sullivan
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 3.791

6.  Effects of nutrition and physical exercise intervention in palliative cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Alexandra Uster; Maya Ruehlin; Stefanie Mey; David Gisi; Ruud Knols; Reinhard Imoberdorf; Miklos Pless; Peter E Ballmer
Journal:  Clin Nutr       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 7.324

7.  Enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients, a comparison of complication rates: an updated systematic review and (cumulative) meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ronald Chow; Eduardo Bruera; Jann Arends; Declan Walsh; Florian Strasser; Elisabeth Isenring; Egidio G Del Fabbro; Alex Molassiotis; Monica Krishnan; Leonard Chiu; Nicholas Chiu; Stephanie Chan; Tian Yi Tang; Henry Lam; Michael Lock; Carlo DeAngelis
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2019-12-07       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  The role of artificial nutrition in gynecological cancer therapy.

Authors:  Magdalena Szewczuk; Emilia Gasiorowska; Konrad Matysiak; Ewa Nowak-Markwitz
Journal:  Ginekol Pol       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 1.232

Review 9.  The last days of life: symptom burden and impact on nutrition and hydration in cancer patients.

Authors:  David Hui; Rony Dev; Eduardo Bruera
Journal:  Curr Opin Support Palliat Care       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.302

10.  SEOM clinical guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients (2018).

Authors:  R de Las Peñas; M Majem; J Perez-Altozano; J A Virizuela; E Cancer; P Diz; O Donnay; A Hurtado; P Jimenez-Fonseca; M J Ocon
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 3.405

View more
  1 in total

1.  Preoperative Nutritional Risk Assessment for Predicting Complications after Radical Cystectomy plus Urinary Diversion for Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  Xing Wei; Jia Wang; Haitao Liu; Weizhe Fan; Gang Guo
Journal:  Emerg Med Int       Date:  2022-08-16       Impact factor: 1.621

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.