Comparation of different malnutrition screening tools according to GLIM criteria in cancer outpatients.
Journal
European journal of clinical nutrition
ISSN: 1476-5640
Titre abrégé: Eur J Clin Nutr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8804070
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
received:
12
04
2021
accepted:
27
09
2021
revised:
06
09
2021
pubmed:
9
10
2021
medline:
14
5
2022
entrez:
8
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Many studies have assessed different malnutrition screening tools in oncologic patients. However, very few have been carried out using the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition. The objective of our study is to compare the most recommended screening tools with respect to the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition in cancer patients. Observational, cross-sectional, and single-center study carried out at the Medical Oncology Department at the Lozano Blesa Hospital in Zaragoza. We recruited 165 patients with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract, colorectal, and head-and-neck region undergoing outpatient treatment. All of them received MST, MUST, Nutriscore, MNA and CONUT screening tools, as well as the GLIM diagnostic criteria, which was used as the gold standard. MNA-SF showed the best sensitivity (0.99) and lowest specificity while CONUT had the best specificity (0.89) and lowest sensitivity to detect cancer-related malnutrition. We observed high variability in the diagnostic capabilities of Nutriscore when tumor location was considered, reducing sensitivity in patients with colorectal cancer compared to those with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract or head-and-neck location (0.25, 0.83, and 0.91 respectively). The highest index of agreement between the screening tools was found between MST, MUST and Nutriscore tests. Regarding the GLIM criteria, the highest agreement index was presented by MUST tool (0.66), while CONUT presented the lowest (0.12). Selecting the screening tool according to the type of cancer and its location may allow us to optimize its use and increase its performance, exploiting the advantages of each of them in the different populations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Many studies have assessed different malnutrition screening tools in oncologic patients. However, very few have been carried out using the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition. The objective of our study is to compare the most recommended screening tools with respect to the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition in cancer patients.
METHODS
Observational, cross-sectional, and single-center study carried out at the Medical Oncology Department at the Lozano Blesa Hospital in Zaragoza. We recruited 165 patients with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract, colorectal, and head-and-neck region undergoing outpatient treatment. All of them received MST, MUST, Nutriscore, MNA and CONUT screening tools, as well as the GLIM diagnostic criteria, which was used as the gold standard.
RESULTS
MNA-SF showed the best sensitivity (0.99) and lowest specificity while CONUT had the best specificity (0.89) and lowest sensitivity to detect cancer-related malnutrition. We observed high variability in the diagnostic capabilities of Nutriscore when tumor location was considered, reducing sensitivity in patients with colorectal cancer compared to those with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract or head-and-neck location (0.25, 0.83, and 0.91 respectively). The highest index of agreement between the screening tools was found between MST, MUST and Nutriscore tests. Regarding the GLIM criteria, the highest agreement index was presented by MUST tool (0.66), while CONUT presented the lowest (0.12).
CONCLUSIONS
Selecting the screening tool according to the type of cancer and its location may allow us to optimize its use and increase its performance, exploiting the advantages of each of them in the different populations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34620998
doi: 10.1038/s41430-021-01021-1
pii: 10.1038/s41430-021-01021-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
698-702Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Mendes NP, de Barros TA, de Rosa COB, do Franceschini SCC. Nutritional screening tools used and validated for cancer patients: a systematic review. Nutr Cancer 2019;71:898–907.
doi: 10.1080/01635581.2019.1595045
De las Peñas R, Majem M, Perez-Altozano J, Virizuela JA, Diz P, Donnay O, et al. SEOM clinical guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients (2018). Clin Transl Oncol 2019;21:87–93.
doi: 10.1007/s12094-018-02009-3
Arends J, Bachmann P, Baracos V, Barthelemy N, Bertz H, Bozzetti F, et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin Nutr 2017;36:11–48.
doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.07.015
Leipold CE, Bertino SB, L’Huillier HM, Howell PM, Rosenkotter M. Validation of the malnutrition screening tool for use in a community rehabilitation program. Nutr Diet 2018;75:117–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12365 .
doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12365
pubmed: 29411490
Stratton RJ, Hackston A, Longmore D, Dixon R, Price S, Stroud M, et al. Malnutrition in hospital outpatients and inpatients: prevalence, concurrent validity and ease of use of the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults. Br J Nutr 2004;92:799–808. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn20041258 .
doi: 10.1079/bjn20041258
pubmed: 15533269
Ye X-J, Ji Y-B, Ma B-W, Huang D-D, Chen W-Z, Pan Z-Y, et al. Comparison of three common nutritional screening tools with the new European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) criteria for malnutrition among patients with geriatric gastrointestinal cancer: a prospective study in China. BMJ Open 2018;8:e019750.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019750
Boléo-Tomé C, Monteiro-Grillo I, Camilo M, Ravasco P. Validation of the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) in cancer. Br J Nutr 2012;108:343–8.
doi: 10.1017/S000711451100571X
Isenring E, Cross G, Daniels L, Kellett E, Koczwara B. Validity of the malnutrition screening tool as an effective predictor of nutritional risk in oncology outpatients receiving chemotherapy. Support care cancer 2006;14:1152–6.
doi: 10.1007/s00520-006-0070-5
Shaw C, Fleuret C, Pickard JM, Mohammed K, Black G, Wedlake L. Comparison of a novel, simple nutrition screening tool for adult oncology inpatients and the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) against the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). Support care cancer 2015;23:47–54.
doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2319-8
Amaral TF, Antunes A, Cabral S, Alves P, Kent‐Smith L. An evaluation of three nutritional screening tools in a Portuguese oncology centre. J Hum Nutr Diet 2008;21:575–83.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2008.00917.x
Demirel B, Atasoy BM. Comparison of three nutritional screening tools to predict malnutrition risk and detect distinctions between tools in cancer patients receiving radiochemotherapy. Nutr Cancer 2018;70:867–73.
doi: 10.1080/01635581.2018.1491606
Castro-Vega I, Veses SM, Cantero JL, Salom CV, Banuls C, Hernández AM. Validation of nutritional screening Malnutrition Screening Tool compared to other screening tools and the nutritional assessment in different social and health areas. Nutr Hosp 2018;35:351–8.
pubmed: 29756969
Di Bella A, Blake C, Young A, Pelecanos A, Brown T. Reliability of patient-led screening with the malnutrition screening tool: agreement between patient and health care professional scores in the cancer care ambulatory setting. J Acad Nutr Diet 2018;118:1065–71.
doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.11.023
Kaiser MJ, Bauer JM, Ramsch C, Uter W, Guigoz Y, Cederholm T, et al. Validation of the Mini Nutritional Assessment short-form (MNA-SF): a practical tool for identification of nutritional status. J Nutr Health Aging 2009;13(Nov):782–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-009-0214-7 . MNA-International GroupPMID: 19812868
doi: 10.1007/s12603-009-0214-7
pubmed: 19812868
Guigoz Y. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA®) review of the literature-what does it tell us? J Nutr Heal Aging 2006;10:466.
Cereda E. Mini nutritional assessment. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2012;15:29–41.
doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e32834d7647
Zhang X, Pang L, Sharma SV, Li R, Nyitray AG, Edwards BJ. The validity of three malnutrition screening markers among older patients with cancer. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2020;10:363–8.
doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-001706
Vellas B, Villars H, Abellan G, Soto ME, Rolland Y, Guigoz Y, et al. Overview of the MNA®-Its history and challenges. J Nutr Heal Aging 2006;10:456.
Bourdel-Marchasson I, Diallo A, Bellera C, Blanc-Bisson C, Durrieu J, Germain C, et al. One-year mortality in older patients with cancer: development and external validation of an MNA-based prognostic score. PLoS One 2016;11:e0148523.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148523
Read JA, Crockett N, Volker DH, MacLennan P, Choy STB, Beale P, et al. Nutritional assessment in cancer: comparing the mini-nutritional assessment (MNA) with the scored patient-generated subjective global assessment (PGSGA). Nutr Cancer 2005;53:51–6.
doi: 10.1207/s15327914nc5301_6
De Ulíbarri Pérez JI, González-Madroño Giménez A, González Pérez P, Fernández G, Rodríguez Salvanés F, Mancha, et al. Nuevo procedimiento para la detección precoz y control de la desnutrición hospitalaria [New procedure for the early detection and control of hospital malnutrition]. Nutr Hosp 2002;17:179–88.
pubmed: 12395607
Takagi K, Domagala P, Polak WG, Buettner S, Wijnhoven BPL, Ijzermans JNM. Prognostic significance of the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Surg 2019;19:129.
doi: 10.1186/s12893-019-0593-6
Takagi K, Buettner S, Ijzermans JNM. Prognostic significance of the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2020;78:91–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.046
Baracos VE. Cancer-associated malnutrition. Eur J Clin Nutr 2018;72:1255–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0245-4 . Epub 2018 Sep 5
doi: 10.1038/s41430-018-0245-4
pubmed: 30185853
McFarlane M, Hammond C, Roper T, Mukarati J, Ford R, Burrell J, et al. Comparing assessment tools for detecting undernutrition in patients with liver cirrhosis. Clin Nutr Espen 2018;23:156–61.
doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2017.10.009
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228–47.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
Cederholm T, Jensen GL, Correia M, Gonzalez MC, Fukushima R, Higashiguchi T, et al. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition–a consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2019;10:207–17.
doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12383
Gascón-Ruiz M, Casas-Deza D, Torres-Ramón I, Zapata-García M, Alonso N, Sesma A, et al. GLIM vs ESPEN criteria for the diagnosis of early malnutrition in oncological outpatients. Clin Nutr 2021;40:3741–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.04.025
Arribas L, Hurtós L, Sendrós MJ, Peiró I, Salleras N, Fort E, et al. NUTRISCORE: A new nutritional screening tool for oncological outpatients. Nutrition 2017;33:297–303.
doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2016.07.015
Sanz EÁ, Siles MG, Fernández LR, Roldán RV, Domínguez AR, Abilés J. Nutritional risk and malnutrition rates at diagnosis of cancer in patients treated in outpatient settings: Early intervention protocol. Nutrition 2019;57:148–53.
doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2018.05.021
Vidal-Casariego A, Amigo-Otero E, Pita-Gutiérrez F, Lugo-Rodríguez G, Almeida-Seoane C, Martínez-Ramonde T. Comparison of MUST and Nutriscore for the Screening of Malnutrition in Hospitalized Oncology Patients. Nutr Cancer. 2020;8:1–6.
Sanz EÁ, Abilés J, Siles MG, Ruíz EP, García JA, Domínguez AR. Impact of weight loss on cancer patients’ quality of life at the beginning of the chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29:627–34.
Hirahara N, Tajima Y, Fujii Y, Kaji S, Kawabata Y, Hyakudomi R, et al. Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) as a prognostic immunonutritional biomarker for gastric cancer after curative gastrectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis. Surg Endosc 2019;33:4143–52.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06723-z
Akamine T, Toyokawa G, Matsubara T, Kozuma Y, Haratake N, Takamori S, et al. Significance of the preoperative CONUT score in predicting postoperative disease-free and overall survival in patients with lung adenocarcinoma with obstructive lung disease. Anticancer Res 2017;37:2735–42.
doi: 10.21873/anticanres.11625
Chen Y, Zhao C, Yang Y, Xin Y-J, Wang Y-N, Li X, et al. Using the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score for evaluating patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after radiofrequency ablation: a two-center retrospective study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020;43:1294–304.
Cui P, Pang Q, Wang Y, Qian Z, Hu X, Wang W, et al. Nutritional prognostic scores in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma treated by percutaneous transhepatic biliary stenting combined with 125I seed intracavitary irradiation: a retrospective observational study. Medicine. 2018;97:e11000.
Elghiaty A, Kim J, Jang WS, Park JS, Heo JE, Rha KH, et al. Preoperative controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score as a novel immune-nutritional predictor of survival in non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma of ≤7 cm on preoperative imaging. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2019;145:957–65.
doi: 10.1007/s00432-019-02846-x
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.
Chen X-Y, Zhang X-Z, Ma B-W, Li B, Zhou D-L, Liu Z-C, et al. A comparison of four common malnutrition risk screening tools for detecting cachexia in patients with curable gastric cancer. Nutrition 2020;70:110498.
doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2019.04.009