Current status of the association between malnutrition defined by the GLIM criteria and postoperative outcomes in gastrointestinal surgery for cancer: a narrative review

Risk factors and the nomogram model for malnutrition in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

For patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), the incidence of malnutrition is quite high, and malnutrition has severe effects on NPC patients. However, there is currently no recognized gold standard or specific nutritional assessment tool available to assess malnutrition in NPC patients. Our objective was to develop and verify a new nomogram model for NPC patients.

METHODS

Data were collected from NPC patients. To evaluate risk factors for malnutrition, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used. Based on the risk factors, a new nomogram model was developed. The efficacy of the model was evaluated and validated.

RESULTS

Logistic regression analysis showed that age ≥ 65 years, the number of chemotherapy cycles completed ≥ 1, a high total radiation dose received, low body mass index (BMI), low albumin, and low chloride were the risk factors. The assessment effect of the new model was good by evaluation and validation; it can be used as an assessment tool for malnutrition in NPC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Age ≥ 65 years, completing ≥ 1 chemotherapy cycles, a high total radiation dose received, low BMI, low albumin, and low chloride levels are risk factors for malnutrition in NPC patients. The assessment effect of the new model, developed based on these risk factors, is good, and it can be used as an assessment tool for malnutrition in NPC patients.

Nutritional Assessment Tools for Patients with Cancer: A Narrative Review

Cancer patients are at high risk of malnutrition, which can lead to adverse health outcomes such as prolonged hospitalization, increased complications, and increased mortality. Accurate and timely nutritional assessment plays a critical role in effectively managing malnutrition in these patients. However, while many tools exist to assess malnutrition, there is no universally accepted standard. Although different tools have their own strengths and limitations, there is a lack of narrative reviews on nutritional assessment tools for cancer patients. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a non-systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from their inception until May 2023. A total of 90 studies met our selection criteria and were included in our narrative review. We evaluated the applications, strengths, and limitations of 4 commonly used nutritional assessment tools for cancer patients: the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM). Our findings revealed that malnutrition was associated with adverse health outcomes. Each of these 4 tools has its applications, strengths, and limitations. Our findings provide medical staff with a foundation for choosing the optimal tool to rapidly and accurately assess malnutrition in cancer patients. It is essential for medical staff to be familiar with these common tools to ensure effective nutritional management of cancer patients.

Prevalence of malnutrition based on global leadership initiative in malnutrition criteria for completeness of diagnosis and future risk of malnutrition based on current malnutrition diagnosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The proposal of the global leadership initiative in malnutrition (GLIM) criteria has received great attention from clinicians. The criteria are mainly used in the research environment and have the potential to be widely used in the clinic in the future. However, the prevalence of malnutrition and risk of future malnutrition based on a current diagnosis of malnutrition are worth exploring.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed from the earliest available date to 1 February 2023. According to the diagnostic criteria of the GLIM, we analysed the prevalence of malnutrition by directly adopting the GLIM criteria for diagnosis without a previous nutritional risk screening (one-step approach) and by adopting the GLIM criteria for diagnosis after a nutritional risk screening (two-step approach). The main outcome was the prevalence of malnutrition based on the one-and two-step approaches. Secondary outcomes were the future risk of malnutrition based on the GLIM diagnosis, including mortality within and beyond 1 year. primary outcomes were pooled using random-effects models, and secondary outcomes are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

A total of 64 articles were included in the study, including a total of 47,654 adult hospitalized patients and 15,089 malnourished patients based on the GLIM criteria. Malnutrition was diagnosed by the one-step approach in 18 studies and by the two-step approach in 46 studies. The prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed by the one-and two-step approaches was 53% (95% CI, 42%-64%) and 39% (95% CI, 0.35%-0.43%), respectively. The prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed by the GLIM criteria after a nutritional risk screening was quite different; the prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed by the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) GLIM tool was 35% (95% CI, 29%-40%); however, the prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed by the Mini Nutrition Assessment (MNA) GLIM tool was 48% (95% CI, 35%-62%). Among the disease types, the prevalence of malnutrition in cancer patients was 44% (95% CI, 36%-52%), while that in acute and critically ill patients was 44% (95% CI, 33%-56%). The prevalence in patients in internal medicine wards was 40% (95% CI, 34%-45%), while that in patients in surgical wards was 47% (95% CI, 30%-64%). In addition, the mortality risk within 1 year (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.95-3.52; I² = 77.1%) and beyond 1 year (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.70-2.45; I² = 59.9%) of patients diagnosed with malnutrition by the GLIM criteria was double that of patients with normal nutrition.

Conclusion

The prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed by the GLIM criteria after a nutritional risk screening was significantly lower than the prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed directly by the GLIM criteria. In addition, the mortality risk was significantly greater among malnourished patients assessed by the GLIM criteria.Systematic review registration: identifier CRD42023398454.

A scoping review on the GLIM criteria for malnutrition diagnosis: Understanding how and for which purpose it has been applied in studies on hospital settings

AIMS

This scoping review aimed to identify and map the literature on malnutrition diagnosis made using the GLIM criteria in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

The scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (until 16 April 2022) to identify studies based on the 'population' (adults or elderly patients), 'concept' (malnutrition diagnosis by the GLIM criteria), and 'context' (hospital settings) framework. Titles/abstracts were screened, and two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies.

RESULTS

Ninety-six studies were eligible (35.4% from China, 30.2% involving oncological patients, and 30.5% with prospective data collection), 32 followed the two-step GLIM approach, and 50 applied all the criteria. All the studies evaluated body mass index (BMI), while 92.7% evaluated weight loss; 77.1%, muscle mass; 93.8%, inflammation; and 70.8%, energy intake. A lack of details on the methods adopted for criterion evaluation was observed in five (muscle mass evaluation) to 40 studies (energy intake evaluation). The frequency of the use of the GLIM criteria ranged from 22.2% (frequency of low BMI) to 84.7% (frequency of inflammation), and the malnutrition prevalence ranged from 0.96% to 87.9%. Less than 30% of studies aimed to assess the GLIM criterion validity, eight studies cited the guidance on validation of the GLIM criteria, and a minority implemented it.

CONCLUSIONS

This map of studies on the GLIM criteria in hospital settings demonstrated that they are applied in a heterogeneous manner, with a wide range of malnutrition prevalence. Almost 50% of the studies applied all the criteria, while one-third followed the straightforward two-step approach. The recommendations of the guidance on validation of the criteria were scarcely adhered to. The gaps that need to be explored in future studies have been highlighted.

Malnutrition diagnosed by the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria predicting survival and clinical outcomes of patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Recently, some cohorts have looked into the use of Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria in cancer patients. The objective of the current meta-analysis was to determine its utility in predicting clinical and survival outcomes for cancer patients.

Method

Searching and screening literature from PubMed, Web of Science and Embase until September 13, 2022 was performed by two researchers independently. According to the exclusion and inclusion criteria, articles reporting the impact of malnutrition diagnosed by GLIM on long-term survival and clinical outcomes were included. Data of interest were also extracted from the included papers. The stability of the pooled results was evaluated using sensitivity analysis. With the aid of subgroup analysis, heterogeneity was revealed. To assess publication bias, Egger's and Begg's tests were conducted. The influence of publication bias on the pooling risk estimate was examined using a trim-and-fill analysis.

Results

15 studies that qualified for our study were identified. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) from both multivariate and univariate regression analysis showed a worse overall survival in GLIM-defined malnourished cancer patients than those in well-nourished status. Meanwhile, disease-free survival was also poorer in malnourished patients. Moreover, pooled odds ratio (OR) demonstrated that malnourished cancer patients were more likely to develop overall postoperative complications, complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade IIa and complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa. Two articles reported negative relation between GLIM-defined malnutrition and 30-day readmission/mortality.

Conclusion

GLIM-defined malnutrition possesses value in predicting poorer survival and clinical outcomes for cancer patients.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=321094], identifier [CRD42022321094].