Comparation of different malnutrition screening tools according to GLIM criteria in cancer outpatients

Standardising and simplifying the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) for its more general application

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is present in 20-50% of hospital patients but its recognition is often neither timely nor complete. The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) aims to improve this, but its successful implementation may be compromised by its dependence on (a choice of) prior screening tools and difficulties in consistent assessment of muscle mass.

AIMS

To explore different approaches to screening and muscle assessment in GLIM and to offer simpler choices for its more widespread application.

METHODS

(1) Data from 300 consenting in-patients provided Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) scores. GLIM scoring was preceded by NRS-2002 or MUST (using threshold scores of 1 or 2 for MUST), or no prior screening. The results of GLIM scoring preceded by different screening approaches were compared with those of SGA. (2) The literature on mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) and calf circumference (CC) as simple, non-invasive, objective methods of muscle assessment methods was reviewed (3) The cumulative times taken to obtain GLIM scores were measured and corrected for the different screening strategies.

RESULTS

(1) Participants' mean age was 60 years, 157 (52%) were female and mean BMI was 27.8 kg/m2. In comparison with SGA, GLIM with no prior screening had the highest sensitivity (65%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (76%), but the lowest specificity (90%) and positive predictive value (PPV) (84%). The equivalent figures for GLIM with prior MUST "1" were 62%, 75%, 93% and 88%; with prior NRS-2002, 55%∗, 73%, 98%∗ and 95%∗; and with prior MUST "2", 44%∗, 69%∗, 98%∗, 95%∗. The area under an ROC curve was the highest (0.78) when GLIM was performed without screening or with prior MUST "1". (2) Being less affected by oedema and gender differences than calf circumference, MUAC could serve as a standard globally accessible muscle mass assessment method which can be supplemented by technical approaches if available and deemed necessary. (3) The overall per-capita time requirement of GLIM was 240-245 s without prior screening, and was increased by 2-3% with prior MUST "1", by 27-29% with prior NRS-2002 and decreased by 8-9% with prior MUST "2".

CONCLUSIONS

Preceding GLIM by screening can decrease its sensitivity and increase overall time utilisation; "gold standard" muscle assessment is not globally accessible. Our results therefore support considering using GLIM as a combined screening and assessment tool, with MUAC as the method of muscle assessment which can be supplemented by technical approaches if available and deemed necessary. This could potentially both simplify the use of GLIM and improve the early detection of malnutrition. ∗Indicates statistically significant difference from use of GLIM without prior screening.

Identifying malnutrition risk in hospitalized patients: an analysis of five tools in the light of GLIM criteria

BACKGROUND

The prompt identification of malnutrition among hospitalized patients using the appropriate screening tool is paramount. The objective of our study is to compare the most recommended screening tools concerning the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed the data on 1,397 patients receiving inpatient treatment at Bandırma Training and Research Hospital between August 2022 and May 2023 to assess and compare malnutrition in them. Patients who received inpatient treatment in the internal and surgical clinics of Bandırma Training and Research Hospital. In addition to the GLIM criteria, we used nutritional screening and assessment tools such as NRS-2002, MST, GMS, MUST, and SNAQ. The GLIM criteria were considered the gold standard for the evaluation of sensitivity and specificity. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the five screening tools were also used to assess the ability to distinguish malnutrition-risk patients accurately.

RESULTS

The comparison of the performances of different screening tools in detecting malnutrition demonstrated that while the GMS had the highest sensitivity (87.40%), the NRS-2002 had the highest specificity (91.70%). The area under the Curve (AUC) value indicated that the predictive values of the NRS-2002, MST, GMS, and SNAQ were excellent, and the predictive value of the MUST was good (p < 0.001). While the GLIM criteria in particular appear to be an effective tool for detecting malnutrition in hospitalized individuals, other screening tools are also useful in assessing their malnutrition risk.

CONCLUSIONS

We emphasized MST's alignment with GLIM criteria, underscoring the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for early malnutrition diagnosis. Patients at risk of malnutrition can be diagnosed more quickly and accurately with appropriate screening tools and the effectiveness of treatments can be increased.

A Narrative Review Comparing Nutritional Screening Tools in Outpatient Management of Cancer Patients

Malnutrition during cancer has a negative impact on prognosis and quality of life. Therefore, it is important to identify those patients at higher nutritional risk to prevent its development. There are nutritional screening tools, such as MUST and NRS-2002, that focus on the patient on admission to hospital. However, most patients will develop malnutrition in the outpatient or ambulatory setting. This study aims to determine which nutritional screening tool is most effective in assessing nutritional risk in the outpatient oncology patient, highlighting the parameters analysed by these tools. Seventeen articles were reviewed, with the most important variables being tumour location, tumour stage, age, and gender, as well as recent weight loss, dietary intake, and digestive disorders. The Nutriscore, NRS-2002, and MUST tools are considered suitable, but the choice varies depending on these parameters. MNA is suitable for elderly patients, while SNAQ was not considered reliable in this population. In conclusion, MUST, NRS-2002, and Nutriscore are suitable tools, but their choice depends on specific characteristics. There is currently no universal tool for nutritional risk assessment in outpatients.

Impact of malnutrition as defined by the GLIM criteria on treatment outcomes in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Malnutrition has been reported to lead to poor postoperative outcomes. The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria were published in 2019 as a global consensus on the criteria for diagnosing malnutrition. However, the relationship between GLIM-defined malnutrition and treatment outcomes in patients with cancer has not been fully investigated. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the impact of GLIM-defined malnutrition on the treatment outcomes of patients with cancer.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov and identified observational studies published from inception to January 17, 2022. We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis studies that included patients with cancer aged >18 years who received any kind of treatment and whose nutritional status was assessed using GLIM criteria. We independently assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence using Quality In Prognosis Studies and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and postoperative complications. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS and relative risk ratios and 95% CIs for postoperative complications were pooled. The protocol was published by PROSPERO (CRD42022304004).

RESULTS

Of 67 studies after screening, ten studies (n = 11,700) reported the impact of GLIM-defined malnutrition on postoperative outcomes. Compared with no malnutrition, GLIM-defined malnutrition may worsen OS (hazard ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.38-1.75; I² = 37%) and increase postoperative complications (relative risk ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.28-2.60; I² = 87%). The risk of bias in each study was either moderate or high. The certainty of the evidence was low because of publication bias and a moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

GLIM-defined malnutrition may worsen OS and increase the risk of postoperative complications in patients with cancer undergoing treatment. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and mitigate this risk.

CONUT score is associated with short-term prognosis in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a propensity score matching cohort study

Background

The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score was designed to assess the immune-nutritional status in patients. This study aimed to investigate the role of the CONUT score in the short-term prognosis of severe acute pancreatitis.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study. 488 patients with severe acute pancreatitis at the Department of Critical Care Medicine of the West China Hospital of Sichuan University (Chengdu, China) were enrolled in the study. Baseline data were collected from the West China Hospital of Sichuan University database. The primary outcome during follow-up was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were 28 day mortality, renal insufficiency, length of stay (LOS) in the ICU, and length of stay (LOS) in the hospital. Patients were divided into two groups based on a median CONUT score of 7, and baseline differences between the two groups were eliminated by propensity matching. Univariate Cox regression analyses were performed to estimate the association between CONUT score and outcomes. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the survival rate of patients.

Results

CONUT score was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]:2.093; 95%CI: 1.342-3.263; p < 0.001) and 28 day mortality (hazard ratio [HR]:1.813; 95%CI: 1.135-2.896; p < 0.013). CONUT score was not statistically significant in predicting the incidence of renal insufficiency. The high CONUT group had significantly higher all-cause mortality (p < 0.001), and 28 day mortality (p < 0.011) than the low CONUT group.

Conclusion

The CONUT score is an independent predictor of short-term prognosis in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and timely nutritional support is required to reduce mortality in patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

Associations of patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) and NUTRISCORE with survival in gastric cancer patients: timing matters, a retrospective cohort study

Background

The timing of nutritional assessment may be important to treat cancer patients and predict their prognosis. This study examined whether Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and NUTRISCORE scores were associated with survival among gastric cancer patients who underwent surgery and chemotherapy and whether the timing of the assessment after surgery mattered.

Methods

A total of 952 gastric cancer patients (622 men and 330 women) were included in this retrospective cohort study. The PG-SGA and NUTRISCORE scores were calculated at 1 month (n = 952), 2 months (n = 657), and 3 months (n = 294) after surgery. Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

The PG-SGA scores assessed at 1 month after gastrectomy were not associated with survival. However, high PG-SGA scores at 2 months after gastrectomy (median = 65 days) were associated with an increased risk of mortality; the HR (95% CI) was 2.26 (1.22–4.21) for 9–11 vs. ≤ 5 of PG-SGA scores. When we included patients who received all three consecutive consultations, HR (95% CI) was 2.56 (1.02–6.42) for ≥ 9 (malnutrition) vs. ≤ 8 of PG-SGA scores assessed at 3 months after surgery (median days = 98 days). Likewise, high NUTRISCORE scores assessed at the 3-month follow-up were associated with higher mortality; the HR (95% CI) was 3.84 (1.18–12.55) for ≥ 7 vs. ≤ 4 of NUTRISCORE scores.

Conclusion

Malnutrition assessed with the PG-SGA and NUTRISCORE at 2 to 3 months after gastrectomy was associated with poor survival among gastric cancer patients. Our findings suggest that the timing of the nutritional evaluation may be important in identifying and treating malnutrition related to gastric cancer prognosis.

Strategies to Mitigate Chemotherapy and Radiation Toxicities That Affect Eating

Background: Cancer and its therapy is commonly associated with a variety of side effects that impact eating behaviors that reduce nutritional intake. This review will outline potential causes of chemotherapy and radiation damage as well as approaches for the amelioration of the side effects of cancer during therapy. Methods: Information for clinicians, patients, and their caregivers about toxicity mitigation including nausea reduction, damage to epithelial structures such as skin and mucosa, organ toxicity, and education is reviewed. Results: How to anticipate, reduce, and prevent some toxicities encountered during chemotherapy and radiation is detailed with the goal to improve eating behaviors. Strategies for health care professionals, caregivers, and patients to consider include (a) the reduction in nausea and vomiting, (b) decreasing damage to the mucosa, (c) avoiding a catabolic state and muscle wasting (sarcopenia), and (d) developing therapeutic alliances with patients, caregivers, and oncologists. Conclusions: Although the reduction of side effects involves anticipatory guidance and proactive team effort (e.g., forward observation, electronic interactions, patient reported outcomes), toxicity reduction can be satisfying for not only the patient, but everyone involved in cancer care.