Abstract

Background: There are several approaches that can be used for the pre-treatment identification of malnutrition in oncology populations including the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), the 2015 consensus statement by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN 2015) and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM).Aims: This study aimed to evaluate whether malnutrition, as defined by these three methods, can be used to predict complications in esophageal cancer (EC) patients after esophagectomy.Methods: We performed a single center, observational cohort study that included 360 EC patients undergoing esophagectomy from December 2014 to November 2019 at Daping Hospital in China. The prevalence of malnutrition in the study population was prospectively defined using the PG-SGA (≥9 defined malnutrition), and retrospectively defined using the ESPEN 2015 and the GLIM. The prevalence of malnutrition and association with postoperative complications were compared in parallel for the three methods.Results: The prevalence of malnutrition before surgery was 23.1% (83/360), 12.2% (44/360), and 33.3% (120/360) in the study population, as determined by the PG-SGA, the ESPEN 2015 and the GLIM, respectively. The PG-SGA and GLIM had higher diagnostic concordance (Kappa = 0.519, P < 0.001) compared to the ESPEN 2015 vs. GLIM (Kappa = 0.361, P < 0.001) and PG-SGA vs. ESPEN 2015 (Kappa = 0.297, P < 0.001). The overall incidence of postoperative complications for the study population was 58.1% (209/360). GLIM- and ESPEN 2015-defined malnutrition were both associated with the total number of postoperative complications in multivariable analyses. Moreover, GLIM-defined malnutrition exhibited the highest power to identify the incidence of complications among all independent predictors in a pooled analysis.Conclusion: Among the PG-SGA, the ESPEN 2015 and the GLIM, the GLIM framework defines the highest prevalence rate of malnutrition and appears to be the optimal method for predicting postoperative complications in EC patients undergoing esophagectomy. These results support the importance of preoperatively identifying malnutrition using appropriate assessment tools, because it can facilitate the selection of management strategies that will optimize the clinical outcomes of EC patients.

Highlights

  • Esophageal cancer (EC) remains the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death according to the latest global cancer statistics [1]

  • The Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score was associated with the identification of malnutrition by the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) (P < 0.001), but was not associated with the classification based on the ESPEN 2015 or the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM)

  • When compared to the PG-SGA, the GLIM had an agreement (95%CI) of 0.803 (0.758, 0.843) for diagnosing malnutrition

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Esophageal cancer (EC) remains the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death according to the latest global cancer statistics [1]. Strategies that can improve the postoperative complications [3], clinical outcomes [4] and quality of life (QOL) [5] for EC patients are garnering accumulating interest in the oncology community, with newer approaches utilizing inter- or multi-disciplinary cancer treatment [6, 7]. The prevalence of malnutrition in EC patients has been estimated to be as high as 79% [10], which has a significant negative impact on the incidence of postoperative complications, tolerance to treatment, and survival [11, 12]. Nutritional intervention has been proposed as a key component of the multi-disciplinary treatment of EC to improve the patients’ outcomes [13,14,15]. There are several approaches that can be used for the pre-treatment identification of malnutrition in oncology populations including the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), the 2015 consensus statement by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN 2015) and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call