Search

Background: Weight loss (WL) has long been recognized as an important factor associated with reduced quality of life (QoL) and reduced survival in patients with cancer. The body mass index (BMI)‐adjusted weight loss grading system (WLGS) has been shown to be associated with reduced survival. However, its impact on QoL has not been established. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between this WLGS and QoL in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: A biobank analysis was undertaken of adult patients with advanced cancer. Data collected included patient demographics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and anthropometric parameters (BMI and %WL). Patients were categorized according to the BMI‐adjusted WLGS into one of five distinct WL grades (grades 0–4). QoL was collected using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire‐C30. The Kruskal–Wallis test and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between the WLGS and QoL scores. Overall survival was assessed using Kaplan–Meier curve and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: A total of 1027 patients were assessed (51% male, median age: 66 years). Gastrointestinal cancer was most prevalent (40%), and 87% of patients had metastatic disease. Half (58%) of patients had a WL grade of 0–1, while 12%, 20%, and 10% had WL grades of 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Increasing WL grades were significantly associated with poorer QoL functioning and symptoms scales (all P < 0.05). Physical, role, and emotional functioning decreased by a median of >20 points between WL grade 0 and WL grade 4, while appetite loss, pain, dyspnoea, and fatigue increased by a median score >20 points, indicative of a large clinical significant difference. Increasing WL grades were associated with deteriorating QoL summary score. WL grades 2, 3, and 4 were independently associated with a QoL summary score below the median (<77.7) [odds ratio (OR) 1.69, P = 0.034; OR 2.06, P = 0.001; OR 4.29, P < 0.001, respectively]. WL grades 3 and 4 were independently associated with reduced overall survival [hazard ratio 1.54 (95% confidence interval: 1.22–1.93), P < 0.001 and hazard ratio 1.87 (95% confidence interval: 1.42–2.45), P < 0.001, respectively]. Conclusions: Our findings support that the WLGS is useful in identifying patients at risk of poor QoL that deteriorates with increasing WL grades. WL grade 4 is independently associated with a particularly worse prognosis and increased symptom burden. Identification and early referral to palliative care services may benefit these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Nutrition screening on admission to hospital is mandated in many countries, but to date, there is no consensus on which tool is optimal in the oncology setting. Wasting conditions such as cancer cachexia (CC) and sarcopenia are common in cancer patients and negatively impact on outcomes; however, they are often masked by excessive adiposity. This study aimed to inform the application of screening in cancer populations by investigating whether commonly used nutritional screening tools are adequately capturing nutritionally vulnerable patients, including those with abnormal body composition phenotypes (CC, sarcopenia, and myosteatosis). Methods: A prospective study of ambulatory oncology outpatients presenting for chemotherapy was performed. A detailed survey incorporating clinical, nutritional, biochemical, and quality of life data was administered. Participants were screened for malnutrition using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), and the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI). Computed tomography (CT) assessment of body composition was performed to diagnose CC, sarcopenia, and myosteatosis according to consensus criteria. Results: A total of 725 patients (60% male, median age 64 years) with solid tumours participated (45% metastatic disease). The majority were overweight/obese (57%). However, 67% were losing weight, and CT analysis revealed CC in 42%, sarcopenia in 41%, and myosteatosis in 46%. Among patients with CT‐identified CC, the MUST, MST, and NRI tools categorized 27%, 35%, and 7% of them as ‘low nutritional risk’, respectively. The percentage of patients with CT‐identified sarcopenia and myosteatosis that were categorised as ‘low nutritional risk’ by MUST, MST and NRI were 55%, 61%, and 14% and 52%, 50%, and 11%, respectively. Among these tools, the NRI was most sensitive, with scores <97.5 detecting 85.8%, 88.6%, and 92.9% of sarcopenia, myosteatosis, and CC cases, respectively. Using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, NRI score < 97.5 predicted greater mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.8, confidence interval: 1.2–2.8, P = 0.007). Conclusions: High numbers of nutritionally vulnerable patients, with demonstrated abnormal body composition phenotypes on CT analysis, were misclassified by MUST and MST. Caution should be exercised when categorizing the nutritional risk of oncology patients using these tools. NRI detected the majority of abnormal body composition phenotypes and independently predicted survival. Of the tools examined, the NRI yielded the most valuable information from screening and demonstrated usefulness as an initial nutritional risk grading system in ambulatory oncology patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]