ABSTRACT
Background and Aims: Malnutrition is a condition that has a great impact on oncology patients. Poor nutritional status is often associated with increased morbidity and mortality, increased toxicity, and reduced tolerance to chemotherapy, among other complications. The recently developed GLIM criteria for malnutrition aim to homogenize its diagnosis, considering the baseline disease status. We aimed to evaluate the performance of these new criteria for the prediction of complications and mortality in patients with cancer. Methods: This work is a prospective, single-center study. All outpatients under active treatment for head and neck, upper gastrointestinal, and colorectal tumors between February and October 2020 were recruited. These patients were followed up for 6 months, assessing the occurrence of complications and survival based on GLIM diagnoses of malnutrition. Results: We enrolled 165 outpatients, 46.66% of whom were malnourished. During the 6-month follow-ups, patients with malnutrition (46.7%, according to GLIM criteria) had a ~3-fold increased risk of hospital admission (p < 0.001) and occurrence of severe infection (considered as those requiring hospitalization, intravenous antibiotics, and/or drainage by interventional procedures) (p = 0.002). Similarly, malnourished patients had a 3.5-fold increased risk of poor pain control and a 4.4-fold increased need for higher doses of opioids (both p < 0.001). They also had a 2.6-fold increased risk of toxicity (p = 0.044) and a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of needing a dose decrease or discontinuation of cancer treatment (p = 0.011). The 6-month survival of malnourished patients was significantly lower (p = 0.023) than in non-malnourished patients. Conclusions: Diagnoses of malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria in oncology patients undergoing active treatment predict increased complications and worse survival at 6-month follow-ups, making them a useful tool for assessing the nutritional status of oncology patients.
ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Malnutrition , Neoplasms , Cross-Sectional Studies , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans , Malnutrition/diagnosis , Neoplasms/complications , Nutrition Assessment , Nutritional Status , OutpatientsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Malnutrition is one of the most prevalent problems among oncological patients. It reduces the response to treatments and negatively impacts survival. In 2019, a consensus criteria for diagnosing malnutrition (GLIM criteria) were proposed by most scientific nutrition societies. The objective of our work is 1) to assess the diagnostic capacity of the GLIM criteria in ambulatory patients with cancer and 2) to compare the GLIM with the ESPEN criteria to evaluate the contributions of these new criteria with respect to the existing ones. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional, and single-center study carried out at the Medical Oncology Department in the Lozano Blesa Clinical Hospital in Zaragoza (Spain). One hundred and sixty-five outpatients with tumors in the upper gastrointestinal tract, head and neck, and colorectal locations were recruited. All of them received the MST, MUST, and Nutriscore screening tools along with the ESPEN and GLIM diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: The prevalence of malnutrition was 46.7% according to the GLIM criteria and 21.2% using the ESPEN tool. Patients diagnosed by GLIM had a higher body mass index (BMI, 24.3 kg/m2) and muscle mass (MM, 16.1 kg/m2) than those diagnosed by ESPEN (21.2 kg/m2 and 14.3 kg/m2 respectively, both p = 0.001). The MST, MUST, and Nutriscore tools had a higher degree of concordance with GLIM compared to ESPEN (MST 0.53 vs 0.26; MUST 0.36 vs 0.66; Nutriscore 0.28 vs 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: The found prevalence of malnutrition in cancer patients is higher using the GLIM instead of ESPEN criteria. This disparity can be explained at least in part by the difficulty of the ESPEN criteria for malnutrition to diagnose patients with high baseline BMI or MM. The use of criteria with greater sensitivity, such as the new GLIM criteria, could help early diagnosis and thus early intervention in cancer patients.
Subject(s)
Malnutrition/complications , Malnutrition/diagnosis , Neoplasms/complications , Nutrition Assessment , Nutritional Status , Outpatients , Aged , Consensus , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Malnutrition/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prevalence , Societies, Scientific , Spain/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Tras la descripción de la importancia de las mutaciones en EGFR en el carcinoma de pulmón no microcítico y una vez comprobado que los inhibidores de la tirosincinasa superan el beneficio producido por quimioterapia en pacientes con tumores EGFR+, el tratamiento con uno de estos fármacos se ha convertido en la recomendación estándar. A pesar de este avance, los pacientes acaban progresando, por lo que es necesario buscar alternativas de tratamiento. Existen estudios que han analizado la actividad de afatinib después de un tratamiento con un inhibidor de la tirosincinasa de primera generación e incluso de la administración también de quimioterapia convencional. Produce una tasa de respuestas y un tiempo de control de la enfermedad significativos tras la aparición de resistencia clínica, que son independientes de la existencia de la mutación de resistencia T790M y que podemos atribuir a mantener el control pan-HER. Además del ensayo clínico inicial, LUX-Lung 1, tenemos datos de utilización en la práctica clínica habitual dentro de programas de uso expandido. En conjunto, podemos esperar tasas de respuesta de entre el 7 y el 15% con una duración de alrededor de 24 semanas y una mediana del tiempo hasta progresión de unos 4 meses. Un estudio que lo combina con cetuximab ha obtenido una alta tasa de respuestas. La toxicidad de afatinib en segunda línea es semejante a cuando se utiliza en primera (fundamentalmente mucocutánea y diarreas) y manejable con las medidas habituales. En conjunto hay que considerar afatinib como una opción de tratamiento en pacientes con mutación de EGFR que progresan tras un primer inhibidor de la tirosincinasa (AU)
After description of the importance of EGFR mutations in non-small cell lung cancer and confirmation that tyrosine-kinase inhibitors are more beneficial than chemotherapy in patients with EGFR+ tumours, treatment with one of these drugs has become the standard recommendation. Despite this advance, patients continue to progress and consequently there is a need to search for alternative treatments. Some studies have analysed afatinib activity after first-generation TKI therapy, as well as its administration in combination with conventional chemotherapy. Afatinib produces significant response rates and progression-free survival times after the development of clinical resistance, which are independent of the presence of the T790M resistance mutation and can be attributed to continued pan-HER inhibition. In addition to the initial clinical trial, LUX-LUNG-1, data are available from the use of afatinib in routine clinical practice, within extended use programs. Overall, response rates of between 7 and 15% can be expected with a duration of approximately 24 months and a median progression-free time of about 4 months. A study combining afatinib with cetuximab has obtained a high response rate. Afatinib toxicity in second-line treatment is similar to that appears when the drug is used as first-line therapy (mainly mucocutaneous and diarrhoea) and can be managed with routine measures. In conclusion, afatinib should be considered as a treatment option in patients with EGFR mutations who show disease progression after a first tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (AU)
