Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria as a nutrition assessment tool for patients with cancer
Kang-Ping Zhang,Meng Tang,Zhen-Ming Fu,Qi Zhang,Xi Zhang,Zeng-Qing Guo,Hong-Xia Xu,Chun-Hua Song,Marco Braga,Tommy Cederholm,Wei Li,Rocco Barazzoni,Han-Ping Shi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2021.111379
IF: 4.893
2021-11-01
Nutrition
Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Objectives</h3><p>Since the launch of Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM), there has been an urgent need to validate the new criteria, especially in patients with cancer. In this context, we evaluate and validate the use of the GLIM criteria in patients with cancer.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Method</h3><p>This multicenter cohort study compared the GLIM with the scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (sPG-SGA). The one-year survival rate, multivariate Cox regression analysis, kappa value, sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and time-dependent ROC analysis were applied to identify the performance of the GLIM.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>Among the 3,777 patients, 50.9% vs. 49.1% or 36.3% vs. 63.7% of the patients were defined as well-nourished and malnourished by GLIM or sPG-SGA respectively. GLIM presented moderate consistency (κ=0.54, P<0.001), fair sensitivity and specificity (70.5%, 88.3%) as compared with sPG-SGA. One-year survival rate had no difference in malnourished patients (76.9% vs. 76.4%, P=0.711), but was significantly different in well-nourished patients (85.8% vs. 90.3%, P<0.001) between GLIM and sPG-SGA. The above difference was eliminated after omitted NRS-2002 screening prior to GLIM (88.1% vs. 90.3%, P=0.078). Omitting NRS-2002 screening prior to GLIM do not change one-year survival rate both in well-nourished and malnourished patients by GLIM with NRS-2002 screening (76.9% vs. 78.9%, P=0.099; 85.8% vs. 88.1%, P=0.092) although significantly raised the rate of malnutrition to 72.5%. "Weight loss and cancer" combination showed better performance than other combinations.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>GLIM could be a convenient alternative to sPG-SGA in nutrition assessment for patients with cancer. "Weight loss and cancer" was better than other combination. Considering the higher risk of malnutrition in patients with cancer, NRS-2002 screening may not need prior to GLIM.</p>
nutrition & dietetics