Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2022
Application of the 2011 international consensus cancer cachexia classification in routine oncology dietetic practice: An observational study.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aktas Aynur, Lorton Cliona M, Griffin Oonagh, Higgins Keira, Roulston Fiona, Stewart Gillian, Corkery Niamh, Barnes Elizabeth, Walsh Declan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia (CC) is highly prevalent and associated with significant morbidity and mortality, yet underrecognized. In 2011, an international cachexia consensus (ICC) proposed a definition, assessment framework, and stages for classification: cancer precachexia, cachexia, and refractory cachexia. The authors anticipated that a "more practical classification approach for clinical practice" would be required, which we interpreted as a bedside assessment based on clinical data. We investigated whether the ICC classification could be employed in routine dietetic practice without access to objective muscle mass measures.
METHODS: Data from 200 consecutive patients with solid tumors were collected as part of clinical practice by oncology dietitians in five tertiary referral hospitals. Dietitians used information gathered during their routine assessment and applied the ICC framework to assign a stage. When the dietitian was unable to assign a stage, the reason was noted.
RESULTS: Based on available data, classification was possible in 177 (88%); 23 (12%) could not be staged. The reasons cited were as follows: unknown C-reactive protein (n = 14), complex clinical situation (n = 5), unknown weight loss (n = 2), and acute illness (n = 2). Thirty (17%) of the 177 participants were judged to be noncachectic. One hundred twelve (83%) met the criteria for 1 of the 3 ICC stages: 92 (52%) were cachectic; 35 (20%) precachectic, and 20 (11%) refractory.
CONCLUSIONS: CC staging based on the ICC classification was feasible and practical in routine dietetic practice even without access to objective muscle mass measures. Once validated and operationalized, expert clinical assessment by a dietitian could be a cost-effective means to identify and stage CC, with more resource-intensive means used when there is clinical doubt.
METHODS: Data from 200 consecutive patients with solid tumors were collected as part of clinical practice by oncology dietitians in five tertiary referral hospitals. Dietitians used information gathered during their routine assessment and applied the ICC framework to assign a stage. When the dietitian was unable to assign a stage, the reason was noted.
RESULTS: Based on available data, classification was possible in 177 (88%); 23 (12%) could not be staged. The reasons cited were as follows: unknown C-reactive protein (n = 14), complex clinical situation (n = 5), unknown weight loss (n = 2), and acute illness (n = 2). Thirty (17%) of the 177 participants were judged to be noncachectic. One hundred twelve (83%) met the criteria for 1 of the 3 ICC stages: 92 (52%) were cachectic; 35 (20%) precachectic, and 20 (11%) refractory.
CONCLUSIONS: CC staging based on the ICC classification was feasible and practical in routine dietetic practice even without access to objective muscle mass measures. Once validated and operationalized, expert clinical assessment by a dietitian could be a cost-effective means to identify and stage CC, with more resource-intensive means used when there is clinical doubt.