Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2012
Nutritional status, cachexia and survival in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. Different assessment criteria for nutritional status provide unequal results.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Thoresen Lene, Frykholm Gunilla, Lydersen Stian, Ulveland Hege, Baracos Vickie, Prado Carla M M, Birdsell Laura, Falkmer Ursula
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Different nutrition assessment tools and definitions are proposed for cancer-associated malnutrition and wasting (cachexia). We studied the associations between these assessments and overall survival in stage IV colorectal carcinoma patients.
METHODS: Anthropometric measures, energy intake, biochemical variables, nutritional risk screening, assessment of malnutrition, cachexia and body composition from computed tomography images were analysed, in 77 patients from Norway and Canada. Results were dichotomized into presence or absence of nutritional risk, malnutrition, cachexia and sarcopenia (low muscle mass) and associated with survival.
RESULTS: Overall, 22% up to 55% of the patients had cachexia according to different cachexia criteria: 34% were malnourished, 42% were at nutritional risk, and 39% were sarcopenic. Forty-four percent of the patients did not meet criteria for any of these conditions. Patients with cachexia defined by Cancer Cachexia Study Group (CCSG) had shorter survival in an unadjusted analysis, [Hazard ratio (HR) = 2.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-4.47; P = 0.005]. After adjusting for nation, age and gender, cachexia (HR = 2.26; CI 1.18-4.32; P = 0.014) and malnutrition (HR = 1.83; CI 1.06-3.13; P = 0.029) remained significant predictors of survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional depletion in up to 55% of the patients was found. The lack of concordance between the results obtained by different assessment criteria was obvious. CCSG's cachexia score was the best prognostic factor for overall survival.
METHODS: Anthropometric measures, energy intake, biochemical variables, nutritional risk screening, assessment of malnutrition, cachexia and body composition from computed tomography images were analysed, in 77 patients from Norway and Canada. Results were dichotomized into presence or absence of nutritional risk, malnutrition, cachexia and sarcopenia (low muscle mass) and associated with survival.
RESULTS: Overall, 22% up to 55% of the patients had cachexia according to different cachexia criteria: 34% were malnourished, 42% were at nutritional risk, and 39% were sarcopenic. Forty-four percent of the patients did not meet criteria for any of these conditions. Patients with cachexia defined by Cancer Cachexia Study Group (CCSG) had shorter survival in an unadjusted analysis, [Hazard ratio (HR) = 2.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-4.47; P = 0.005]. After adjusting for nation, age and gender, cachexia (HR = 2.26; CI 1.18-4.32; P = 0.014) and malnutrition (HR = 1.83; CI 1.06-3.13; P = 0.029) remained significant predictors of survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional depletion in up to 55% of the patients was found. The lack of concordance between the results obtained by different assessment criteria was obvious. CCSG's cachexia score was the best prognostic factor for overall survival.