Nutritional assessment and risk factors associated to malnutrition in patients with esophageal cancer.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Cao Jingjing, Xu Hongxia, Li Wei, Guo Zengqing, Lin Yuan, Shi Yingying, Hu Wen, Ba Yi, Li Suyi, Li Zengning, Wang Kunhua, Wu Jing, He Ying, Yang Jiajun, Xie Conghua, Zhou Fuxiang, Song Xinxia, Chen Gongyan, Ma Wenjun, Luo Suxia, Chen Zihua, Cong Minghua, Ma Hu, Zhou Chunling, Wang Wei, Qi Luo, Shi Yongmei, Qi Yumei, Jiang Haiping, Guan Wenxian, Chen Junqiang, Chen Jiaxin, Fang Yu, Zhou Lan, Feng Yongdong, Tan Rongshao, Ou Junwen, Zhao Qingchuan, Wu Jianxiong, Xin Lin, Yang Liuqing, Fu Zhenming, Wang Chang, Deng Li, Li Tao, Song Chunhua, Shi Hanping, Investigation on Nutrition Status and Clinical Outcome of Common Cancers (INSCOC) Group, Chinese Society of Nutritional Oncology
Аннотация
METHODS: A total of 1482 esophageal cancer patients were enrolled in the study. We investigated the Scored Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) scores, NRS-2002 scores, Karnofsky performance status scores, anthropometric, and laboratory indicators of patients. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was applied to identify the risk factors of nutritional status.
RESULTS: PG-SGA (≥4) and NRS-2002 (≥3) showed the incidence of malnutrition were 76% and 50%, respectively. In the patients with PG-SGA score ≥4, the proportion of patients who did not receive any nutritional support was 60%. The incidence of malnutrition in females was significantly higher than that in males. Besides, abnormality rates of Red blood cell (P < 0.001), MAC (P = 0.037), and MAMC (P < 0.001) in males was significantly higher than that in females, while abnormality rates of TSF (P < 0.001) was lower than that in females. After adjusted with the other potential risk factors listed, unconditional logistic regression analysis indicated smoking (odds ratio: 2.868, 95% confidence interval: 1.660-4.954), drinking (OR: 1.726, 95% CI: 1.099-2.712), family history (OR: 1.840, 95% CI: 1.132-2.992), radiotherapy or chemotherapy (OR: 1.594, 95% CI: 1.065-2.387), and pathological stage (OR: 2.263, 95% CI: 1.084-4.726) might be the risk factors of nutritional status, while nutritional support can reduce the risk of malnutrition.
CONCLUSION: Effective nutritional risk assessment methods and nutritional intervention measures can be adopted according to the research data to improve quality of life of esophageal cancer patients.