Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2023
Comparison of the performance of the GLIM criteria, PG-SGA and mPG-SGA in diagnosing malnutrition and predicting survival among lung cancer patients: A multicenter study.
Многоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Huo Zhenyu, Chong Feifei, Yin Liangyu, Li Na, Liu Jie, Zhang Mengyuan, Guo Jing, Fan Yang, Zhang Ling, Lin Xin, Zhang Hongmei, Shi Muli, He Xiumei, Lu Zongliang, Fu Zhenming, Guo Zengqing, Li Zengning, Zhou Fuxiang, Chen Zhikang, Ma Hu, Zhou Chunling, Chen Junqiang, Wu Xianghua, Li Tao, Zhao Qingchuan, Weng Min, Yao Qinghua, Liu Ming, Yu Huiqing, Zheng Jin, Cui Jiuwei, Li Wei, Song Chunhua, Shi Hanping, Xu Hongxia, Investigation on Nutrition Status and Clinical Outcome of Common Cancers (INSCOC) Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The present study aimed to compare the ability of the GLIM criteria, PG-SGA and mPG-SGA to diagnose malnutrition and predict survival among Chinese lung cancer (LC) patients.
METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, nationwide cohort study, 6697 LC inpatients were enrolled between July 2013 and June 2020. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), area under the curve (AUC), and quadratic weighted Kappa coefficients were calculated to compare the ability to diagnose malnutrition. There were 754 patients who underwent follow-up for a median duration of 4.5 years. The associations between the nutritional status and survival were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models.
RESULTS: The median age of LC patients was 60 (53, 66), and 4456 (66.5%) were male. There were 617 (9.2%), 752 (11.2%), 1866 (27.9%), and 3462 (51.7%) patients with clinical stage Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ, and Ⅳ LC, respectively. Malnutrition was present in 36.1%-54.2% (as evaluated using different tools). Compared with the PG-SGA (used as the diagnostic reference), the sensitivity of the mPG-SGA and GLIM was 93.7% and 48.3%; the specificity was 99.8% and 78.4%; and the AUC was 0.989 and 0.633 (P < 0.001). The weighted Kappa coefficients were 0.41 for the PG-SGA vs. GLIM, 0.44 for the mPG-SGA vs. GLIM, and 0.94 for the mPG-SGA vs PG-SGA in patients with stage Ⅰ-Ⅱ LC. These values were respectively 0.38, 0.39, and 0.93 in patients with stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ of LC. In a multivariable Cox analysis, the mPG-SGA (HR = 1.661, 95%CI = 1.348-2.046, P < 0.001), PG-SGA (HR = 1.701, 95%CI = 1.379-2.097, P < 0.001) and GLIM (HR = 1.657, 95%CI = 1.347-2.038, P < 0.001) showed similar death hazard ratios.
CONCLUSIONS: The mPG-SGA provides nearly equivalent power to predict the survival of LC patients as the PG-SGA and the GLIM, indicating that all three tools are applicable for LC patients. The mPG-SGA has the potential to be an alternative replacement for quick nutritional assessment among LC patients.
METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, nationwide cohort study, 6697 LC inpatients were enrolled between July 2013 and June 2020. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), area under the curve (AUC), and quadratic weighted Kappa coefficients were calculated to compare the ability to diagnose malnutrition. There were 754 patients who underwent follow-up for a median duration of 4.5 years. The associations between the nutritional status and survival were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models.
RESULTS: The median age of LC patients was 60 (53, 66), and 4456 (66.5%) were male. There were 617 (9.2%), 752 (11.2%), 1866 (27.9%), and 3462 (51.7%) patients with clinical stage Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ, and Ⅳ LC, respectively. Malnutrition was present in 36.1%-54.2% (as evaluated using different tools). Compared with the PG-SGA (used as the diagnostic reference), the sensitivity of the mPG-SGA and GLIM was 93.7% and 48.3%; the specificity was 99.8% and 78.4%; and the AUC was 0.989 and 0.633 (P < 0.001). The weighted Kappa coefficients were 0.41 for the PG-SGA vs. GLIM, 0.44 for the mPG-SGA vs. GLIM, and 0.94 for the mPG-SGA vs PG-SGA in patients with stage Ⅰ-Ⅱ LC. These values were respectively 0.38, 0.39, and 0.93 in patients with stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ of LC. In a multivariable Cox analysis, the mPG-SGA (HR = 1.661, 95%CI = 1.348-2.046, P < 0.001), PG-SGA (HR = 1.701, 95%CI = 1.379-2.097, P < 0.001) and GLIM (HR = 1.657, 95%CI = 1.347-2.038, P < 0.001) showed similar death hazard ratios.
CONCLUSIONS: The mPG-SGA provides nearly equivalent power to predict the survival of LC patients as the PG-SGA and the GLIM, indicating that all three tools are applicable for LC patients. The mPG-SGA has the potential to be an alternative replacement for quick nutritional assessment among LC patients.