Evaluating the Nutritional Status of Oncology Patients and Its Association with Quality of Life.

Ya Hui Zhang; Fang Yi Xie; Ya Wen Chen; Hai Xia Wang; Wen Xia Tian; Wen Guang Sun; Jing WU

Return

Evaluating the Nutritional Status of Oncology Patients and Its Association with Quality of Life.

Author: Ya Hui ZHANG ¹ ; Fang Yi XIE ² ; Ya Wen CHEN ² ; Hai Xia WANG ² ; Wen Xia TIAN ² ; Wen Guang SUN ¹ ; Jing WU ³
Author Information

1. Department of Clinical Nutrition, International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China.
2. Department of Clinical Nutrition, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated with Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai 200233, China.
3. Department of Clinical Nutrition, Guangdong Medical University Affiliated Zhongshan Chenxinghai Hospital, Zhongshan 528415, Guangdong, China.
Publication Type:Journal Article
Keywords: EORTC QLQ-C30; Malignant patients; Malnutrition; NRS-2002; Nutritional assessment; PG-SGA
From: Biomedical and Environmental Sciences 2018;31(9):637-644
CountryChina
Language:English
Abstract:
OBJECTIVEThe primary aim of the study was to compare two nutritional status evaluation tools: the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002). Using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the second aim was to provide constructive advice regarding the quality of life of patients with malignancy.
METHODSThis study enrolled 312 oncology patients and assessed their nutritional status and quality of life using the PG-SGA, NRS-2002, and EORTC QLQ-C30.
RESULTSThe data indicate that 6% of the cancer patients were well nourished. The SGA-A had a higher sensitivity (93.73%) but a poorer specificity (2.30%) than the NRS-2002 (69.30% and 25.00%, respectively) after comparison with albumin. There was a low negative correlation and a high similarity between the PG-SGA and NRS-2002 for evaluating nutritional status, and there was a significant difference in the median PG-SGA scores for each of the SGA classifications (P < 0.001). The SGA-C group showed the highest PG-SGA scores and lowest body mass index. The majority of the target population received 2 points for each item in our 11-item questionnaire from the EORTC QLQ-C30.
CONCLUSIONThe data indicate that the PG-SGA is more useful and suitable for evaluating nutritional status than the NRS-2002. Additionally, early nutrition monitoring can prevent malnutrition and improve the quality of life of cancer patients.