TY - JOUR
T1 - The diversity of nutritional status in cancer
T2 - New insights
AU - Chaves, Mariana Ramos
AU - Boléo-Tomé, Carolina
AU - Monteiro-Grillo, Isabel
AU - Camilo, Maria
AU - Ravasco, Paula
PY - 2010
Y1 - 2010
N2 - Objective. Nutritional status in cancer has been mostly biased toward undernutrition, an issue now in dispute. We aimed to characterize nutrition status, to analyze associations between nutritional and clinical/cancer-related variables, and to quantify the relative weights of nutritional and cancer-related features. Methods. The cross-sectional study included 450 non selected cancer patients (ages 18-95 years) at referral for radiotherapy. Nutritional status assessment included recent weight changes, body mass index (BMI) categorized by World Health Organization's age/sex criteria, and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA; validated/specific for oncology). Results. BMI identified 63% as >25 kg/m2 (43% over-weight, 20% obese) and 4% as under nourished. PG-SGA identified 29% as undernourished and 71% as well nourished. Crossing both methods, among the 319 (71%) well-nourished patients according to PG-SGA, 75% were overweight/obese and only 25% were well nourished according to BMI. Concordance between BMI and PG-SGA was evaluated and consistency was confirmed. More aggressive/advanced stage cancers were more prevalent in deficient and excessive nutritional status: in 83%(n 235/282) of over weight/obese patients by BMI and in 85%(n 111/131) of undernourished patients by PG-SGA. Results required adjustment for diagnoses: greater histological aggressiveness was found in overweight/obese prostate and breast cancer; under nutrition was associated with aggressive lung, colorectal, head-neck, stomach, and esophageal cancers (p <.005). Estimates of effect size revealed that overweight/obesity was associated with advanced stage (24%), aggressive breast (10%), and prostate (9%) cancers, where as under nutrition was associated with more aggressive lung (6%), colorectal (6%), and head-neck (6%) cancers; inboth instances,age and longer disease duration were of significance. Conclusion. Under nutrition and overweight/obesity have distinct implications and bear a negative prognosis in cancer. This study provides novel data on the prevalence of overweight/obesity and under nutrition in cancer patients and their potential role in cancer histological behavior.
AB - Objective. Nutritional status in cancer has been mostly biased toward undernutrition, an issue now in dispute. We aimed to characterize nutrition status, to analyze associations between nutritional and clinical/cancer-related variables, and to quantify the relative weights of nutritional and cancer-related features. Methods. The cross-sectional study included 450 non selected cancer patients (ages 18-95 years) at referral for radiotherapy. Nutritional status assessment included recent weight changes, body mass index (BMI) categorized by World Health Organization's age/sex criteria, and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA; validated/specific for oncology). Results. BMI identified 63% as >25 kg/m2 (43% over-weight, 20% obese) and 4% as under nourished. PG-SGA identified 29% as undernourished and 71% as well nourished. Crossing both methods, among the 319 (71%) well-nourished patients according to PG-SGA, 75% were overweight/obese and only 25% were well nourished according to BMI. Concordance between BMI and PG-SGA was evaluated and consistency was confirmed. More aggressive/advanced stage cancers were more prevalent in deficient and excessive nutritional status: in 83%(n 235/282) of over weight/obese patients by BMI and in 85%(n 111/131) of undernourished patients by PG-SGA. Results required adjustment for diagnoses: greater histological aggressiveness was found in overweight/obese prostate and breast cancer; under nutrition was associated with aggressive lung, colorectal, head-neck, stomach, and esophageal cancers (p <.005). Estimates of effect size revealed that overweight/obesity was associated with advanced stage (24%), aggressive breast (10%), and prostate (9%) cancers, where as under nutrition was associated with more aggressive lung (6%), colorectal (6%), and head-neck (6%) cancers; inboth instances,age and longer disease duration were of significance. Conclusion. Under nutrition and overweight/obesity have distinct implications and bear a negative prognosis in cancer. This study provides novel data on the prevalence of overweight/obesity and under nutrition in cancer patients and their potential role in cancer histological behavior.
KW - Body mass index
KW - Cancer
KW - Histological aggressiveness
KW - Nutritional status
KW - Patient-generated subjective global assessment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952655386&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0283
DO - 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0283
M3 - Article
C2 - 20395552
AN - SCOPUS:77952655386
SN - 1083-7159
VL - 15
SP - 523
EP - 530
JO - Oncologist
JF - Oncologist
IS - 5
ER -