Comparison between GLIM Criteria, Cancer Cachexia Consensus and PG-SGA SF for the Nutritional Diagnosis of Patients with Advanced Cancer in Palliative Care

Authors

  • Emanuelly Varea Maria Wiegert Instituto Nacional de Câncer (INCA), Hospital do Câncer IV (HC IV), Unidade de Cuidados Paliativos. Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5904-5287
  • Gabriella da Costa Cunha Instituto Nacional de Câncer (INCA), Hospital do Câncer IV (HC IV), Unidade de Cuidados Paliativos. Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2892-753X
  • Larissa Calixto-Lima Instituto Nacional de Câncer (INCA), Hospital do Câncer IV (HC IV), Unidade de Cuidados Paliativos. Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9274-1663

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32635/2176-9745.RBC.2024v70n4.4771

Keywords:

Nutritional Assessment, Malnutrition/diagnosis, Cachexia/ diagnosis, Neoplasia/diet therapy, Palliative Care

Abstract

Introduction:The nutritional diagnosis in patients with cancer may vary according to the assessment method. Objective: To evaluate the agreement of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria and the consensus of cancer cachexia with the patient-generated subjective global assessment short form (PG-SGA SF) for nutritional diagnosis of patients with advanced cancer in palliative care. Method: Observational study with patients with advanced cancer evaluated during their first visit to a palliative care unit. Nutritional status was defined using the GLIM criteria, the consensus of cachexia, and the PG-SGA SF. Agreement values were analyzed using the Kappa coefficient (k) and accuracy measures of the methods were calculated. Results: A total of 254 patients was included, median age of 65 years (interquartile range: 58-71), predominantly males (55.1%). The prevalence of changes in nutritional status was 71.3%, 79.1% and 58.3%, according to GLIM, consensus of cachexia and PG-SGA SF, respectively. The agreement between the GLIM and the consensus of cachexia was moderate (k = 0.79; p < 0.001), while with the PG-SGA SF was very poor (GLIM k = 0.06; p = 0.320 and consensus of cachexia k = 0.06; p = 0.224). The accuracy between the GLIM and the consensus of cachexia was high (92.1%), however, the accuracy was low (<57.9%) in relation to the PG-SGA SF. Conclusion: Compared to the PG-SGA SF, agreement and accuracy between GLIM and consensus of cachexia criteria was unacceptable for nutritional diagnosis, which suggests less practical applicability for nutritional assessment of this population.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

De Groot LM, Lee G, Ackerie A, et al. Malnutrition screening and assessment in the cancer care ambulatory setting: mortality predictability and validity of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short form (PG-SGA SF) and the GLIM criteria. Nutrients. 2020;12(8):2287. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082287

Yin L, Cheng N, Chen P, et al. Association of malnutrition, as defined by the PG-SGA, ESPEN 2015, and GLIM criteria, with complications in esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy. Front Nutr. 2021;8:632546. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.632546

Qin L, Tian Q, Zhu W, et al. The Validity of the GLIM criteria for malnutrition in hospitalized patients with gastric cancer. Nutr Cancer. 2021;73(11-12):2732-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2020.1856894

Henriksen C, Paur I, Pedersen A, et al. Agreement between GLIM and PG-SGA for diagnosis of malnutrition depends on the screening tool used in GLIM. Clin Nutr. 2022;41(2):329-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. clnu.2021.12.024

Sealy MJ, Nijholt W, Stuiver MM, et al. Content validity across methods of malnutrition assessment in patients with cancer is limited. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;76:125-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.020

Cederholm T, Jensen GL, Ballesteros-Pomar MD, et al. Guidance for assessment of the inflammation etiologic criterion for the GLIM diagnosis of malnutrition: a modified Delphi approach. Clin Nutr. 2023;43(5):1025-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2023.11.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2023.11.026

Barazzoni R, Jensen GL, Correia MITD, et al. Guidance for assessment of the muscle mass phenotypic criterion for the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) diagnosis of malnutrition. Clin Nutr. 2022;41(6):1425-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2022.02.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2022.02.001

Gonzalez MC, Mehrnezhad A, Razaviarab N. Calf circumference: cutoff values from the NHANES 1999-2006. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;113(6):1679-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab029

SPSS®: Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS)[Internet]. Versão 23.0. [Chicago]. International Business Machines Corporation. [acesso 2023 mar 9]. Disponível em: https://www.ibm.com/br-pt/spss?utm_content=SR CWW&p1=Search&p4=43700077515785492&p5= p&gclid=CjwKCAjwgZCoBhBnEiwAz35Rwiltb7s14 pOSLocnooMOQh9qAL59IHVc9WP4ixhNTVMjen Rp3-aEgxoCubsQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031

de van der Schueren MAE, Keller H, GLIM Consortium, et al. Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM): guidance on validation of the operational criteria for the diagnosis of protein-energy malnutrition in adults. Clin Nutr. 2020;39(9):2872-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2019.12.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2019.12.022

Wiegert EVM, Oliveira LC, Calixto-Lima L, et al. New cancer cachexia staging system for use in clinical practice. Nutrition. 2021;90:111271. doi: https://10.1016/j.nut.2021.111271 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2021.111271

Souza Cunha M, Wiegert EVM, Calixto-Lima L, et al. Relationship of nutritional status and inflammation with survival in patients with advanced cancer in palliative care. Nutrition. 2018;51-52:98-103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2017.12.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2017.12.004

Cunha GDC, Rosa KSDC, Wiegert EVM, et al. Clinical relevance and prognostic value of inflammatory biomarkers: a prospective study in terminal cancer patients receiving palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;62(5):978-86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.04.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.04.009

Martin L, Muscaritoli M, Bourdel-Marchasson I, et al. Diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia: reduced food intake and inflammation predict weight loss and survival in an international, multi-cohort analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2021;12(5):1189-202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12756 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12756

De Groot LM, Lee G, Ackerie A, et al. Malnutrition screening and assessment in the cancer care ambulatory setting: mortality predictability and validity of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short form (PG-SGA SF) and the GLIM criteria. Nutrients. 2020;12(8):2287. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082287 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082287

Yin L, Cheng N, Chen P, et al. Association of malnutrition, as defined by the PG-SGA, ESPEN 2015, and GLIM criteria, with complications in esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy. Front Nutr. 2021;8:632546. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.632546 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.632546

Qin L, Tian Q, Zhu W, et al. The Validity of the GLIM criteria for malnutrition in hospitalized patients with gastric cancer. Nutr Cancer. 2021;73(11-12):2732-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2020.1856894 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2020.1856894

Henriksen C, Paur I, Pedersen A, et al. Agreement between GLIM and PG-SGA for diagnosis of malnutrition depends on the screening tool used in GLIM. Clin Nutr. 2022;41(2):329-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.12.024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.12.024

Sealy MJ, Nijholt W, Stuiver MM, et al. Content validity across methods of malnutrition assessment in patients with cancer is limited. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;76:125-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.020

Published

2025-01-24

How to Cite

1.
Wiegert EVM, Cunha G da C, Calixto-Lima L. Comparison between GLIM Criteria, Cancer Cachexia Consensus and PG-SGA SF for the Nutritional Diagnosis of Patients with Advanced Cancer in Palliative Care. Rev. Bras. Cancerol. [Internet]. 2025 Jan. 24 [cited 2025 Dec. 6];70(4):e-174771. Available from: https://rbc.inca.gov.br/index.php/revista/article/view/4771

Issue

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLE