Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 373–380 | Cite as

Survey and analysis of the nutritional status in hospitalized patients with malignant gastric tumors and its influence on the quality of life

  • Zeng Qing Guo
  • Jia Mi Yu
  • Wei Li
  • Zhen Ming Fu
  • Yuan Lin
  • Ying Ying Shi
  • Wen Hu
  • Yi Ba
  • Su Yi Li
  • Zeng Ning Li
  • Kun Hua Wang
  • Jing Wu
  • Ying He
  • Jia Jun Yang
  • Cong Hua Xie
  • Xin Xia Song
  • Gong Yan Chen
  • Wen Jun Ma
  • Su Xia Luo
  • Zi Hua Chen
  • Ming Hua Cong
  • Hu Ma
  • Chun Ling Zhou
  • Wei Wang
  • Qi Luo
  • Yong Mei Shi
  • Yu Mei Qi
  • Hai Ping Jiang
  • Wen Xian Guan
  • Jun Qiang Chen
  • Jia Xin Chen
  • Yu Fang
  • Lan Zhou
  • Yong Dong Feng
  • Rong Shao Tan
  • Tao Li
  • Jun Wen Ou
  • Qing Chuan Zhao
  • Jian Xiong Wu
  • Li Deng
  • Xin Lin
  • Liu Qing Yang
  • Mei Yang
  • Chang Wang
  • Chun Hua SongEmail author
  • Hong Xia XuEmail author
  • Han Ping ShiEmail author
  • The Investigation on the Nutrition Status and Clinical Outcome of Common Cancers (INSCOC) Group
Open Access
Original Article

Abstract

Background/objectives

The assessment of nutritional status and the quality of life in patients with gastric cancer has become one of the important goals of current clinical treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the nutritional status in hospitalized gastric cancer patients by using patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) and to analyze the influence of nutritional status on the patients’ quality of life (QOL).

Methods

We reviewed the pathological diagnosis of gastric cancer for 2322 hospitalized patients using PG-SGA to assess their nutritional status and collected data on clinical symptoms, the anthropometric parameters (height, weight, body mass index (BMI), mid-arm circumference (MAC), triceps skin-fold thickness (TSF), and hand-grip strength (HGS). We also collected laboratory data (prealbumin, albumin, hemoglobin) within 48 h after the patient was admitted to the hospital. The 30-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) was used for QOL assessment in all patients.

Results

By using PG-SGA, we found 80.4% of the patients were malnourished (score ≥ 4) and 45.1% of the patients required urgent nutritional support (score ≥ 9). In univariate analysis, old age (> 65 years, p < 0.001), female (p = 0.007), residence in a village (p = 0.004), a lower level of education (p < 0.001), and self-paying (p < 0.001) were indicated as risk factors of patients with gastric cancer to be suffering from severe malnutrition. There was a negative correlation between PG-SGA and various nutritional parameters (p < 0.05). The quality of life was significantly different in gastric cancer patients with different nutritional status (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Malnutrition of hospitalized patients with gastric cancer in China is common and seriously affects the patients’ quality of life. The nutritional status should be evaluated in a timely manner and reasonable nutritional intervention should be provided as soon as possible. The PG-SGA was fit for using as a clinical nutrition assessment method, being worthy of clinical application.

Keywords

Gastric cancer Patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) Malnutrition Quality of life 

Introduction

At present, the incidence of cancer and the rate of mortality are still rising and are a major disease threat to human life and health. The incidence of and mortality from gastric cancer is second in morbidity and mortality behind only lung cancer in China [1]. Studies have reported that 50~90% of patients with malignant tumors have weight loss and suffer from malnutrition [2]. This is especially true in patients with head and neck cancer and malignant digestive tract tumors. The high incidence of malnutrition in gastric cancer patients is due to the tumor location [3, 4]. About 20% of patients die due to malnutrition and related complications, not from the malignant tumor itself [5, 6, 7]. The quality of life between the patients in good nutrition and in malnutrition is different, so the nutrition assessment of the patients should be paid more attention to, in order to improve the nutritional status and the quality of life of the patients. However, no nutritional assessment method is currently available that can be considered the gold standard nor is there a consensus on which assessment would be the best option, and there are few studies of nutritional assessment of patients with gastric cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the nutritional status of hospitalized patients with gastric cancer and to analyze the influence of their nutritional status on their quality of life. The long-term goal is to provide an effective and appropriate nutrition assessment tool for guiding the clinical treatment of these patients.

Materials/subjects and methods

Materials

A multi-center, cross-sectional observational study was carried out. It was one part of the Investigation on Nutritional Status and its Clinical Outcomes of Common Cancers (INSCOC). The INSCOC is a nationwide cross-sectional survey on the correlation between nutritional status and clinical outcome in patients with malignant tumors. It was initiated and implemented by the Chinese Cancer Society Cancer nutrition and support Specialized Committee. A total of 2322 gastric cancer patients were included from January 2012 to August 2016 at several tertiary public hospitals in China. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) an age of 18 to 90 years, conscious, no communication disorders, and can cooperate with relevant inspection; (2) a histologic diagnosis of gastric cancer; (3) only patients in the hospital many times for the same case can take part in this survey; (4) there are complete medical history records and follow-up data; (5) the patient and family voluntarily participate in this study. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) AIDS patients or organ transplant patients; (2) patient in a critical condition and difficult to assess; (3) patients refuse or do not cooperate with a questionnaire. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of each participating hospital and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Assessment method

PG-SGA was developed by Ottery [8]. It includes patients’ self-reported sections (body weight, eating conditions, symptoms, activities, and physical function) and a medical personnel assessment part (nutrition-related disease state, metabolic state, physical examination) in seven domains. The sum of scores obtained in each domain is divided into quantitative and qualitative evaluations. Quantitative evaluation results are scores of 0–3 (well-nourished/suspicious malnutrition), 4–8 (moderate malnutrition), and ≥ 9 (severe malnutrition). Patients scoring 4 to 8 points require nutritional intervention by a dietitian with a clinical symptom survey. Patients scoring ≥ 9 points are in great need of symptom management and nutrition intervention before anti-tumor treatment.

NRS2002 is a nutritional risk screening tool recommended by the European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN) [9], based on 128 randomized controlled trials. It includes three parts [10]: a disease score (0–3), nutrition score (0–3), and age (70 years or older has a score of 1), the sum score of nutritional risks (score of 0 to 7). A score of ≥ 3 means there is a nutritional risk and the patient should start on a nutritional treatment plan. Scores of less than 3 can be regarded as no nutritional risk, but patients still need to be screened weekly during hospitalization.

The 30-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTCQLQ-C30) is a systematic evaluation approach for determining the quality of life of cancer patients. The Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-C30 V3.0 has been proven to be valid, reliable, and clinically relevant [11]. It includes 30 subjects divided into five categories defining functions (physical function, role function, emotional function, cognitive function, and social function), three categories qualifying symptoms (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain), six single measurement subjects (difficulty in breathing, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, economic difficulties), and one score for the overall quality of life. Scores for the functional or symptom categories and for the single measurement subjects are calculated by a linear transformation of raw scores into a 0 to 100 score. Scores of 100 represent the best outcomes on the QLQ-C30 functional categories and the worst outcomes on the QLQ-C30 symptom categories. Weight (W) was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg by an electronic scale and height (H) was measured using a portable vertical stadiometer [12]. Patients stood upright on the center of the scale with arms extended laterally, barefoot, and wearing light clothing. From the measurements of W and H, the body mass index (BMI) was calculated: BMI (kg/m2) = weight (kg)/height (m)2. Mid-arm circumference (MAC) and triceps skin-fold thickness (TSF) were measured on the non-dominant arm according to Frisancho [13]. The hand-grip strength (HGS) method measurement can be referenced to Schlüssel [14]. All the measurements were performed in triplicate, where the final result was the average of the values.

Fasting blood samples for assessment of albumin, prealbumin, and hemoglobin were obtained within 48 h after the patients were admitted to the hospital. Laboratory data were measured by standard laboratory methods.

Methods

All the measurements were performed by trained researchers. An adopted unified design and unified questionnaires were administered within 48 h after admission by physicians and/or specialist nutrition nurses who had received standardized training. The nutritional status was evaluated by PG-SGA, and the quality of life assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30. Related data were collected, recorded, and checked. The database was then finally determined.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS version 21 (SPSS Institute, Inc.). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and frequencies) were expressed. The degree of relationship among these factors and the PG-SGA scores was statistically evaluated using the t test, ANOVA test, and correlation analyses. Statistical significance was reported at the p < 0.05 level.

Results

A total of 2322 hospitalized patients with gastric cancer were analyzed through this study. There were 1628 males and 694 females, with a mean age of 62 years, ranging from 25 to 90 years old. According to the PG-SGA, 19.6% of patients were in good nutritional condition and did not need nutritional support (scores of 0–3) while over one-third (35.3%) were scored with mild/moderate malnutrition (scores of4–8) and needed to be given nutritional intervention. Nearly half of the patients (45.1%) were in a state of severe malnutrition (scores > 9) and urgently needed nutritional support.

In our research 1867 patients (PG-SGA scores of ≥ 4) required nutritional intervention, but we found only 880 cases (37.9%) that had accepted nutritional support a week before the survey. We found that 1103/1867 (59.1%) of patients needed nutritional intervention but went without nutritional support therapy and 116 well-nourished patients (25.5%) were given the nutritional support treatment (Table 1).
Table 1

PG-SGA classification and nutritional therapy situation, n = 2322

PG-SGA score

Cases n (%)

Nutritional therapy (%)

No nutritional therapy (%)

Not need nutritional support (0 to 3)

455 (19.6)

116 (25.5)

339 (74.5)

Mild/moderate malnutrition(4 to 8)

820 (35.3)

280 (34.1)

540 (65.9)

Severe malnutrition (≥ 9)

1047 (45.1)

484 (46.23)

563 (53.77)

p < 0.005

Univariate analysis showed that gender, age, residential area, the proportion of reimbursement, and cultural knowledge were related to the different nutritional groups. Results are summarized in detail in Table 2.
Table 2

The influence factors of hospitalized gastric cancer patients’ nutritional status

Variables

The score of PG-SGA

   
 

0–3

4–8

≥ 9

p

Age (years)

    

  ≤ 65

304

481

547

< 0.0001

  > 65

151

339

500

 

Gender

    

  Male

334

581

713

0.007

  Female

121

239

334

 

Residence

    

  City

258

390

479

 

  Town

73

152

186

0.004

  Village

124

278

382

 

Education

    

  BS or above

32

41

42

 

  High school

269

471

560

0.002

  Primary school or no schooling

154

308

445

 

Medical insurance

    

  Free medical care

230

369

424

 

  Rural insurance

143

342

461

0.000

  Self-paying

82

109

162

 

(p < 0.05)

We use an ANOVA test to compare NRS2002, BMI, PA, ALB, HB, MAC, TSF, and HGS with the different PG-SGA qualitative evaluations. The differences between nutritional groups were statistically significant p < 0.05. As the nutritional status scores became worse, the NRS2002 score increased and the BMI, MAC, TSF, HGS, ALB, and HB scores showed a trend of a gradual decrease, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3

Association between the PG-SGA and nutritional parameters

PG-SGA score

Index

(0–3)

(4–8)

(≥ 9)

F*

p

NRS2002 (score)

1.76 ± 1.08

2.59 ± 1.29

3.41 ± 1.26

298.53

< 0.0001

BMI (kg/m2)

22.2 ± 3.07

21.4 ± 3.41

20.0 ± 4.54

88.711

< 0.0001

MAC (cm)

25.8 ± 3.25

25.2 ± 3.54

23.9 ± 3.90

50.096

< 0.0001

TSF (mm)

14.91 ± 7.15

14.27 ± 7.80

12.3 ± 6.78

28.056

< 0.0001

HGS (kg)

26.02 ± 13.5

25.4 ± 12.6

21.6 ± 11.2

25.177

< 0.0001

ALB (g/L)

39.73 ± 5.03

37.6 ± 5.14

36.2 ± 12.4

99.745

< 0.0001

Hb (mg/L)

122.6 ± 22.2

117.1 ± 24.8

110.5 ± 31.4

33.265

< 0.0001

KPS (score)

89.9 ± 7.49

85.8 ± 11.75

77.1 ± 16.86

173.245

< 0.0001

*Univariate analysis p < 0.05. BMI, body mass index; MAC, mid-arm diameter; TSF, triceps skin-fold; HGS, hand-grip strength

Further, using the Spearman rank correlation analysis, we found there was a negative correlation between the PG-SGA quantitative evaluation and BMI, MAC, TSF, HGS, ALB, HB, and KPS. The difference was statistically significant as shown in Table 4.
Table 4

Correlation analysis between PG-SGA quantitative evaluation and nutritional parameters, n = 2322

 

Correlation coefficient*

p

NRS2002

0.455

< 0.0001

BMI

− 0.267

< 0.0001

MAC

− 0.221

< 0.0001

TSF

− 0.159

< 0.0001

HGS

− 0.165

< 0.0001

ALB

− 0.275

< 0.0001

HB

− 0.207

< 0.0001

KPS

− 0.380

< 0.0001

*Spearman rank correlation coefficient, p < 0.05

Considering the relationship between nutritional status and the quality of life, the functional categories and the overall health status score mean were significantly lower while the symptom categories markedly increased in patients with higher PG-SGA scores, p < 0.001. As shown in Table 5.
Table 5

The correlation of nutritional status and quality of life in patients with gastric cancer

PG-SGA score

Categories

0–3

4–8

≥ 9

p*

Physical functioning

79.965 ± 23.725

79.933 ± 23.755

79.930 ± 23.753

< 0.0001

Role functioning

74.114 ± 27.465

74.066 ± 27.500

74.060 ± 27.499

< 0.0001

Emotional functioning

84.103 ± 18.554

84.043 ± 18.643

84.036 ± 18.649

< 0.0001

Cognitive functioning

84.889 ± 19.569

84.854 ± 19.643

84.851 ± 19.641

< 0.0001

Social functioning

67.952 ± 26.481

67.919 ± 26.523

67.913 ± 26.526

< 0.0001

Global QOL

57.796 ± 20.417

57.750 ± 20.462

57.736 ± 20.459

< 0.0001

Fatigue

24.206 ± 22.914

24.238 ± 22.960

24.256 ± 22.951

< 0.0001

Nausea/vomiting

10.489 ± 18.824

10.554 ± 18.981

10.557 ± 15.233

< 0.0001

Pain

17.532 ± 22.239

17.583 ± 22.309

17.586 ± 22.307

< 0.0001

Dyspnea

9.373 ± 18.578

9.328 ± 18.615

9.309 ± 18.606

< 0.0001

Insomnia

20.180 ± 25.073

20.182 ± 25.105

20.188 ± 25.101

< 0.0001

Appetite loss

20.296 ± 26.264

20.284 ± 26.293

20.275 ± 26.285

< 0.0001

Constipation

10.116 ± 20.308

10.180 ± 20.282

10.191 ± 20.283

< 0.0001

Diarrhea

5.471 ± 15.100

5.510 ± 15.233

5.536 ± 15.233

< 0.0001

Financial problems

33.973 ± 30.050

34.029 ± 30.077

34.014 ± 30.792

< 0.0001

*Kruskal-Wallis tests, p < 0.01

Discussion

Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in China. Surgery and chemoradiotherapy are the main anti-tumor treatments. The presence of the tumor and its treatment might aggravate the patient’s nutritional status. Studies have shown that malnutrition will reduce the quality of life [15] and encourage treatment resistance. It will also increase the risk of infection, the incidence of postoperative complications, and the mortality rate [16]. It is important to identify patients with malnutrition or who are at risk of developing malnutrition in a timely manner and to provide necessary nutritional support. It is beneficial to promote recovery and improve prognosis [17]. The PG-SGA was modified based on subjective global assessment (SGA) by Ottery. It was developed especially as a malignant tumor patients’ nutritional screening tool. The American Dietetic Association recommended it as the nutrition evaluation standard for malignant tumor patients, but it has had few applications in China.

The incidence of malnutrition varies among different kinds of malignant tumors; generally, patients with head and neck cancer or digestive tract malignant tumors are at a higher risk for malnutrition than patients with other types of tumors [18]. According to the results of our study, 80.4% of hospitalized gastric cancer patients were found to have PG-SGA scores of ≥ 4 and 45.1% of patients had severe malnutrition, PG-SGA ≥ 9. This is similar to the findings of Liyan Zhang [19]. In his report, the majority of hospital patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer were malnourished and nearly half of the patients were severely malnourished and needed nutritional support before anti-tumor treatment. Their results support our claim that malnutrition is very common in gastric cancer patients. Patients with gastric cancer have difficulty eating and digesting. There can be inadequate intake of energy because of pyloric obstruction and tumor-associated factors cause a profound effect on fat metabolism and protein synthesis. In addition, adverse reactions to anticancer treatment, such as nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and pain, can also lead to the deterioration of the patient’s nutritional status. For some postoperative gastric cancer patients, surgical complications or function reconstruction can also lead to malnutrition [20, 21, 22]. In addition, social and psychological factors may affect the nutritional status of patients.

According to the survey, nutrition support treatment for gastric cancer patients is not always possible [23, 24]. In our study, 59.1% of malnourished gastric cancer patients (1103/1867) did not receive any treatment and 25.5% of patients (116/455) with good nutrition were given nutritional support. This unreasonable situation is very common in some big hospitals in China [4, 25, 26]. It is urgent to revise, standardize, and popularize practical and feasible guidelines for nutritional support in the whole country.

Studies find that poor nutrition has a negative impact on cancer patients, such as weight loss that can lead to fatigue and the deterioration of anorexia, the patients’ survival rate drops, anti-tumor tolerance is reduced, and complications and side effects increase. Therefore, the medical staff should pay more attention to and educate on the subject of malnutrition in gastric cancer patients. The staff needs to be timely to assess the nutritional status and provide reasonable nutritional intervention/therapy for malnourished patients to improve the patients’ quality of life and clinical outcome.

Univariate analysis showed gastric cancer malnutrition was related to the patients’ gender and age. Females were more likely to present with severe malnutrition, and this is consistent with the results from Yangping [27]. The reason is likely related to the female patients’ psychological factors such as anxiety, depression, fear, eating less, and a worse immune function. Liyan Zhang [19] also confirmed a worse nutritional status in elderly gastric cancer patients. A Korean study [28] suggests more postoperative malnutrition in elderly patients. That is to say that elderly patients have more basic diseases along with worse gastrointestinal consumption and absorption function, and malnutrition would be more likely in these gastric cancer patients. More attention should be paid to these patients. The nutritional state of patients who lived in rural areas had less education and was burdened with more hospitalization expenses which were also worse. So patient nutrition education is necessary, and the government should further improve the serious illness medical insurance policy, improve the reimbursement ratio, and encourage patients to participate in commercial medical insurance in order to improve security.

Currently, NRS2002 and PG-SGA are the most widely used for nutritional risk screening evaluations [29], but they are still not the gold standard for the world. NRS2002 has its shortcomings, such as it is difficult to measure accurate weight when patients cannot get out of bed, or if they have edema or ascites, and its use will be limited. The nutritional assessment tool PG-SGA, with good sensitivity and specificity, is the most ideal and widely used nutritional assessment tool and has good consistency with other tools [30, 31]. It is recommended for a variety of malignant tumors in Europe and the USA, such as digestive tract tumor, head and neck cancer, and gynecologic tumors [32, 33, 34].

In comparison with NRS2002, we determined BMI, ALB, Hb, MAC, TSF, and HGS and we found that PG-SGA had good consistency with these nutritional parameters, and among the different PG-SGA scores, the differences were statistically significant. When the nutritional status was worse, the NRS2002 score increased and the results from BMI, PA, ALB, Hb, MAC, TSF, and HGS showed a decreasing trend. The PG-SGA evaluation was in accord with another nutritional assessment and was suitable for patients with malignant tumors, and the assessment is worthy of clinical popularization and application.

The QLQ-C30 was produced by The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and has been widely adopted in many countries to investigate the quality of life for cancer patients [35, 36]. QLQ-C30 is known to work in China [11, 37]. By the Kruskal-Wallis test, we found that as the PG-SGA score was increasing, values from the functional category and for the overall health status of patients with a lower mean field rank and the symptoms category rank mean increased. It turned out that as the functional abilities and the quality of life become worse, symptoms or problems, such as fatigue, nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, and insomnia, become worse and add to the poor quality of life. It was also confirmed that the nutritional status was related to the patients’ economic situation.

There are limitations to the research. The malnourished patients were without further nutritional intervention and we are hoping to clarify in future research whether an improvement in the nutritional status in gastric cancer patients will produce a better clinical outcome. In addition, the effect of nutritional status on the final clinical outcome after nutritional therapy was not followed up.

In a word, malnutrition is common in patients with gastric cancer and has a significant impact on the quality of life. We should pay full attention at the time of clinical diagnosis and treatment and screen for the presence of malnourished patients, provide timely and reasonable nutritional intervention to enhance their tolerance of anti-tumor therapy, and improve the patients’ quality of life.

Source of funding

The National Key Research and Development Program (No.: 2017YFC1309200).

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of each participating hospital and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki

References

  1. 1.
    Wan Qing C, Rong Shou Z, Baade PD, Si Wei Z, Hong Mei Z, Bray F et al (2016) Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 66:115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thoresen L, Fieldstad I, Kroqstad K, Kaasa S, Falkmer UG (2002) Nutritional status of patients with advanced cancer: the value of using the subjective global assessment of nutritional status as a screening tool. Palliat Med 16(1):33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wie GA, Cho YA, Kim ST, Kim SM, Bae JM, Joung H (2010) Prevalence and risk factors of malnutrition and stage in the National Cancer Center in Korea. Nutrition. 26(3):263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu Ming J, Wei C, Sai Nan ZA (2008) Survey on the prevalence of malnutrition (deficiency), the incidence of nutritional risk and nutritional support in the top three hospitals in the east, middle and west of China. Chinese J of Clin Nutr 6(2):335–337Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pressor M, Desne S, Berchery D, Rossignol G, Poiree B, Meslier M et al (2010) Prevalence, risk factors and clinical implications of malnutrition in French Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Br J Can 102(6):966–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Von Meyenfeldt M (2005) Caner-associated malnutrition: an introduction. Eur J Oncol Nurs 9:S35–S38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tchekmedya SN, Zahyna D, Halpert C, Heber D (1992) Assessment and maintenance of nutrition in older cancer patients. Oncology. 6(2):105–111Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ottery FD (1994) Rethinking nutritional support of the cancer patient the new field of nutritional oncology. Semin Oncol 21(6):770–778PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kondrup J, Allison SP, Elia M, Vellas B, Plauth M (2002) Educational and Clinical Practice Committee, European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN). ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening. ClinNutr 22:415–421Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kondrup J (2003) Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials. Clin Nutr Jun 22(3):321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wan C, Chen M, Zhang C (2005) Comment to the Chinese version of the quality of life instrument EORTC QLQ-30. J Pract Oncol 20(4):353–355Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jelliffe DB (1996) The assessment of nutrition status of the community. World Health Organization Monograph Series No. 53, Geneva, 50–84Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frisancho AR (2008) Anthropometric standards. In: An interactive nutritional reference of body size and body composition for children and adults. The University of Michigan Press, United States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schlüssel MM, dos Anjos LA, de Vasconcellos MT, Kac G (2008) Reference values of handgrip dynamometry of healthy adults: a population-based study. Clin Nutr 27(4):601–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta D, Lis CG, Granick J, Grutsch JF, Vashi PG, Lammersfeld CA (2006) Malnutrition was associated with poor quality of life in colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis. J Clin Epidem 59(7):704–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Correia MI, Campos ACELAN (2003) Cooperative study prevalence of hospital malnutrition in Latin America: the multicenter ELAN study. Nutrition. 19(10):823–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guo hao W (2002) The causes and harms of malnutrition in cancer patients. China J Practical Surg 22(11):644–646Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hong Ming P, San Jun C, Jia Fu J, Zhi Wei J, Hou Jie L, Feng L (2013) The impact of nutritional status, nutritional risk, and nutritional treatment on clinical outcome of 2248 hospitalized cancer patients: a multi-center, prospective cohort study in Chinese teaching hospitals. Nutr Cancer 65(1):6270Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liyan Z, Yuhan L, Yu F (2014) Nutritional status and related factors of patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Br J of Nutr 111:1239–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yiqiong Y (2011) Investigation and analysis of nutritional risk screening in patients with gastric cancer. West China Med J 26(10):1536–1538Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Cutsem E, Arends J (2005) The causes and consequences of cancer-associated malnutrition. Eur J Oncol Nurs 9(Suppl 2):S51–S63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hébuterne X, Lemarié E, Michallet M, de Montreuil CB, Schneider SM, Goldwasser F (2014) Prevalence of malnutrition and current use of nutrition support in patients with cancer. J Parenter Enter Nutr 38(2):196–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lidia S, Franco C, Fabrizio P (2011) Nutritional screening and early treatment of malnutrition in cancer patients. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Agostino P, Malattie UO (2011) Metabolic nutrition intervention for improving treatment tolerance in cancer patient. Curr Opin Oncol 23:322–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jiang ZM, Chen W, Zhu SN (2007) Parenteral and enteral nutrition application in west, middle and east China: a multi-center investigation for 15,098 patients in 13 metropolitans using Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 tool. Clin Nutr 2(S2):133–134Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zi Jian L, Yu Xing Y, Hai Long L, Qin Bing Y, Wei C (2016) Analysis of tumor associated malnutrition in hospitalized patients: a cross-sectional study. Chinese J Clinicians 44(6):19–23Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ping Y, Bo C, Xiao TW (2011) Nutritional risk and clinical nutritional support therapy of hospitalized gastric cancer. Surv Chin Surg Found Clin J 18(6):620–624Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shim H, Cheong JH, Lee KY, Lee H, Lee JG, Noh SH (2013) Perioperative nutritional status changes in gastrointestinal cancer patients. Yonsei Med 54(6):1370–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bauer J, Capra S, Ferguson M (2002) Use of the scored patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) as a nutrition assessment tool in patients with cancer. Eur J of Clin Nutr 56(8):779–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Luo Q, Cao WX (2010) Evaluation of nutritional status of patients with digestive system malignant tumor by different nutritional evaluation methods. J Surg Theory Pract 15(4):393–397Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carolina A, Rosa COB, Ribeiro AQ, Ribeiro CAR (2015) Patient-generated subjective global assessment and classic anthropometry: comparison between the methods in detection of malnutrition among elderly with cancer. Nutr Hosp 31(1):384–392Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Phippen NT, Lowery WJ, Barnett JC, Hall LA, Landt C, Leath CA (2011) Evaluation of the patient generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) as a predictor of febrile neutropenia in gynecologic cancer patients receiving combination chemotherapy a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol 123(2):360–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Correira Pereira MA, Santos CA, Almeida Brito J, Fonseca J (2014) Scored patient-generated subjective global assessment, albumin and transferrin for nutritional assessment of gastrostomy fed head or neck cancer patients. Nutr Hosp 29(2):420–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hill A, Kiss N, Hodgson B, Crowe TC, Walsh AD (2011) Associations between nutritional status weight loss radiotherapy treatment toxicity and treatment outcomes in gastrointestinal cancer patients. Clin Nutr 30(1):92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schwarz R, Hinz A (2001) Reference data for the quality of life questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general German population. Eur J Cancer 37(11):1345–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Derogar M, Van SM, Lagergren P (2012) Reference values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire in a random sample of the Swedish population. Acta Oncol 51(1):10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jun Mei S, Xiao Xiang W, Ying L, Chun Yi L, Dan Dan C (2015) Reliability and validity of EORTC QLQ-C30 in postoperative chemotherapy for gastric carcinoma patients. J Hebei Med Univ 36(4):448–451Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zeng Qing Guo
    • 1
  • Jia Mi Yu
    • 1
  • Wei Li
    • 2
  • Zhen Ming Fu
    • 3
  • Yuan Lin
    • 4
  • Ying Ying Shi
    • 5
  • Wen Hu
    • 6
  • Yi Ba
    • 7
  • Su Yi Li
    • 8
  • Zeng Ning Li
    • 9
  • Kun Hua Wang
    • 10
  • Jing Wu
    • 11
  • Ying He
    • 12
  • Jia Jun Yang
    • 13
  • Cong Hua Xie
    • 14
  • Xin Xia Song
    • 15
  • Gong Yan Chen
    • 16
  • Wen Jun Ma
    • 17
  • Su Xia Luo
    • 18
  • Zi Hua Chen
    • 19
  • Ming Hua Cong
    • 20
  • Hu Ma
    • 21
  • Chun Ling Zhou
    • 22
  • Wei Wang
    • 23
  • Qi Luo
    • 24
  • Yong Mei Shi
    • 25
  • Yu Mei Qi
    • 26
  • Hai Ping Jiang
    • 27
  • Wen Xian Guan
    • 28
  • Jun Qiang Chen
    • 29
  • Jia Xin Chen
    • 30
  • Yu Fang
    • 31
  • Lan Zhou
    • 32
  • Yong Dong Feng
    • 33
  • Rong Shao Tan
    • 34
  • Tao Li
    • 35
  • Jun Wen Ou
    • 36
  • Qing Chuan Zhao
    • 37
  • Jian Xiong Wu
    • 38
  • Li Deng
    • 2
  • Xin Lin
    • 39
  • Liu Qing Yang
    • 40
  • Mei Yang
    • 1
  • Chang Wang
    • 2
  • Chun Hua Song
    • 41
    Email author
  • Hong Xia Xu
    • 39
    Email author
  • Han Ping Shi
    • 40
    Email author
  • The Investigation on the Nutrition Status and Clinical Outcome of Common Cancers (INSCOC) Group
  1. 1.Department of Medical Oncology, Fujian Cancer HospitalFujian Medical University Cancer HospitalFuzhouChina
  2. 2.Cancer Center of the First Hospital of Jilin UniversityChangchunChina
  3. 3.Cancer CenterRenmin Hospital of Wuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  4. 4.Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryAffiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityNanningChina
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  6. 6.Department of Clinical NutritionWest China Hospital of Sichuan UniversityChengduChina
  7. 7.Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and TherapyTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and HospitalTianjinChina
  8. 8.Department of Nutrition and Metabolism of OncologyAffiliated Provincial Hospital of Anhui Medical UniversityHefeiChina
  9. 9.Department of Clinical NutritionThe First Hospital of Hebei Medical UniversityShijiazhuangChina
  10. 10.Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Institute of GastroenterologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical UniversityKunmingChina
  11. 11.Department of Clinical NutritionThe First People’s Hospital of KashiXinjiangChina
  12. 12.Department of Clinical NutritionChongqing General HospitalChongqingChina
  13. 13.Department of Colorectal and Anal SurgeryHuizhou Municipal Central HospitalHuizhouChina
  14. 14.Department of Radiation and Medical OncologyZhongnan Hospital of Wuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  15. 15.Department of OncologyXingtai People’s Hospital, Hebei Medical UniversityXingtaiChina
  16. 16.The First Department of the Tumor Hospital of Harbin Medical UniversityHarbinChina
  17. 17.Department of Nutrition, Guangdong General HospitalGuangdong Academy of Medical SciencesGuangzhouChina
  18. 18.Department of OncologyAffiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer HospitalZhengzhouChina
  19. 19.Department of General Surgery, Xiangya HospitalCentral South UniversityChangshaChina
  20. 20.Comprehensive Oncology Department, Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical SciencesBeijingChina
  21. 21.Department of OncologyAffiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical UniversityZunyiChina
  22. 22.The Fourth Affiliated HospitalHarbin Medical UniversityHarbinChina
  23. 23.Cancer CenterThe First People’s Hospital of FoshanFoshanChina
  24. 24.Department of Gastrointestinal Tumor SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen UniversityXiamenChina
  25. 25.Department of Nutrition, Ruijin HospitalShanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineShanghaiChina
  26. 26.Department of NutritionTianjin Third Central HospitalTianjinChina
  27. 27.Department of SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan UniversityGuangzhouChina
  28. 28.Department of General Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower HospitalThe Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical SchoolNanjingChina
  29. 29.Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityNanningChina
  30. 30.Department of Radiation and Medical OncologyPeople’s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous RegionNanningChina
  31. 31.Department of Clinical NutritionPeking University Cancer Hospital and InstituteBeijingChina
  32. 32.Department of NutritionTumor Hospital of Yunnan Province, Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical CollegeKunmingChina
  33. 33.Department of SurgeryTongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  34. 34.Department of NutritionGuangzhou Red Cross HospitalGuangzhouChina
  35. 35.Department of Radiotherapy, , School of MedicineSichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  36. 36.Department of Clinical Nutrition, Clifford HospitalGuangzhou University of Chinese MedicineGuangzhouChina
  37. 37.Department of Digestive DiseasesXijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical UniversityXi’anChina
  38. 38.Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
  39. 39.Department of Nutrition, Daping Hospital & Research Institute of SurgeryThird Military Medical UniversityChongqingChina
  40. 40.Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan HospitalCapital Medical UniversityBeijingChina
  41. 41.Department of Epidemiology, College of Public HealthZhengzhou UniversityZhengzhouChina

Personalised recommendations