liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Nutritional status, cachexia and survival in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. Different assessment criteria for nutritional status provide unequal results
St Olavs University Hospital, Norway Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU, Norway .
Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden .
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway .
Atlantis Medical Coll, Norway .
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: Clinical Nutrition, ISSN 0261-5614, E-ISSN 1532-1983, Vol. 32, no 1, 65-72 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background and aims: Different nutrition assessment tools and definitions are proposed for cancer-associated malnutrition and wasting (cachexia). We studied the associations between these assessments and overall survival in stage IV colorectal carcinoma patients. Methods: Anthropometric measures, energy intake, biochemical variables, nutritional risk screening, assessment of malnutrition, cachexia and body composition from computed tomography images were analysed, in 77 patients from Norway and Canada. Results were dichotomized into presence or absence of nutritional risk, malnutrition, cachexia and sarcopenia (low muscle mass) and associated with survival. Results: Overall, 22% up to 55% of the patients had cachexia according to different cachexia criteria: 34% were malnourished, 42% were at nutritional risk, and 39% were sarcopenic. Forty-four percent of the patients did not meet criteria for any of these conditions. Patients with cachexia defined by Cancer Cachexia Study Group (CCSG) had shorter survival in an unadjusted analysis, [Hazard ratio (HR) = 2.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-4.47; P = 0.005]. After adjusting for nation, age and gender, cachexia (HR = 2.26; CI 1.18-432; P = 0.014) and malnutrition (HR = 1.83; CI 1.06-3.13; P = 0.029) remained significant predictors of survival. Conclusions: Nutritional depletion in up to 55% of the patients was found. The lack of concordance between the results obtained by different assessment criteria was obvious. CCSGs cachexia score was the best prognostic factor for overall survival.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier , 2013. Vol. 32, no 1, 65-72 p.
Keyword [en]
Advanced colorectal carcinoma; Nutritional risk; Cachexia; Sarcopenia; Malnutrition; Survival
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-96493DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2012.05.009ISI: 000315251600009OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-96493DiVA: diva2:642832
Available from: 2013-08-23 Created: 2013-08-20 Last updated: 2017-12-06

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Falkmer, Ursula

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Falkmer, Ursula
By organisation
Department of Clinical and Experimental MedicineFaculty of Health Sciences
In the same journal
Clinical Nutrition
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 62 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf