Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Nutrition in acute and chronic diseases

Comparation of different malnutrition screening tools according to GLIM criteria in cancer outpatients

Abstract

Background

Many studies have assessed different malnutrition screening tools in oncologic patients. However, very few have been carried out using the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition. The objective of our study is to compare the most recommended screening tools with respect to the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition in cancer patients.

Methods

Observational, cross-sectional, and single-center study carried out at the Medical Oncology Department at the Lozano Blesa Hospital in Zaragoza. We recruited 165 patients with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract, colorectal, and head-and-neck region undergoing outpatient treatment. All of them received MST, MUST, Nutriscore, MNA and CONUT screening tools, as well as the GLIM diagnostic criteria, which was used as the gold standard.

Results

MNA-SF showed the best sensitivity (0.99) and lowest specificity while CONUT had the best specificity (0.89) and lowest sensitivity to detect cancer-related malnutrition. We observed high variability in the diagnostic capabilities of Nutriscore when tumor location was considered, reducing sensitivity in patients with colorectal cancer compared to those with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract or head-and-neck location (0.25, 0.83, and 0.91 respectively). The highest index of agreement between the screening tools was found between MST, MUST and Nutriscore tests. Regarding the GLIM criteria, the highest agreement index was presented by MUST tool (0.66), while CONUT presented the lowest (0.12).

Conclusions

Selecting the screening tool according to the type of cancer and its location may allow us to optimize its use and increase its performance, exploiting the advantages of each of them in the different populations.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: GLIM criteria for malnutrition.

References

  1. 1.

    Mendes NP, de Barros TA, de Rosa COB, do Franceschini SCC. Nutritional screening tools used and validated for cancer patients: a systematic review. Nutr Cancer 2019;71:898–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    De las Peñas R, Majem M, Perez-Altozano J, Virizuela JA, Diz P, Donnay O, et al. SEOM clinical guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients (2018). Clin Transl Oncol 2019;21:87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Arends J, Bachmann P, Baracos V, Barthelemy N, Bertz H, Bozzetti F, et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin Nutr 2017;36:11–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Leipold CE, Bertino SB, L’Huillier HM, Howell PM, Rosenkotter M. Validation of the malnutrition screening tool for use in a community rehabilitation program. Nutr Diet 2018;75:117–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Stratton RJ, Hackston A, Longmore D, Dixon R, Price S, Stroud M, et al. Malnutrition in hospital outpatients and inpatients: prevalence, concurrent validity and ease of use of the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults. Br J Nutr 2004;92:799–808. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn20041258.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ye X-J, Ji Y-B, Ma B-W, Huang D-D, Chen W-Z, Pan Z-Y, et al. Comparison of three common nutritional screening tools with the new European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) criteria for malnutrition among patients with geriatric gastrointestinal cancer: a prospective study in China. BMJ Open 2018;8:e019750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Boléo-Tomé C, Monteiro-Grillo I, Camilo M, Ravasco P. Validation of the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) in cancer. Br J Nutr 2012;108:343–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Isenring E, Cross G, Daniels L, Kellett E, Koczwara B. Validity of the malnutrition screening tool as an effective predictor of nutritional risk in oncology outpatients receiving chemotherapy. Support care cancer 2006;14:1152–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Shaw C, Fleuret C, Pickard JM, Mohammed K, Black G, Wedlake L. Comparison of a novel, simple nutrition screening tool for adult oncology inpatients and the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) against the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). Support care cancer 2015;23:47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Amaral TF, Antunes A, Cabral S, Alves P, Kent‐Smith L. An evaluation of three nutritional screening tools in a Portuguese oncology centre. J Hum Nutr Diet 2008;21:575–83.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Demirel B, Atasoy BM. Comparison of three nutritional screening tools to predict malnutrition risk and detect distinctions between tools in cancer patients receiving radiochemotherapy. Nutr Cancer 2018;70:867–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Castro-Vega I, Veses SM, Cantero JL, Salom CV, Banuls C, Hernández AM. Validation of nutritional screening Malnutrition Screening Tool compared to other screening tools and the nutritional assessment in different social and health areas. Nutr Hosp 2018;35:351–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Di Bella A, Blake C, Young A, Pelecanos A, Brown T. Reliability of patient-led screening with the malnutrition screening tool: agreement between patient and health care professional scores in the cancer care ambulatory setting. J Acad Nutr Diet 2018;118:1065–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kaiser MJ, Bauer JM, Ramsch C, Uter W, Guigoz Y, Cederholm T, et al. Validation of the Mini Nutritional Assessment short-form (MNA-SF): a practical tool for identification of nutritional status. J Nutr Health Aging 2009;13(Nov):782–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-009-0214-7. MNA-International GroupPMID: 19812868

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Guigoz Y. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA®) review of the literature-what does it tell us? J Nutr Heal Aging 2006;10:466.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Cereda E. Mini nutritional assessment. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2012;15:29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Zhang X, Pang L, Sharma SV, Li R, Nyitray AG, Edwards BJ. The validity of three malnutrition screening markers among older patients with cancer. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2020;10:363–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Vellas B, Villars H, Abellan G, Soto ME, Rolland Y, Guigoz Y, et al. Overview of the MNA®-Its history and challenges. J Nutr Heal Aging 2006;10:456.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bourdel-Marchasson I, Diallo A, Bellera C, Blanc-Bisson C, Durrieu J, Germain C, et al. One-year mortality in older patients with cancer: development and external validation of an MNA-based prognostic score. PLoS One 2016;11:e0148523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Read JA, Crockett N, Volker DH, MacLennan P, Choy STB, Beale P, et al. Nutritional assessment in cancer: comparing the mini-nutritional assessment (MNA) with the scored patient-generated subjective global assessment (PGSGA). Nutr Cancer 2005;53:51–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    De Ulíbarri Pérez JI, González-Madroño Giménez A, González Pérez P, Fernández G, Rodríguez Salvanés F, Mancha, et al. Nuevo procedimiento para la detección precoz y control de la desnutrición hospitalaria [New procedure for the early detection and control of hospital malnutrition]. Nutr Hosp 2002;17:179–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Takagi K, Domagala P, Polak WG, Buettner S, Wijnhoven BPL, Ijzermans JNM. Prognostic significance of the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Surg 2019;19:129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Takagi K, Buettner S, Ijzermans JNM. Prognostic significance of the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2020;78:91–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Baracos VE. Cancer-associated malnutrition. Eur J Clin Nutr 2018;72:1255–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0245-4. Epub 2018 Sep 5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    McFarlane M, Hammond C, Roper T, Mukarati J, Ford R, Burrell J, et al. Comparing assessment tools for detecting undernutrition in patients with liver cirrhosis. Clin Nutr Espen 2018;23:156–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228–47.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Cederholm T, Jensen GL, Correia M, Gonzalez MC, Fukushima R, Higashiguchi T, et al. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition–a consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2019;10:207–17.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Gascón-Ruiz M, Casas-Deza D, Torres-Ramón I, Zapata-García M, Alonso N, Sesma A, et al. GLIM vs ESPEN criteria for the diagnosis of early malnutrition in oncological outpatients. Clin Nutr 2021;40:3741–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Arribas L, Hurtós L, Sendrós MJ, Peiró I, Salleras N, Fort E, et al. NUTRISCORE: A new nutritional screening tool for oncological outpatients. Nutrition 2017;33:297–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Sanz EÁ, Siles MG, Fernández LR, Roldán RV, Domínguez AR, Abilés J. Nutritional risk and malnutrition rates at diagnosis of cancer in patients treated in outpatient settings: Early intervention protocol. Nutrition 2019;57:148–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Vidal-Casariego A, Amigo-Otero E, Pita-Gutiérrez F, Lugo-Rodríguez G, Almeida-Seoane C, Martínez-Ramonde T. Comparison of MUST and Nutriscore for the Screening of Malnutrition in Hospitalized Oncology Patients. Nutr Cancer. 2020;8:1–6.

  32. 32.

    Sanz EÁ, Abilés J, Siles MG, Ruíz EP, García JA, Domínguez AR. Impact of weight loss on cancer patients’ quality of life at the beginning of the chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29:627–34.

  33. 33.

    Hirahara N, Tajima Y, Fujii Y, Kaji S, Kawabata Y, Hyakudomi R, et al. Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) as a prognostic immunonutritional biomarker for gastric cancer after curative gastrectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis. Surg Endosc 2019;33:4143–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Akamine T, Toyokawa G, Matsubara T, Kozuma Y, Haratake N, Takamori S, et al. Significance of the preoperative CONUT score in predicting postoperative disease-free and overall survival in patients with lung adenocarcinoma with obstructive lung disease. Anticancer Res 2017;37:2735–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Chen Y, Zhao C, Yang Y, Xin Y-J, Wang Y-N, Li X, et al. Using the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score for evaluating patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after radiofrequency ablation: a two-center retrospective study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020;43:1294–304.

  36. 36.

    Cui P, Pang Q, Wang Y, Qian Z, Hu X, Wang W, et al. Nutritional prognostic scores in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma treated by percutaneous transhepatic biliary stenting combined with 125I seed intracavitary irradiation: a retrospective observational study. Medicine. 2018;97:e11000.

  37. 37.

    Elghiaty A, Kim J, Jang WS, Park JS, Heo JE, Rha KH, et al. Preoperative controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score as a novel immune-nutritional predictor of survival in non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma of ≤7 cm on preoperative imaging. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2019;145:957–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.

  39. 39.

    Chen X-Y, Zhang X-Z, Ma B-W, Li B, Zhou D-L, Liu Z-C, et al. A comparison of four common malnutrition risk screening tools for detecting cachexia in patients with curable gastric cancer. Nutrition 2020;70:110498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. JMA-M is partially supported by the project PI17/02268 (Instituto de Salud Carlos III), by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER): “Una manera de hacer Europa”, and by the DGA Group Biology of adipose tissue and metabolic complications (B03_20R), co-financed with the FEDER Aragón 2014-2020: “Construyendo Europa desde Aragón”.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MG-R: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Investigation, Writing-Original draft preparation, Project administration. DC-D: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Original draft preparation. IT-R: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology. MZ-G: Data Curation, Investigation. NA: Data Curation, Investigation. AS: Data Curation, Investigation. JL: Data Curation, Investigation. MÁ-A: Data Curation, Investigation. EQ: Data Curation, Investigation. DI: Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review &; Editing. JMA-M: Resources, Writing – Review & Editing, Formal analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Gascón-Ruiz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The Aragón Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CEICA) has evaluated and approved the project with the study code PI19/494 and informed consent was obtained in all patients who agreed to participate in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gascón-Ruiz, M., Casas-Deza, D., Torres-Ramón, I. et al. Comparation of different malnutrition screening tools according to GLIM criteria in cancer outpatients. Eur J Clin Nutr (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-021-01021-1

Download citation

Search

Quick links