Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment as a prognosis tool in women with gynecologic cancer

Rodrigues, Camila Santos; Lacerda, M.S.; Chaves, Gabriela Villaça

doi:10.1016/j.nut.2015.06.001

Cited by 50 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, we verified that well‐nourished patients (PG‐SGA A) exhibit significantly longer survival time than malnourished patients (PG‐SGA B and C), and the data correspond with studies on nonpalliative oncology patients 8 , 20 , 31 – 35 . In our study, it was not possible to differentiate survival time, according to the Kaplan‐Meier curve, among patients classified as moderately malnourished (B) or severely malnourished (C) by the PG‐SGA.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Performance of Patient‐Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG‐SGA) in Patients With Advanced Cancer in Palliative Care

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Performance of Patient‐Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG‐SGA) in Patients With Advanced Cancer in Palliative Care

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Before conducting our study, we searched the literature and identified 3 main nutritional risk assessment scales: NRS2002 scale, 18,19,26,27 patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) scale [28][29][30][31] and mini nutritional assessment (MNA) scale. [32][33][34] These 3 scales were proven effective for nutritional assessment for patients with malignancies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about the value of the nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS2002) scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We conducted a large‐scale study to address this issue. We employed a big‐data intelligence database platform at our center and identified 3232 eligible patients treated between 2009 and 2013. Of the 3232 (12.9% of 24 986) eligible patients, 469 (14.5%), 13 (0.4%), 953 (29.5%), 1762 (54.5%) and 35 (1.1%) had NRS2002 scores of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Survival outcomes were comparable between patients with NRS2002 <3 and ≥3 (original scale). However, patients with NRS2002 ≤3 vs >3 (regrouping scale) had significantly different 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS; 82.7% vs 75.0%, P < .001), overall survival (OS; 88.8% vs 84.1%, P = .001), distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS; 90.2% vs 85.9%, P = .001) and locoregional relapse‐free survival (LRRFS; 91.6% vs 87.2%, P = .001). Therefore, we proposed a revised NRS2002 scale, and found that it provides a better risk stratification than the original or regrouping scales for predicting DFS (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.530 vs 0.554 vs 0.577; P < .05), OS (AUC = 0.534 vs 0.563 vs 0.582; P < .05), DMFS (AUC = 0.531 vs 0.567 vs 0.590; P < .05) and LRRFS (AUC = 0.529 vs 0.542 vs 0.564; P < .05 except scale A vs B). Our proposed NRS2002 scale represents a simple, clinically useful tool for nutritional risk screening in NPC.

show abstract

“…Based on the above evidence, nutritional screening and planning in oncologic patients is becoming a pressing matter in the management of this challenging population. Many efforts were undertaken to emphasise the role of thorough nutritional assessment in screening and prognosis of cancer patients from various origins (Fukuda et al, 2015;Rodrigues, Lacerda, & Chaves, 2015;Tokunaga, Tanizawa, Bando, Kawamura, & Terashima, 2013;Zorlini, Akemi Abe Cairo, & Salete Costa Gurgel, 2008). Thus, it has been recommended by the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) (Huhmann & August, 2008) and its European counterpart (ESPEN; Weimann et al, 2006) to screen for malnutrition prior to major surgeries and to predilect to nutritional support beforehand if delaying the operation is possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, attitudes and practice of surgeons regarding nutritional support in CRS and HIPEC patients: Are we missing something?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nutrition’s impact on the surgical outcome has been established in various surgical specialties. However, data addressing the nutritional aspect following surgery for peritoneal surface malignancies are considered scarce. We aim to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of surgeons regarding their nutritional support for patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS and HIPEC) via a survey directed to self‐evaluate nutritional knowledge, screening, and practice toward patients. The survey was submitted to the attendees of the International Regional Cancer Therapies Symposium. The response rate was 37% (56/151). Most surgeons estimated their knowledge and malnutrition screening skills in CRS and HIPEC to be ‘adequate’ or better. Only 35.19% reported the availability of nutritional screening and assessment tools for CRS and HIPEC patients. 86.5% of participants stated that their CRS and HIPEC patients have access to a dietitian on inpatient and outpatient basis. However, only 32.69% reported to ‘always’ consult a dietitian. Otherwise, the involvement of a nutrition specialist is considered on variable basis. Despite the consensus on the importance of nutrition in HIPEC patients, there appears to be a profound underutilization of nutrition specialists in the patients’ management, which may have had in impact on their surgical outcome.

show abstract

Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment as a prognosis tool in women with gynecologic cancer

Cited by 50 publications

References 22 publications

Performance of Patient‐Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG‐SGA) in Patients With Advanced Cancer in Palliative Care

Performance of Patient‐Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG‐SGA) in Patients With Advanced Cancer in Palliative Care

Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study

Knowledge, attitudes and practice of surgeons regarding nutritional support in CRS and HIPEC patients: Are we missing something?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About