HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Laky, B. Articles by Obermair, A. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Laky, B. Articles by Obermair, A. Agricola Articles by Laky, B. Articles by Obermair, A.

Comparison of different nutritional assessments and body-composition measurements in detecting malnutrition among gynecologic cancer patients^1,2,3

¹ From the Queensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer, The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia (AO and BL); the Queensland University of Technology, School of Public Health, Brisbane, Australia (MJ); the Children's Nutrition Research Centre, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia (GC); and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia (AO, BL, and GC)

Background: Few studies have assessed global nutritional assessment tools and body-composition measurements in gynecologic cancer patients.

Objective: We aimed to assess the convergent validity of different nutritional tools such as the scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), serum albumin, skinfold-thickness measurements, and total-body potassium (TBK) and body density measurements to identify gynecologic cancer patients at risk of malnutrition.

Design: We assessed the nutritional status of 194 patients with suspected or proven gynecologic cancer according to the SGA and the scored PG-SGA, and skinfold-thickness (n = 145), TBK (n = 51), and body density measurements (n = 42) before primary treatment.

Results: According to the SGA and the scored PG-SGA global rating, 24% of gynecologic cancer patients were classified as malnourished. The prevalence of malnutrition was highest in ovarian (67%) and lowest in endometrial (6%) cancer patients. The ability of the PG-SGA score (P < 0.001) and albumin (P < 0.001), triceps skinfold-thickness (P = 0.041), and TBK (P = 0.005) measurements to predict the SGA was significantly better than chance. TBK significantly correlated with measurements associated with protein depletion, including age (P < 0.001), arm muscle area (P < 0.001), fat-free mass (P < 0.001), and the PG-SGA score (P = 0.009). Multiple regression analysis showed that, together, the PG-SGA score and arm muscle area adjusted for age accounted for 66% of total TBK variance.

Conclusions: The PG-SGA is significantly associated with subjective and objective parameters and is a widely recognized, clinically relevant method of evaluating nutritional status. It therefore seems most appropriate for identifying malnourishment in gynecologic cancer patients.