Malnutrition Risk and the Psychological Burden of Anorexia and Cachexia in Patients With Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Patients with advanced cancer are at risk for malnutrition and anorexia‐cachexia syndrome. The study objective was to determine the frequency of these conditions in patients evaluated in an outpatient supportive care clinic (SCC). Methods One hundred patients with cancer were prospectively enrolled to complete a cross‐sectional one‐time survey. We collected patient demographics, cancer diagnosis, weight history and height and Zubrod performance status from electronic health records. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Anorexia Therapy–Anorexia/Cachexia Subscale (FAACT‐A/CS) questionnaire, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), the Patient‐Generated Subjective Global Assessment–Short Form (PG‐SGA‐SF), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and a Body Image Scale (BIS). A PG‐SGA‐SF cut‐off of ≥ 6 indicated malnutrition risk, and loss of appetite was defined as either ESAS ≥ 3 or FAACT‐ACS ≤ 37. Results Of the 165 patients approached, 100 (61%) completed the survey. The average (SD) age was 61.6 years old (11.5). The majority were female (52%), White (75%) and married (80%). The most common cancers were gastrointestinal (22%) and genitourinary (21%). Sixty‐one per cent (61%) screened positive for risk of malnutrition (PG‐SGA‐SF ≥ 6), anorexia was noted in 60% (ESAS ≥ 3) and 53% (FAACT‐A/CS ≤ 37) of patients, 10% of patients were noted to have a body mass index < 18.5, and 28% had body image dissatisfaction (BIS ≥ 10). Documented > 5% weight loss over the past 6 months was noted in 49%; 61% noted > 10% lifetime weight loss, relative to usual adult body weight or at time of diagnosis. Patients with anorexia (FAACT‐ACS ≤ 37) compared with no anorexia reported significantly higher HADS anxiety score (4.4 vs. 3.2, p = 0.04), depression (5.9 vs. 3.5, p = 0.001), body image distress (BIS 7.2 vs. 4.9, p = 0.03) and worse appetite (ESAS 1.4 vs. 0.6, p = 0.02). Symptoms including depression, anxiety and body image distress were not significantly different between patients with either a history of > 10% lifetime weight loss or > 5% weight loss over 6 months. Conclusions Malnutrition risk was noted in roughly 60% of patients with advanced cancer. Inclusion of patients' body mass index to malnutrition or cachexia criteria resulted in underdiagnosis. Subjective symptoms of anorexia, but not objective weight loss, was significantly associated with anxiety and depression. Routine malnutrition screening with the PG‐SGA‐SF should be incorporated into all outpatient SCC visits and, comparing current weight to documented pre‐illness baseline weight, should be obtained to determine the severity of cachexia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".