Association of Malnutrition Diagnosed Using Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition Criteria with Severe Postoperative Complications After Gastrectomy in Patients with Gastric Cancer

Diagnostic performance of GLIM and PG-SGA for malnutrition assessment in adult cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Consistency between malnutrition defined by Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) has not been thoroughly elucidated in patients with cancer. The study aimed to compare their consistency, and summarize the impact of malnutrition defined by GLIM on adverse outcomes.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to May 1, 2024. Initially, the amalgamated sensitivity, specificity and area under curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subsequently, hazard ratios (HR) or odd ratios (OR) and 95% CIs for overall survival (OS), all-cause mortality, postoperative complications, disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were pooled.

RESULT

Fifty-six studies (55,767 participants) were included. Compared with PG-SGA criteria, the overall sensitivity, specificity and area under curve (AUC) for GLIM was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63-0.78), 0.80 (95% CI: 0.65-0.90) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.83). Subgroup analysis revealed that the diagnostic value in Asian or among patients aged under 60 years were higher than non-Asian or those aged over 60 years. Moreover, GLIM-defined malnutrition was significantly associated with overall survival (OS) [hazard ratios (HR) = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.46-1.67], all-cause mortality (HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.29-1.57), postoperative complications [odd ratios (OR) = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.40-1.73], disease-free survival (DFS) (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.36-1.68) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.10-1.72).

CONCLUSION

GLIM criteria exhibit moderate diagnostic accuracy for identifying malnutrition among patients with cancer, when compared to the PG-SGA. This accuracy is pronounced in the Asian and patients under the age of 60. Furthermore, GLIM-defined malnutrition was significantly associated with OS, DFS, RFS, all-cause mortality and postoperative complication risks in patients with cancer.

Validity of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria in East Asian patients with gastric cancer: a comprehensive narrative review

Background

Malnutrition is a significant public health issue for patients with gastric cancer, particularly in East Asia, the region most affected globally. In response to the absence of adequate tools for assessing nutritional status, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria were established in 2018, aiming to standardize the diagnosis of malnutrition. However, there is no consensus on the value of GLIM criteria for evaluating the nutritional status of patients with gastric cancer in East Asia. Given these facts, our study aimed to assess the validity of the GLIM criteria in East Asian patients with gastric cancer.

Methods

We conducted a rapid critical review of available literature, summarizing the existing problems in GLIM applications and possible improvement directions. After systematically summarizing the literature published in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, a total of 13 articles involving 7,679 cases were included in this study.

Results

The results indicated a lack of sufficient data on sensitivity and specificity to fully validate the GLIM criteria for diagnosing malnutrition in East Asian patients with gastric cancer. Additionally, some studies have reported moderate agreement between the GLIM and the PG-SGA. Furthermore, malnutrition defined by GLIM is a risk factor for short and long-term outcomes in East Asian patients with gastric cancer. However, the prognostic effect of moderate malnutrition on these patients remains controversial.

Conclusion

Despite being in the early application stages, GLIM has shown promising potential in diagnosing and predicting the prognosis of malnutrition. However, future research should incorporate more comprehensive validity parameters, including sensitivity, specificity, and PPV/NPV, to achieve a more thorough understanding of GLIM's diagnostic efficacy. Furthermore, further optimization of GLIM is necessary to address the needs of more diverse populations and situations.

Bayesian diagnostic test evaluation and true prevalence estimation of malnutrition in gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Malnutrition is prevalent among gastric cancer (GC) patients, necessitating early assessment of nutritional status to guide monitoring and interventions for improved outcomes. We aim to evaluate the accuracy and prognostic capability of three nutritional tools in GC patients, providing insights for clinical implementation.

METHODS

The present study is an analysis of data from 1308 adult GC patients recruited in a multicenter from July 2013 to July 2018. Nutritional status was assessed using Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria. Bayesian latent class model (LCM) estimated the malnutrition prevalence of GC patients, sensitivity and specificity of nutritional tools. Cox regression model analyzed the relationship between nutritional status and overall survival (OS) in GC patients.

RESULTS

Among 1308 GC patients, NRS-2002, PG-SGA, and GLIM identified 50.46%, 76.76%, and 68.81% as positive, respectively. Bayesian LCM analysis revealed that PG-SGA had the highest sensitivity (0.96) for malnutrition assessment, followed by GLIM criteria (0.78) and NRS-2002 (0.65). Malnutrition or being at risk of malnutrition were identified as independent prognostic factors for OS. Use any of these tools improved survival prediction in TNM staging system.

CONCLUSION

PG-SGA is the most reliable tool for diagnosing malnutrition in GC patients, whereas NRS-2002 is suitable for nutritional screening in busy clinical practice. Given the lower sensitivity of NRS-2002, direct utilization of GLIM for nutritional assessment may be necessary. Each nutritional tool should be associated with a specific course of action, although further research is needed.