Diagnosis of Malnutrition According to GLIM Criteria Predicts Complications and 6-Month Survival in Cancer Outpatients

Background and Aims: Malnutrition is a condition that has a great impact on oncology patients. Poor nutritional status is often associated with increased morbidity and mortality, increased toxicity, and reduced tolerance to chemotherapy, among other complications. The recently developed GLIM criteria for malnutrition aim to homogenize its diagnosis, considering the baseline disease status. We aimed to evaluate the performance of these new criteria for the prediction of complications and mortality in patients with cancer. Methods: This work is a prospective, single-center study. All outpatients under active treatment for head and neck, upper gastrointestinal, and colorectal tumors between February and October 2020 were recruited. These patients were followed up for 6 months, assessing the occurrence of complications and survival based on GLIM diagnoses of malnutrition. Results: We enrolled 165 outpatients, 46.66% of whom were malnourished. During the 6-month follow-ups, patients with malnutrition (46.7%, according to GLIM criteria) had a ~3-fold increased risk of hospital admission (p < 0.001) and occurrence of severe infection (considered as those requiring hospitalization, intravenous antibiotics, and/or drainage by interventional procedures) (p = 0.002). Similarly, malnourished patients had a 3.5-fold increased risk of poor pain control and a 4.4-fold increased need for higher doses of opioids (both p < 0.001). They also had a 2.6-fold increased risk of toxicity (p = 0.044) and a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of needing a dose decrease or discontinuation of cancer treatment (p = 0.011). The 6-month survival of malnourished patients was significantly lower (p = 0.023) than in non-malnourished patients. Conclusions: Diagnoses of malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria in oncology patients undergoing active treatment predict increased complications and worse survival at 6-month follow-ups, making them a useful tool for assessing the nutritional status of oncology patients.

Diagnosis of malnutrition according to glim criteria predicts complications and six-month survival in cancer outpatients

e24093

Background: Malnutrition is a condition with great impact in oncology patients. Poor nutritional status is often associated with increased morbidity and mortality, increased toxicity and reduced tolerance to chemotherapy, among other complications. The recent GLIM criteria for malnutrition aim to homogenize its diagnosis, considering the baseline disease status. Due to the few studies that assess the predictive capacity of these new criteria, we aimed to evaluate their performance for the prediction of complications and mortality in patients with cancer. Methods: Prospective, single-centre study. All outpatients under active treatment for head and neck, upper gastrointestinal and colorectal tumors between February and October 2020 were recruited. These patients were followed up for 6 months, assessing the occurrence of complications and survival, based on GLIM diagnosis of malnutrition. Results: We enrolled 165 outpatients 46.66% malnutrition. During 6-month follow-up, patients with malnutrition (46.7%, according to GLIM criteria) had an ̃3-fold increased risk of hospital admission (p < 0.001) and the occurrence of severe infections (considered as such those requiring hospitalization, intravenous antibiotics and/or drainage by interventional procedure) during follow-up (p = 0.002). Similarly, malnourished patients had a 3.5-fold increased risk of poor pain control and a 4.4-fold increased need for a higher dose of opioids (both p < 0.001). They also had a 2.6-fold increased risk of toxicity (p = 0.044) and a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of needing a dose decrease or discontinuation of cancer treatment (p = 0.011). 6-month survival of malnourished patients was significantly lower (p = 0.023) than non-malnourished patients. Conclusions: Diagnosis of malnutrition according to GLIM criteria in oncology patients on active treatment predicts increased complications and worse survival at 6-month follow-up, making them a useful tool to assess the nutritional status of oncology patients.[Table: see text]

Surrogates of response to treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with immunotherapy: Toxicity and leukocyte ratios—Experience of a center

e21052

Background: Immunotherapy is proposed as a therapeutic novelty in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in many cases already in front line. It presents different adverse effects than traditional schemes, due to the stimulation of the immune system. There is a possible relationship between toxicity and response. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a possible predictive factor of response. Objectives: Evaluating the response according to the toxicity degree in NSCLC patients in real clinical practice. Analyze whether pretreatment NLR high patients have a worse prognosis. Methods: Observational, retrospective, analytical, single-center study. HCULB stage IV NSCLC patients with inmunotherapy treatment during 2016-2018. Descriptive and multivariate analysis. Toxicity grade: CTCAE version 4.0. Response assessment: RECIST 2.0 and immunorelated criteria. Toxicity degree and response (global and individualized results according to treatment and histology). Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and response. Results: N = 43 patients (35 men, 8 women). Average age 64 years. Response: 3 complete response (CR) (toxicity ≥2), 13 partial response (PR) (toxicity ≥1), 13 stable disease (SD), 12 progression (P) (only 4 toxicity and ≤2), 2 not evaluated. Hypothyroidism as the most common irAE. Relationship between toxicity and response: the absence of irAEs conditions worse prognosis p < 0.05. Histology: 25 adenocarcinoma [18 with irAES (1 CR, 7 PR, 8 SD,) and 7 without (1 SD, 5 P, 1 no ev.)]; 17 squamous [13 with irAES (1 CR, 6 PR, 4 SD) and 4 without (3 P, 1 no ev.)]; 1 adenosquamous with irAES and CR. Drug: Atezolizumab N = 8 [6 with irAES (2 PR, 3 SD, 1 P) and 2 without (both P)], Nivolumab N = 16 [9 with irAES (1 CR, 3 PR, 3 SD, 2 P) and 7 without (1 SD, 4 P, 2 no ev.)], Pembrolizumab N = 19 [17 with irAEs (2 CR, 8 PR, 6 SD, 1 P) and 2 without (both P)]. Significant positive correlation between toxicity and response (p < 0.001) R = 0.067, (CI 99% 0.378-0.837), regardless of histology and drug. It is observed a better response in those patients who presented a NRL close to 3 or less at the beginning of treatment. On the contrary, it is observed that subjects with NRL greater than 4 obtained worse results when they were treated with immunotherapy. Conclusions: The appearance of irAES like a response indicator of immune system, seem to conditione better evolution. In contrast, the absence of toxicity predicts a worse prognosis. Further studies with a larger sample are needed to confirm our findings about the predictive value of NLR and optimize therapeutic regimens if necessary.

GLIM versus ESPEN criteria for the diagnosis of early malnutrition in oncological outpatients

e24065

Background: Malnutrition is one of the most prevalent problems among oncological patients. It reduces the response to treatments and negatively impacts survival. In 2019, a consensus criteria for diagnosing malnutrition (GLIM criteria) were proposed by most scientific nutrition societies. The objective of our work is 1) to assess the diagnostic capacity of the GLIM criteria in ambulatory patients with cancer and 2) to compare the GLIM with the ESPEN criteria to evaluate the contributions of these new criteria with respect to the existing ones. Methods: Observational, cross-sectional, and single-center study carried out at the Medical Oncology Department in the Lozano Blesa Clinical Hospital in Zaragoza (Spain). One hundred and sixty-five outpatients with tumors in the upper gastrointestinal tract, head and neck, and colorectal locations were recruited. All of them received the MST, MUST, and Nutriscore screening tools along with the ESPEN and GLIM diagnostic criteria. Results: The prevalence of malnutrition was 46.7% according to the GLIM criteria and 21.2% using the ESPEN tool. Patients diagnosed by GLIM had a higher body mass index (BMI, 24.3 kg/m2) and muscle mass (MM, 16.1 kg/m2) than those diagnosed by ESPEN (21.2 kg/m² and 14.3 kg/m2 respectively, both p = 0.001). The MST, MUST, and Nutriscore tools had a higher degree of concordance with GLIM compared to ESPEN (MST 0.53 vs 0.26; MUST 0.36 vs 0.66; Nutriscore 0.28 vs 0.54). Conclusions: The found prevalence of malnutrition in cancer patients is higher using the GLIM instead of ESPEN criteria. This disparity can be explained at least in part by the difficulty of the ESPEN criteria for malnutrition to diagnose patients with high baseline BMI or MM. The use of criteria with greater sensitivity, such as the new GLIM criteria, could help early diagnosis and thus early intervention in cancer patients. [Table: see text]

Subclassification of the intermediate-risk group in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

e16537

Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have low prevalence but it incidence is increasing. For a correct therapeutic approach, it is important to carry out a correct prognostic stratification. Several prognostication systems have been proposed. One of the most commonly used is the one developed by Heng. It is based on IMDC database. This classification includes six prognostic factors (hemoglobin, neutrohils, platelets, serum calcium, Karnosky Performance Status and time from diagnosis to initiaton treatment) to divide patients into three gorups. The relevance of IMDC prognostic criterio, in the era of immunotherapy, remains to be established. In the absence of alternative criteria, these prognostication system continue to be used. A great prognostic disparity has been observed in the intermediate prognosis group. This raises the need to divide this group into two. Thus, patients included in it would be better selected. Methods: Observational, single-center, retrospective study, based on a cohort of 107 patients with advanced RCC, recruited from January 2006 to December 2019. Main objective: Evaluate whether survival of patients with intermediate prognosis (treated with antiangiogenic in first-line) is different depending on the presence of one or two prognostic factors. Descriptive and survival analysis (OS and PFS) were performed. In addition, the influence of prognostic factors on OS and PFS were compared using the log-rank test and Cox regression. Results: In the overall population, median overall survival (OS) was 26.86 months (95% CI: 21.09-32.63) and median PFS was 18.41 months (95% CI: 14.02-22.79). Median OS were, in favorable-risk 42.24 months (95% CI: 29.62-54.62), in intermediate-risk 27,24 (95% CI: 19.44-35-03) and in poor-risk 8.00 (95% CI: 4.54-11.45). Median PFS were in favorable-risk 30.53 months (95% CI:20.92-40.13), in intermediate-risk 17,16 (95% CI:11.54-22.78) and poor-risk 6.13 (95% CI:3.02-9.25). Median OS and PFS, in patients with intermediate-risk, with a single risk factor were 33.79 (95% CI 23.17-44.41) and 20.97 months (95% CI 13.35-28.59), compared to 14.88 (95% CI 8.80-20.95) and 10.59 months (95% CI 4.87-16.32) in those with two risk factors. The results were statistically significant in OS (p = 0.01) and PFS (p = 0.037). Conclusions: The differences in median OS and PFS, within the intermediate prognosis group (1 or 2 RF), confirm the existence of two subgroups of patients. Patients with 1 RF are similar to those with favorable-risk. These results are important since, the presence of 1 or 2 RF, would condition the choice of TKIs as part of the first-line treatment combination. More studies are needed to better subclassify the intermediate risk group when optimizing the best treatments for each patient.

DIRAE study: seasonal allergic rhinitis distribution in Spain

BACKGROUND

National epidemiological study to observe if among patients with pollinic seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), there are differences between those visited by primary care physicians (GPs) or allergists (ALs).

METHODS

758 and 739 adults were recruited respectively by GPs and ALs. The physicians filled in a questionnaire: ARIA classification, prescribed treatment, and asthma incidence. The patient completed a visual analogical scale (VAS) to evaluate the severity of the rhinitis. Rhinitis control (controlled, partially controlled, and not controlled) was assessed by physician and patient.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found among patients visited by GPs or ALs concerning the ARIA classification and rhinitis severity. Treatment with oral antihistamines was 92.3% and 89.3% for GPs and ALs, respectively. The use of nasal corticosteroids was 76.7% and 60.4% for GP and AL patients, respectively. 31.9% of the patients visited by the ALs were treated with immunotherapy. The use of alternative medicine was 10.9% and 7.6% in GP and AL patients, respectively. The perception of "controlled" rhinitis was similar among patients (40.0%) and doctors (40.1%), although patients referred differences depending if they were visited by GP (44.8%) or AL (34.9%). Asthma prevalence was higher in those who suffered persistent as compared to intermittent rhinitis (OR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.39-2.36, p<0.001), and moderate/severe vs. mild rhinitis (OR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.05-2.68, p=0.029).

CONCLUSION

The patients with pollinic SAR visited by GPs or ALs show no differences in severity. Less than half of the patients can be considered as "controlled".