Predicting postoperative events in patients with gastric cancer: A comparison of five nutrition assessment tools

  • SHUN WEN HSUEH
  • , KENG HAO LIU
  • , CHIA YEN HUNG
  • , CHUN YI TSAI
  • , JUN TE HSU
  • , NGAN MING TSANG
  • , WILLIAM HARRISON HSUEH
  • , CHIEH YANG
  • , WEN CHI CHOU*
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal Article peer-review

22 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background/Aim: We compared the adequacy of five nutrition assessment tools with respect to their predictive value in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (GC) receiving radical surgery. Patients and Methods: Five nutrition assessment tools-Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), malnutritional universal screening tool (MUST), nutritional risk screening, patient generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA), and prognostic nutritional index (PNI)-were assessed preoperatively for stage III GC patients. The correlation between postoperative events and nutritional status was further analyzed. Results: Most of the nutritional tools accurately predicted length of hospital stay and grade 3 or higher surgical complications, while only the GPS correlated with 30-day readmission and surgical complications. The PG-SGA performed the poorest among the five tools and failed to predict any postoperative event. Conclusion: The application of GPS is recommended as a prognostic index for patients with locally advanced GC prior to radical surgery.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2803-2809
Number of pages7
JournalIn Vivo
Volume34
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 09 2020

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 International Institute of Anticancer Research. All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • Gastric cancer
  • Glasgow prognostic score
  • Nutritional assessment tool
  • Postoperative complication

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Predicting postoperative events in patients with gastric cancer: A comparison of five nutrition assessment tools'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this