Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Factors associated with malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients: a croos-sectional study

  • Fernanda Rafaella de Melo Silva1Email author,
  • Mirella Gondim Ozias Aquino de Oliveira1,
  • Alex Sandro Rolland Souza1, 2,
  • José Natal Figueroa1 and
  • Carmina Silva Santos1
Nutrition Journal201514:123

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-015-0113-1

Received: 24 September 2015

Accepted: 8 December 2015

Published: 10 December 2015

Abstract

Introduction

The incidence of cancer is increasing worldwide and with it the prevalence of malnutrition, which is responsible for the death of almost 20 % of cancer patients. The objective of this study was to identify the factors associated with malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients.

Methods

Cross-sectional study conducted with 277 hospitalized patients in the Institute of Integrative Medicine Prof. Fernando Figueira from March to November 2013. The nutritional status was classified as well-nourished and moderate/severe malnutrition, according to the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment. The association between moderate/severe malnutrition and demographic, behavioral, socioeconomic, clinical, therapeutic and nutritional variables was investigated through univariate regression and hierarchical Poisson models, with a 5 % significance level.

Results

The prevalence of malnutrition was 71.1 %, being classified as moderate in 35.4 % and severe in 35.7 %. After multivariate analysis, smokers/ex-smokers low socioeconomic status, performance status ≥2 and age ≥60 years were associated with increased risk of malnutrition.

Conclusion

There was observed a high prevalence of moderate/severe malnutrition in cancer patients, with the increased risk of malnutrition associated with the presence of factors that can be assessed during hospital admission suggesting a higher alert of the medical and health care staff about the need for nutritional assessment and intervention.

Keywords

Nutrition assessmentRisk factorsMalnutritionCancer

Introduction

The incidence of cancer is increasing worldwide and with it the prevalence of malnutrition, which may vary between 40 and 80 % in patients with neoplasia [1, 2]. The cancer is responsible for approximately 13 % of all causes of death worldwide, however the death of almost 20 % of cancer patients occurs as a result of malnutrition and its complications, rather than the malignancy of the disease itself [3, 4].

In Brazil, a multicenter study found a prevalence of malnutrition of 66.3 % and an increased risk of almost three-fold of malnutrition (20.3 %) among cancer patients [5]. A similar result was found in a study conducted in Latin America with hospitalized patients, which showed a prevalence of 65.6 % of malnutrition in individuals with cancer [6].

The etiology of malnutrition in cancer patients is complex and multifactorial and may be influenced by the location and type of tumor, stage of the disease, side effects of the treatment, socioeconomic status, functional performance, symptoms of nutritional impact, need for fasting and inadequate nutritional therapy, as well as medical staff awareness about the importance of nutritional status for the prognosis and quality of life of hospitalized patients [58].

In patients with cancer, a risk up to 30 % of malnutrition among hospitalized patients in older age (OR 1.38; IC 95 %: 1.28 – 1.54) [6] and almost three-fold in patients with low functional performance [3] were observed. Another study found that smoking is associated with the need for enteral nutrition therapy in patients with head and neck cancer, suggesting that is also associated with depletion of the nutritional status, because this therapy is used when there is a partial or total impairment of food intake. However, these factors are not well elucidated [9].

The identification of factors that can be assessed during the hospital admission can alert the medical and healthcare staff about the need for evaluation and early nutritional intervention to avoid further complications. Researches show that malnutrition is associated with lower response and tolerance to antineoplastic treatment; reduction in the quality of life; higher morbidity, mortality and infectious complications and an increase in length of hospital stay and costs by reducing the availability of hospital beds and consequently the number of patients attended [3, 10].

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and factors associated with malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients so they can be identified at hospital admission and possible complications from malnutrition avoided.

Methods

Cross-sectional study, performed between March and November 2013, in oncology and palliative care inpatient units of the Institute of Integrative Medicine Prof. Fernando Figueira (IMIP), referral center for oncology in northeastern Brazil, located in Recife, Pernambuco. The study started after its approval by the Ethics Committee on Human Research of the cited institution under protocol 10241612.7.0000.5201.

Patients with cancer of both sexes and aged 18 and older participated in the study. Those patients hospitalized for more than 72 h, who where fed exclusively through catheter or ostomies for more than 72 h, with consumptive disorders or pregnant were excluded from the sample.

The sample size was calculated using the Statcalc function of the Epi-Info 3.5.3 program (Centers for Disease Control and Prevetion, Atlanta, GA, EUA). Considering a frequency of malnutrition in cancer patients of 30 % [3], a significance level of 5 %, an 80 % power and a relative accuracy of 20 %, would be necessary 224 individuals. Foreseeing possible losses, the sample was increased by 20 % to 277 volunteers.

The selection and evaluation of the participants were performed by a single trained nutritionist. After the sign of an Informed Consent Form, by the patient or legal guardian, were collected demographic, behavioral and socioeconomic variables [age (years), gender, origin, marital status, occupation, smoking, education, and socioeconomic class]; nutritional variables [symptoms of nutritional impact, current weight (kg), habitual weight (kg), height (m), weight loss percentage and previous body mass index (kg/m2)]; clinical variables (type of cancer, presence of metastasis and performance status) and therapeutic variables (previous treatment and type of anticancer treatment).

Demographic, behavioral and socioeconomic variables were collected according to the report of the patient and medical record and socioeconomic class and education were obtained from the Brazilian Association of Research Companies questionnaire (ABEP) [11]. According to the ABEP questionnaire, family income is classified in five levels, being A the highest and E the lowest socioeconomic level. For analysis purposes, the extremes of socioeconomic levels were grouped to form three categories: A and B; C; D and E [11].

To obtain the anthropometric variables (current weight and height) the patient was measured twice and if there was difference between these values a third measure was made and then calculated the average and recorded the final value [12]. To measure these variables it was used a fixed vertical digital platform scale with stadiometer (FILIZOLA™, São Paulo, Brazil) with a variation of 50 g, capacity up to 200 kg and 0.5 cm precision. If there was no possibility of measuring the stature, it was estimated from the Chumlea equation [13]. Habitual weight (HW) of the last six months was obtained according to the report of the patient.

The weight loss percentage (%WL) was calculated from the equation [(habitual weight - current weight)/habitual weight × 100], considering the cutoff point of %WL ≥5 on the past six months [1416]. The previous body mass index (pBMI) was obtained by the equation (habitual weight/height2) and was classified according to the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) for adults and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)/WHO for elderly [12, 17]. This variable was stratified into two categories corresponding to overweight (overweight and obese) and normal weight (normal weight and malnutrition).

Nutritional diagnosis was obtained through the scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), which consists of a tool used for screening and nutritional diagnosis of cancer patients developed for Ottery [14] and validated in Portuguese by Gonzalez et al. [15]. This questionnaire allows not only classify the nutritional assessment into three categories (A = well nourished, B = suspected or moderate malnutrition and C = severe malnutrition), but also generates a numerical score which enables the selection of the appropriate level of nutritional intervention [14, 15]. For statistical analysis, the participants who were in categories B and C were classified as malnourished nutritional status. The presence of symptoms of nutritional impact was also obtained from this questionnaire.

Clinical variables were collected in medical records, but the performance status (PS) was obtained from the scale developed by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) [18], that ranks the functional capacity in five levels, being the zero, the fully active individual and the four, the bedridden and unable to perform self-care activities individual. Considering that the limited functional capacity leads to difficulties in preparing and food intake, this variable was stratified in PS <2 and PS ≥2, because PS = 2 indicates inability to perform any work activity [19, 20].

For analysis, the cancers were stratified into six groups according to the location of the tumor (upper gastrointestinal tract, lower gastrointestinal tract, reproductive tract, lung, breast and other cancers). The cancers belonging to the latter class were those who do not fit into any of the former classifications.

Regarding therapeutic variables, the types of treatment were stratified into clinical treatment, when the individual has been subjected to at least one radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy session; surgical treatment, when any procedure for complete or partial resection of the tumor mass was conducted; medical/surgical treatment, when both treatments were needed; and palliative treatment when the therapy performed had no more intention of healing.

In order to avoid bias, the evaluations were performed by a single trained examiner and the questions asked in the same way for all studied individuals. The PG-SGA was preferably the first evaluation to be conducted. Before the anthropometric measurements the calibration of the instruments was always checked.

Categorical variables were presented by absolute and relative frequencies and the continuous variables were summarized using the central tendency and dispersion measures. The association between malnutrition and analytical variables was performed by the Poisson regression model, assuming a significance level of p <0.05. To adjust the effect of independent predictors for malnutrition, all variables were included in a new hierarchical Poisson regression model, adopting a significance level of 5 %, a 95 % confidence interval and a power of 80 %. Data analyses were conducted through STATA 12.1SE program (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

During the study period 480 cancer patients were admitted, being 203 ineligible by exclusion criteria. Thus, 277 patients were eligible and all agreed to participate.

More than half of the sample (56.0 %) were female. The mean age was 54.7 ± 14.9 years, with 39.4 % (n = 109) of patients aged ≥60 years. Most individuals (60.3 %) had a partner and 37.9 % came from the countryside of Pernambuco. In relation to scholarity, 40.1 % had not finished elementary school. The results showed that most of the study population belonged to the lower social classes: Class C (52.7 %); and classes D and E (23.8 %). Most (61.0 %) were retired or had illness benefit and 14.1 % worked (Table 1).
Table 1

Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample

Characteristics

N(%)

Marital status

 With partner

167 (60.3)

 Without partner

110 (39.7)

Origin

 Recife

96 (34.7)

 RMAa

69 (24.9)

 Countryside

105 (37.9)

 Another states

7 (2.5)

Scholarity

 Unlettered

40 (14.4)

 Incompleted elementary school

111 (40.1)

 Completed elementary school

28 (10.1)

 Completed high school

82 (29.6)

 Completed undergraduation

16 (5.8)

Socioeconomic class

 A and B

65 (23.5)

 C

146 (52.7)

 D and E

66 (23.8)

Ocupation

 Paid work

39 (14.1)

 Retired/Benefit

169 (61.0)

 Unemployed

44 (15.9)

 Others

25 (9.0)

Smoking

 Smoker/ex-smoker

138 (49.8)

 Never smoke

139 (50.2)

aRecife metropolitan area

The types of cancers, classified by the organic system, most frequently affected were the lower gastrointestinal tract (LGIT) (20.9 %) and reproductive system (18.8 %). Although the majority of patients (62.1 %) had received any type of curative treatment, half of them (50.2 %) had metastatic tumors. The sample showed a considerable prevalence of impaired physical performance (46.2 %), being more prevalent in tumors of the reproductive system, as well as the symptoms of nutritional impact (Table 2).
Table 2

Sample characteristics according to the types of cancer

  

Type of cancer

Characteristics

Total sample

UGITa

LGITb

RSc

Lung

Breast

Othersd

Type of cancer - n (%)

277 (100)

43 (15.5)

58 (20.9)

52 (18.8)

32 (11.6)

30 (10.8)

62 (22.4)

Age - Mean (SD)

54.7 (14.9)

57.6(13.3)

57.6 (12.9)

52.9 (15.3)

57.7 (13.8)

56.6 (15.5)

48.8 (16.2)

 ≥60 - n (%)

109 (39.4)

20 (18.3)

29 (26.6)

19 (17.4)

13 (11.9)

12 (11.0)

16 (14.7)

Gender - n (%)

 Male

122 (44.0)

23 (18.9)

20 (16.4)

15 (12.3)

21 (17.2)

0 (0.0)

43 (35.2)

 Female

155 (56.0)

20 (12.9)

38 (24.5)

37 (23.9)

11 (7.1)

30 (19.4)

19 (12.3)

Metastasis - n (%)

 Absent

138 (49.8)

15 (10.9)

29 (21.0)

26 (18.8)

11 (8.0)

19 (13.8)

38 (27.5)

 Present

139 (50.2)

28 (20.1)

29 (20.9)

26 (18.7)

21 (15.1)

11 (7.9)

24 (17.3)

Performance status - n (%)

 <2

149 (53.8)

20 (13.4)

36 (24.2)

23 (15.4)

14 (9.4)

17 (11.4)

39 (26.2)

 ≥2

128 (46.2)

23 (18.0)

22 (17.2)

29 (22.7)

18 (14.1)

13 (10.2)

23 (18.0)

Symptoms of impact - n (%)

 Yes

186 (67.1)

31 (16.7)

35 (18.8)

39 (21.0)

26 (14.0)

17 (9.1)

38 (20.4)

 No

91 (32.9)

12 (13.2)

23 (25.3)

13 (14.3)

6 (6.6)

13 (14.3)

24 (26.4)

%WL ≥5 em 6 meses - n (%)

 Yes

101 (80.2)

20 (19.8)

21 (20.8)

15 (14.9)

15 (14.9)

5 (5.0)

25 (24.8)

 No

25 (19.8)

2 (8.0)

5 (20.0)

7 (28.0)

1 (4.0)

4 (16.0)

6 (24.0)

Overweight (pBMI) - n (%)

 Yes

76 (60.3)

14 (18.4)

12 (15.8)

15 (19.7)

12 (15.8)

4 (5.3)

19 (25.0)

 No

50 (39.7)

8 (16.0)

14 (28.0)

7 (14.0)

4 (8.0)

5 (10.0)

12 (24.0)

PG-SGA - n (%)

 Well nourished

80 (28.9)

7 (8.8)

19 (23.8)

13 (16.3)

5 (6.3)

13 (16.3)

23 (28.8)

 Moderate malnutrition

98 (35.4)

8 (8.2)

21 (21.4)

21 (21.4)

17 (17.3)

12 (12.2)

19 (19.4)

 Severe malnutrition

99 (35.7)

28 (28.3)

18 (18.2)

18 (18.2)

10 (10.1)

5 (5.1)

20 (20.2)

SD standard deviation, PS performance status, %WL weight loss percentage, PG-SGA patient-generated subjective global assessment; aUpper gastrointestinal tract: esophagus, stomach, pancreas, liver, gallbladder, biliary ducts; bLower gastrointestinal tract: colon, rectum and anal canal; cReproductive system: ovarian, cervical, testicular and prostate; dHead and neck, hematological, unknown primary site, sarcoma, melanoma

The prevalence of malnutrition was 71.1 %, with similar frequencies between moderate (35.4 %) and severe malnutrition (35.7 %). In relation to the types of cancer, severe malnutrition was more prevalent in patients with cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract (28.3 %). Of the 126 patients who remembered the usual weight, 80.2 % had %WL ≥5 in the last 6 months with a median of 14.7, whereas in tumors classified as others, 24.8 % had WL% ≥5 in the last 6 months (Table 2).

Univariate analysis revealed that smokers/ex-smokers, socio-economic classes C, D and E, tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract and lung, patients who had not cancer treatment, palliative care, PS ≥2, individuals without a prior excess of weight and age ≥60 years were associated with the presence of malnutrition (Table 3).
Table 3

Unadjusted analysis of factors associated with malnutrition

Variables

Total sample

Malnutrition

PR (IC95%)

p value

N

N (%)

Smoking

   

0.005

 Smoker/ex-smoker

138

109 (79.0)

1.25 (1.07 – 1.45)

 

 Never smoke

139

88 (63.3)

1.0

 

Socioeconomic class

   

0.003

 A and B

65

36 (55.4)

1.0

 

 C

146

106 (72.6)

1.31 (1.03 – 1.67)

 

 D and E

66

55 (83.3)

1.50 (1.18 – 1.92)

 

Type of cancer

   

0.026

 UGITa

43

36 (83.7)

1.48 (1.05 – 2.08)

 

 LGITb

58

39 (67.2)

1.19 (0.83 – 1.70)

 

 RSc

52

39 (75.0)

1.32 (0.93 – 1.88)

 

 Lung

32

27 (84.4)

1.49 (1.05 – 2.11)

 

 Breast

30

17 (56.7)

1.0

 

 Othersd

62

39 (62.9)

1.11 (0.77 – 1.60)

 

Previous treatment

   

0.005

 Absent

60

50 (83.3)

1.23 (1.06 – 1.42)

 

 Present

217

147 (67.7)

1.0

 

Type of treatment

   

<0.001

 Clinicale

85

50 (58.8)

0.86 (0.62 – 1.21)

 

 Surgical

22

15 (68.2)

1.0

 

 Clinical e surgical

65

39 (60.0)

0.88 (0.62 – 1.25)

 

 Palliative

45

43 (95.6)

1.40 (1.05 – 1.88)

 

Performance status

   

<0.001

 <2

149

84 (56.4)

1.0

 

 ≥2

128

113 (88.3)

1.57 (1.34 – 1.83)

 

Overweight

   

0.023

 Yes

76

64 (84.2)

1.0

 

 No

50

48 (96.0)

1.14 (1.02 – 1.28)

 

Age

   

<0.001

 <60

168

102 (60.7)

1.0

 

 ≥60

109

95 (87.2)

1.44 (1.25 – 1.65)

 

PR prevalence ratio, CI confidence interval, p significance level; aUpper gastrointestinal tract: esophagus, stomach, pancreas, liver, gallbladder, biliary ducts; bLower gastrointestinal tract: colon, rectum and anal canal; cReproductive system: ovarian, cervical, testicular and prostate; dHead and neck, hematological, unknown primary site, sarcoma, melanoma; eradiotherapy and/or quimiotherapy

In multivariate analysis the factors that remained significantly associated with malnutrition were: smokers/ex-smokers, socio-economic classes C, D and E, PS ≥2 and age ≥60 years (Table 4).
Table 4

Independent factors associated with malnutrition

 

Sample

Outcome

    

Variables

N

N(%)

RRunadjusted(CI95%)

p value

RRadjusted(CI95%)

p value

Distal level

Smoking

   

0.005

 

0.015

 Smoker/ex-smoker

138

109(79.0)

1.25(1.07 – 1.45)

 

1.21(1.04 – 1.40)

 

 Never smoke

139

88(63.3)

1.0

 

1.0

 

Socioeconomic class

   

0.003

 

0.012

 A and B

65

36(55.4)

1.0

 

1.0

 

 C

146

106(72.6)

1.31(1.03 – 1.67)

 

1.30(1.02 – 1.65)

 

 D and E

66

55(83.3)

1.50(1.18 – 1.92)

 

1.44(1.13 – 1.84)

 

Intermediate level

Performance status

   

<0.001

 

<0.001

 <2

149

84(56.4)

1.0

 

1.0

 

 ≥2

128

113(88.3)

1.57(1.34 – 1.83)

 

1.50(1.30 – 1.75)

 

Proximal level

Age

   

<0.001

 

<0.001

 <60

168

102(60.7)

1.0

 

1.0

 

 ≥60

109

95(87.2)

1.44(1.25 – 1.65)

 

1.36(1.19 – 1.56)

 

RR risk ratio, CI confidence interval, p significance level

Discussion

In this study, according to PG-SGA, more than half of the sample had some degree of malnutrition, being similar to the frequency of moderate and severe malnutrition, 35.4 and 35.7 %, respectively. The factors that independently associated to this nutritional disorder were smokers/ex-smokers, socio-economic classes C, D and E, PS ≥2 and age ≥60 years.

The high prevalence of malnutrition found in our study is not surprising, considering that hospitalized cancer patients are more likely to have some level of nutritional disability compared to other hospitalized individuals [5, 6]. We must consider that the hospitalization prior to the period of the study was not an exclusion criterion in our research and this may have influenced the high prevalence. However, our results were similar to two Brazilian cross-sectional studies, which found a malnutrition prevalence of 66.3 and 77.8 %, although they used for nutritional diagnosis the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) [5, 21] different from our study that used the PG-SGA. Equivalent results were also obtained in Latin America (65.6 %), South Korea (61.3 %) and Australia (76.0 %) [2, 6, 22].

In relation to lower prevalences of malnutrition in cancer patients, were found two other Brazilian studies, with frequencies of 39.4 and 48.2 %, using the PG-SGA as a nutritional assessment method. These results can be justified because they are studies conducted with patients at the beginning of the chemotherapy treatment and with more than 1/3 of the sample with tumor in stages I or II. Different from our patients who had 50.2 % of metastatic tumors, indicating advanced stages of disease [15, 23].

The most common method for initial nutritional assessment in cancer patients was the ASG [5, 21], however, nowadays this tool is not well recommended. Because the incorporation of prognostic indicators such as the details of the symptoms of nutritional impact and weight loss, which are frequently observed in patients with cancer, to the PG-SGA, this tool is the indicated as initial method of nutritional assessment on admission of these individuals [9, 14, 16, 24].

It is well known that the %WL >5 in 6 months previous to the diagnosis is correlated to a lower survival rate and when it is >10 % is associated with an increased risk of complications due to malnutrition [14]. In our study 36.5 % of the total sample had %WL≥5 in 6 months. This fact is a concern, because the weight loss process, regardless of the usual weight of the individual, is considered itself a malnutrition process, even after the body changes, the patient remains within normal patterns [12, 25].

Another characteristic prognostic indicator of the cancer patient is the presence of symptoms of nutritional impact, due to its high prevalence mainly due to the tumor itself, antineoplastic therapy introduced as well as malnutrition [14, 15]. Our results showed that more than half of the sample (67.1 %) had symptoms of nutritional impact, in which the most prevalent were: anorexia (50.5 %), pain (23.1 %), vomiting (19.4 %), constipation, and dysgeusia (17.7 %). These results agree with Brazilian and American cross-sectional studies, which place anorexia and pain among the most prevalent symptoms in their populations [22, 23].

A recent prospective study conducted in Canada on patients with advanced cancer showed an association between the symptoms of nutritional impact (anorexia, gastric fullness, dysgeusia, dry mouth and dysphage) and lower survival rate on its univariate analysis, with dysphagia as an independent factor on its final model [26]. This fact highlights the importance of evaluation and appropriate management of these symptoms, given the large impact that causes on prognosis and quality of life of patients.

A concerning data found was the high prevalence of severe malnutrition (35.7 %), because this value is above the presented in the literature [3, 15, 23, 27]. We could refer the high rate to the fact that our patients were exposed to various risk factors for malnutrition as observed in the univariate analysis. We must also highlight the fact that the food and nutrition insecurity can permeate many subjects of our population, since a part of it belongs to lower social classes, which is an independent risk factor for malnutrition (p = 0.012) in our multivariate analysis.

The data regarding nutritional status of our patients only reaffirm the neglect to recognize malnutrition as a public health problem, considering that the prevalence rates have not decreased, despite being well documented over the past decades and its relationship with the prognosis and quality of life of patients with cancer [1]. A limiting factor in our study for this assessment is the lack of data on early nutritional support for these patients. Although, an important move to be made is to invest in adequate nutritional screening in order to establish an early nutritional therapy in order to prevent deterioration of nutritional status which is already expected in hospitalized patients.

In this study, smoking was identified as an independent risk factor for malnutrition (p = 0.015), in agreement with a British retrospective study that found an association between the use of cigarettes above 20 units/day and the necessity of use of enteral nutrition in patients with head and neck cancer (OR 4.08; IC 95 %: 1.29 – 12.89) [9]. Among the deleterious effects of nicotine, its action on the central nervous system leads to reduced appetite and these individuals are also susceptible to taste disturbance, causing a lower intake of nutrients [9, 28]. In addition, the tobacco has a thermogenic effect, leading to weight loss [9]. Another important factor in this relationship between smoking and malnutrition is the economic impact of the cigarettes on family spent, because instead of buying groceries part of the money is spent to keep the addiction [29].

Functional autonomy is a factor that deserves attention from health professionals when the point is nutritional risk indicators, considering that individuals with limited functional capacity have difficulties in the preparation and food intake [19, 30]. The results of this study support this statement, because it was observed that the PS ≥2 was a risk factor for malnutrition. Similar results were found by a French epidemiological study that found a chance of being malnourished almost three-fold higher in cancer patients admitted with low functional performance [3]. Similarly a multicenter cohort study showed that this is also a risk factor for ambulatory patients [19].

A Greek prospective study conducted with 173 patients with lung cancer showed an association between the PS and the %WL >5 in the last 3 months (p <0.001), with %WL as an indicative of a considerable deterioration of the nutritional status [14, 16, 27]. Other results have also shown an independent relationship of the performance status with survival and death of patients with cancer [3, 26, 31].

According to our results, elderly is a factor that increases by almost 30 % the chance of malnutrition. This association was expected, since it is well known that advanced age predisposes to nutritional deficiencies, especially in hospitalized individuals [3, 5, 6].

The previous overweigh was not associated with malnutrition in this study, most likely due to the limited number of patients (n = 126) who remembered the usual weight in the last 6 months. A French research showed a significant association between prior obesity and risk of malnutrition [3]. This finding can be explained by the negligence in relation to the excess of weight loss by the health care team, even knowing that the decrease in weight can be of lean mass, resulting in a worse prognosis. We also highlight the knowledge that being overweight is a bad prognosis factor due to inadequate dosage of medications for treatment, calculated from body weight, and the chronic inflammatory condition of obese patients [3, 32, 33].

The most worrying fact in obese patients might be related to the sarcopenia, characterized by a progressive and widespread loss of lean body mass, which is associated to a worsening of the functional status and quality of life and death [34]. A Canadian cohort that evaluated the sarcopenic obesity and its clinical implications in patients with solid tumors, found a prevalence of 15 % of sarcopenia in obese subjects (OR 4.2; 95 % CI: 2.4 – 7.2) [35].

Although it is well established in the scientific community that the types of cancer and treatment are predictive factors for malnutrition, in this study they did not remain in the final model. Such fact occurred probably due to the small sample for this analysis, because there were considered different types of response of these two variables [3, 6, 7]. It is important to consider that factors such as comorbidities, antibiotic therapy and diagnostic time can also be associated with the outcome, however, they were not collected and therefore are considered limiting factors of our research. It is also highlighted that the stage of the disease was not included on statistical analysis because the stage of tumors of different sites is distinct.

According to the extensive search performed in the main electronic databases, it was not found any other study in the northeast region of the country with a similar design, exclusively with hospitalized cancer patients, including palliative care, and using the PG-SGA. However, longitudinal studies that include larger numbers of patients to better determine the results found in our research are still needed.

Conclusion

The data presented in this study showed the high prevalence of malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients. The factors independently associated to this nutritional disorder were smokers/ex-smokers, socio-economic classes C, D and E, PS ≥2 and age ≥60 years. Thus, the simple perception of these factors can alert health professionals about the risk of nutritional depletion and the need for differentiated nutritional intervention.

Availability of supporting data

The dataset that supports the results of this paper is included in the manuscript and its additional files.

Abbreviations

% WL: 

Weight loss percentage

ABEP: 

Brazilian Association of Research Companies

ECOG: 

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

HW: 

Habitual weight

IMIP: 

Institute of Integrative Medicine Prof. Fernando Figueira

PAHO: 

Pan American Health Organization

pBMI: 

Previous body mass index

PG-SGA: 

Patient-generated subjective global assessment

PS: 

Performance status

SGA: 

Subjective global assessment

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all patients who participated in the study.

We thank the Research Support Fund (FAPE) of the IMIP, for financial support for the research disclosure.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Integrative Medicine Prof. Fernando Figueira (IMIP)
(2)
Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE)

References

  1. Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva. Consenso Nacional de Nutrição Oncológica. Serviço de Nutrição e dietética. 2015. http://www1.inca.gov.br/inca/Arquivos/consensonacional-de-nutricao-oncologica-2-edicao_2015_completo.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2015.
  2. Wie GA, Cho YA, Kim SY, Kim SM, Bae JM, Joung H. Prevalence and risk factors of malnutrition among cancer patients according to tumor location and stage in the National Cancer Center in Korea. Nutrition. 2010. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2009.04.013.Google Scholar
  3. Pressoir M, Desne S, Berchery D, Rossignol G, Poiree B, Meslier M, et al. Prevalence, risk factors and clinical implications of malnutrition in French Comprehensive Cancer Centre. British Journal of Cancer. 2010;102(6):966–971.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Wu BW, Yin T, Cao WX, Gu ZD, Wang XJ, Yan M, et al. Clinical application of subjective global assessment in Chinese patients with gastrointestinal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2009. doi:10.3748/wjg.15.3542.Google Scholar
  5. Waitzberg DL, Caiaffa WT, Correia MI. Hospital malnutrition: the Brazilian National Survey (IBRANUTRI): a study of 4000 patients. Nutrition. 2001;17(7/8):573–580.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Correia MI, Campos AC. Prevalence of hospital malnutrition in Latin America: the multicenter ELAN study. Nutrition. 2003. doi:10.1016/S0899-9007(03)00168-0.Google Scholar
  7. González SS, Sobrino PS, Álvarez JAC, Villarroel PG, Fernández CP. Parámetros antropométricos en la evaluación de la malnutrición en pacientes oncológicos hospitalizados; utilidad del índice de masa corporal y del porcentaje de pérdida de peso. Nutr Hosp. 2013. doi:10.3305/nh.2013.28.3.6369.Google Scholar
  8. Datema FR, Ferrier MB, de Jong RJ B. Impact of severe malnutrition on short-term mortality and overall survival in head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.06.510.Google Scholar
  9. Mangar S, Slevin N, Mais K, Sykes A. Evaluating predictive factors for determining enteral nutrition in patients receiving radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a retrospective review. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2006. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2005.12.014.Google Scholar
  10. Ulibarri JI, Burgos R, Lobo G, Martínez MA, Planas M, A. Pérez de la cruz JL. Recomendaciones sobre la evaluación del riesgo de desnutrición em los pacientes hospitalizados. Nutr Hosp. 2009;24(4):467–72.Google Scholar
  11. Associação Brasileira de Empresas e Pesquisa. Critério de classificação econômica Brasil. 2011. http://www.abep.org/criterio-brasil. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
  12. Wold Health Organization. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. In: WHO technical report series. WHO expert committee. 1995. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/37003/1/WHO_TRS_854.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2012.
  13. Chumlea WC, Roche AF, Steinbaugh ML. Estimating stature from knee height for persons 60 to 90 years of age. Journal of American Geriatric Society. 1985. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1985.tb02276.x.Google Scholar
  14. Ottery FD. Definition of standardized nutritional assessment and interventional pathways in oncology. Nutrition. 1996;12(1):S15–S19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonzalez MC, Borges LR, Silveira DH, Assunção MCF, Orlandi SP. Validação da versão em português da avaliação subjetiva global produzida pelo próprio pacientes. Rev Bras Nutr Clin. 2010;25(2):102–8.Google Scholar
  16. Sánchez-Lara K, Turcott J, Sosa-Sánchez R, Green-Renner D. Evaluación del estado de nutrición en pacientes con câncer. Revista de Endocrinología y Nutrición. 2008;16(4):165–71.Google Scholar
  17. World Health Organization. Encuesta multicentrica: salud, bien estar y envejecimiento (SABE) en América Latina y el Caribe. In: Anales da 36ª Reunión del Comité Asesor de Investigaciones em salud. 2001.Google Scholar
  18. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J ClinOncol. 1982;5(6):649–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Bozzetti F, Mariani L, LoVullo S. The nutritional risk in oncology: a study of 1,453 cancer outpatients. Support Care Cancer. 2012. doi:10.1007/s00520-012-1387-x.Google Scholar
  20. Sorensen JB, Klee M, Palshof T, Hansen HH. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study. Br. J. Cancer. 1993;67:773–775.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Borges NP, Silva BA, Cohen C, Filho PEP, Medeiros FJ. Comparison of the nutritional diagnosis, obtained through different methods and indicators, in patients with cancer. Nutr Hosp. 2009;24(1):51–5.Google Scholar
  22. Bauer J, Capra S, Ferguson M. Use of the scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) as a nutrition assessment tool in patients with cancer. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2002. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601412.Google Scholar
  23. Colling C, Durval PA, Silveira DH. Pacientes submetidos a quimioterapia: avaliação nutricional prévia. Revista Brasileira de Cancerologia. 2012;58(4):611–7.Google Scholar
  24. Destky AS, McLaughlin RJ, Baker JP, Johnston N, Whittaker S, Mendelson RA, et al. What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status?. JPEN. 1987;11(1):8–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Aquino RC, Philippi ST. Identificação de fatores de risco de desnutrição em pacientes internados. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2011;57(6):637–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin L, Watanabe S, Fainsinger R, Lau F, Ghosh S, Quan H, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with advanced cancer: use of the patient-generated subjective global assessment in survival prediction. J Clin Oncol. 2010. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.27.1916.Google Scholar
  27. Gioulbasanis I, Baracos VE, Giannousi Z, Xyrafas A, Martin L, Georgoulias V, et al. Baseline nutritional evaluation in metastatic lung cancer patients: mini nutritional assessment versus weight loss history. Ann Oncol. 2011. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq440.Google Scholar
  28. Kolahdooz F, Mathe N, Katunga LA, Beck L, Sheehy T, Corriveau A, et al. Smoking and dietary inadequacy among Inuvialuit women of child bearing age in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Nutrition Journal. 2013. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-12-27.Google Scholar
  29. Organização Mundial de Saúde. Tabagismo e Saúde nos Países em desenvolvimento. Banco Mundial para a Mesa Redonda de Alto Nível sobre Controle do Tabagismo e Políticas de Desenvolvimento. 2003. http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/inca/tabagismo_saude.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2014.
  30. Oliveira MR, Fogaça KC, Leandro-Merhi VA. Nutritional status and functional capacity of hospitalized elderly. Nutr J. 2009. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-8-54.Google Scholar
  31. Chang PH, Yeh KY, Huang JS, Lai CH, Wu TH, Lan YJ, et al. Pretreatment performance status and nutrition are associated with early mortality of locally advanced head and neck cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013. doi:10.1007/s00405-012-2290-2.Google Scholar
  32. Griggs JJ, Sorbero ME, Lyman GH. Undertreatment of obese women receiving breast cancer chemotherapy. Arch Intern Med. 2005. doi:10.1001/archinte.165.11.1267.Google Scholar
  33. McTiernan A. Obesity and cancer: the risks, science, and potential management strategies. Oncology. 2005;19:871–81.Google Scholar
  34. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age and Ageing. 2010. doi:10.1093/ageing/afq034.Google Scholar
  35. Prado CMM, Lieffers JR, McCargar LJ, Reiman T, Sawyer MB, Martin L, et al. Prevalence and clinical implications of sarcopenic obesity in patients with solid tumours of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2008. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70153-0.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Silva et al. 2015