4.5 Article

Malnutrition is associated with poor health-related quality of life in surgical patients with gastrointestinal cancer

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 75-76, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2020.110769

关键词

Malnutrition; Nutritional status; Quality of life; Gastrointestinal neoplasms; Surgical procedures

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between preoperative nutritional status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with gastrointestinal cancer who were admitted for elective surgical treatment. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in which patients with a diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer were evaluated before a surgical procedure. The nutritional assessment included subjective global assessment (SGA) and measurements of weight loss percentage, bioelectrical impedance, and functional capacity. HRQoL was evaluated by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Statistical analyses were performed with a significance level of 5%. The sample size was calculated based on a pilot study. Results: We evaluated 132 patients, the majority of whom were men. The median age of the patients was 62 y, and the most prevalent tumors were in the colon, rectum, and anus (52.3%). The SGA highlighted the high prevalence of malnutrition (69.9%), which was confirmed by the rates of weight loss (73.8%) and the low fat-free mass index (56.8%). Malnourished patients and patients with severe weight loss had worse functional, symptom, global health and quality of life scores (P < 0.05). Malnutrition, according to the SGA, decreased physical function and role performance scores by 9 and 20 points, respectively (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Malnutrition, assessed by various tools, was associated with poor HRQoL of surgical patients with gastrointestinal cancer. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据