4.2 Article

Handgrip Strength Is Associated With Treatment Modifications During Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Patients With Esophageal Cancer

期刊

NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 652-657

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0884533617700862

关键词

esophageal cancer; nutrition status; malnutrition; chemoradiotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: It has been shown that early nutrition intervention improves nutrition status (NS) and treatment tolerance in patients with esophageal cancer. However, it remains unknown whether pretreatment parameters of NS are associated with treatment modifications (TMs) during neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CR) in patients who are intensively nutritionally supervised during treatment. Methods:All outpatients with esophageal cancer who were scheduled for CR in the VU medical center from 2006-2015 were included. NS was assessed by body mass index (BMI), weight loss in the past 6 months (WL), fat mass index (FMI) and fat-free mass index (FFMI), handgrip strength (HGS), and energy/protein intake. Logistic regression analyses, adjusted for age, sex, previous tumor, tumor stage, and physical status, were applied. TMs were defined as delay, dose reduction or discontinuation of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, hospitalization, or mortality (yes/no). Results: In total, 162 patients were included (73% male; mean age 65 +/- 9 years). Mean BMI was 25.1 +/- 4.5 kg/m(2), and WL was 4.8 +/- 5.1 kg. HGS and FFMI were below the 10th percentile of reference values in 21 and 37 patients, respectively. Thirty-five (22%) patients experienced at least 1 TM during CR; unplanned hospitalization (n = 18, 11%) was the most prevalent. After adjustments for confounders, only HGS was statistically significantly associated with TMs (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.00). Conclusion: In this group of intensively supervised patients with esophageal cancer, pretreatment parameters of NS had little influence on TMs during CR. Only a lower HGS was associated with TMs.

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

4.2
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