This study evaluates the concurrent validity of five malnutrition screening tools to identify older hospitalized patients against the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) diagnostic criteria as limited evidence is available. The screening tools Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), Mini Nutritional Assessment—Short Form (MNA-SF), and the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment—Short Form (PG-SGA-SF) with cut-offs for both malnutrition (conservative) and moderate malnutrition or risk of malnutrition (liberal) were used. The concurrent validity was determined by the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and the level of agreement by Cohen’s kappa. In total, 356 patients were included in the analyses (median age 70 y (IQR 63–77); 54% male). The prevalence of malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria without prior screening was 42%. The conservative cut-offs showed a low-to-moderate sensitivity (32–68%) and moderate-to-high specificity (61–98%). The PPV and NPV ranged from 59 to 94% and 67–86%, respectively. The Cohen’s kappa showed poor agreement (k = 0.21–0.59). The liberal cut-offs displayed a moderate-to-high sensitivity (66–89%) and a low-to-high specificity (46–95%). The agreement was fair to good (k = 0.33–0.75). The currently used screening tools vary in their capacity to identify hospitalized older patients with malnutrition. The screening process in the GLIM framework requires further consideration.
Introduction: This study evaluates the course of physical fitness and nutritional status during curative therapy for esophageal cancer, after implementation of a prehabilitation program. Additionally, the impact of baseline physical fitness level and severe postoperative complications on the course of individual patients were explored. Materials and methods: This multicenter, observational cohort study included patients with esophageal cancer following curative treatment. Prehabilitation, consisting of supervised exercise training and nutritional counseling was offered as standard care to patients after neoadjuvant therapy, prior to surgery. Primary outcome measures included change of exercise capacity, hand grip strength, self-reported physical functioning, Body Mass Index, and malnutrition risk from diagnosis to 2–6 months postoperatively. Analyses over time were performed using linear mixed models, and linear mixed regression models to investigate the impact of baseline level and severe postoperative complications. Results: Hundred sixty-eight patients were included (mean age 65.9 ± 8.6 years; 78.0 % male). All parameters (except for malnutrition risk) showed a decline during neoadjuvant therapy (p < .05), an improvement during prehabilitation (p < .005) and a decline postoperatively (p < .001), with a high heterogeneity between patients. Change in the outcomes from baseline to postoperatively was not different for patients with or without a severe complication. Better baseline physical fitness and nutritional status were significantly associated with a greater decline postoperatively (p < .001). Conclusion: This study demonstrates a notable decline during neoadjuvant therapy, that fully recovers during prehabilitation, and a subsequent long lasting decline postoperatively. The heterogeneity in the course of physical fitness and nutritional status underlines the importance of individualized monitoring.
