TY - JOUR
T1 - Malnutrition risk screening in adult oncology outpatients
T2 - An ASPEN systematic review and clinical recommendations
AU - Trujillo, Elaine B.
AU - Kadakia, Kunal C.
AU - Thomson, Cynthia
AU - Zhang, Fang Fang
AU - Livinski, Alicia
AU - Pollard, Kim
AU - Mattox, Todd
AU - Tucker, Anne
AU - Williams, Valaree
AU - Walsh, Declan
AU - Clinton, Steven
AU - Grossberg, Aaron
AU - Jensen, Gordon
AU - Levin, Rhone
AU - Mills, Jeannine
AU - Singh, Anurag
AU - Smith, Meredith
AU - Stubbins, Renee
AU - Wiley, Kathleen
AU - Sullivan, Kristen
AU - Platek, Mary
AU - Spees, Colleen K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
PY - 2024/11
Y1 - 2024/11
N2 - Background: Malnutrition screening is not widely practiced in outpatient cancer centers. This review aims to determine the validity of malnutrition screening tools and provide recommendations for clinical use. Methods: Studies identified by a systematic review assessed the general validity of screening tools in adult oncology outpatients from five databases through 2022. The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) convened a working group of members from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Academy of Oncology Nurse and Patient Navigators, American Cancer Society, American Society for Clinical Oncology, American Society for Nutrition, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Association of Cancer Care Centers, and Oncology Nursing Society to answer the following questions: (1) should clinicians screen for malnutrition, (2) which malnutrition screening tools are recommended, and (3) what are the clinical applications for malnutrition risk screening in adult oncology outpatients?. Results: Twenty of 738 studies met the criteria and were reviewed. Six screening tools with specific cut-points demonstrated validity and are recommended, including the Mini Nutritional Assessment (≤23.5), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST; MST ≥ 2 and patient-led MST ≥ 2), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST; MUST ≥ 1 and MUST ≥ 2), Nutrition Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002; NRS-2002 ≥ 2 and NRS-2002 ≥ 3), NUTRISCORE ≥ 5, and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form (PG-SGA SF; PG-SGA SF ≥ 7 and PG-SGA SF ≥ 8). Conclusion: Six screening tools are valid for malnutrition risk identification in oncology ambulatory settings and recommended before treatment initiation and regularly thereafter, depending on treatment course. Research is needed to understand to what extent early diagnosis and management of malnutrition improves the clinical care of oncology patients.
AB - Background: Malnutrition screening is not widely practiced in outpatient cancer centers. This review aims to determine the validity of malnutrition screening tools and provide recommendations for clinical use. Methods: Studies identified by a systematic review assessed the general validity of screening tools in adult oncology outpatients from five databases through 2022. The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) convened a working group of members from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Academy of Oncology Nurse and Patient Navigators, American Cancer Society, American Society for Clinical Oncology, American Society for Nutrition, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Association of Cancer Care Centers, and Oncology Nursing Society to answer the following questions: (1) should clinicians screen for malnutrition, (2) which malnutrition screening tools are recommended, and (3) what are the clinical applications for malnutrition risk screening in adult oncology outpatients?. Results: Twenty of 738 studies met the criteria and were reviewed. Six screening tools with specific cut-points demonstrated validity and are recommended, including the Mini Nutritional Assessment (≤23.5), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST; MST ≥ 2 and patient-led MST ≥ 2), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST; MUST ≥ 1 and MUST ≥ 2), Nutrition Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002; NRS-2002 ≥ 2 and NRS-2002 ≥ 3), NUTRISCORE ≥ 5, and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form (PG-SGA SF; PG-SGA SF ≥ 7 and PG-SGA SF ≥ 8). Conclusion: Six screening tools are valid for malnutrition risk identification in oncology ambulatory settings and recommended before treatment initiation and regularly thereafter, depending on treatment course. Research is needed to understand to what extent early diagnosis and management of malnutrition improves the clinical care of oncology patients.
KW - nutrition
KW - nutrition assessment
KW - oncology
KW - research and diseases
KW - weight loss
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85206665854&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85206665854&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jpen.2688
DO - 10.1002/jpen.2688
M3 - Article
C2 - 39412097
AN - SCOPUS:85206665854
SN - 0148-6071
VL - 48
SP - 874
EP - 894
JO - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
JF - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
IS - 8
ER -