Loading…

A comparison of the MNA-SF, MUST, and NRS-2002 nutritional tools in predicting treatment incompletion of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer

Background Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) treatment incompletion is a known negative prognosticator for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Malnutrition is a common phenomenon which leads to treatment interruption in patients with HNC. We aimed to compare the performance of three nutritio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Supportive care in cancer 2021-09, Vol.29 (9), p.5455-5462
Main Authors: Hsueh, Shun-Wen, Lai, Cheng-Chou, Hung, Chia-Yen, Lin, Yu-Ching, Lu, Chang-Hsien, Yeh, Kun-Yun, Tsang, Ngan-Ming, Hung, Yu-Shin, Chang, Pei-Hung, Chou, Wen-Chi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) treatment incompletion is a known negative prognosticator for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Malnutrition is a common phenomenon which leads to treatment interruption in patients with HNC. We aimed to compare the performance of three nutritional tools in predicting treatment incompletion in patients with HNC undergoing definitive CCRT. Material and methods Three nutritional assessment tools, Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF), Malnutritional Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), were prospectively assessed prior to CCRT for HNC patients. Patients were stratified into either normal nutrition or malnourished groups using different nutrition tools. Treatment incompletion and treatment-related toxicities associated with CCRT were recorded. Results A total of 461 patients were included in the study; malnourished rates ranged from 31.0 to 51.0%. The CCRT incompletion rates were 4.9–6.3% and 14.5–18.2% for normal nutrition patients and malnourished patients, respectively. The tools had significant correlations with each other (Pearson correlation 0.801–0.837, p
ISSN:0941-4355
1433-7339
DOI:10.1007/s00520-021-06140-w