Search

Objective: The primary aim of the study was to compare two nutritional status evaluation tools: the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002). Using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the second aim was to provide constructive advice regarding the quality of life of patients with malignancy., Methods: This study enrolled 312 oncology patients and assessed their nutritional status and quality of life using the PG-SGA, NRS-2002, and EORTC QLQ-C30., Results: The data indicate that 6% of the cancer patients were well nourished. The SGA-A had a higher sensitivity (93.73%) but a poorer specificity (2.30%) than the NRS-2002 (69.30% and 25.00%, respectively) after comparison with albumin. There was a low negative correlation and a high similarity between the PG-SGA and NRS-2002 for evaluating nutritional status, and there was a significant difference in the median PG-SGA scores for each of the SGA classifications (P < 0.001). The SGA-C group showed the highest PG-SGA scores and lowest body mass index. The majority of the target population received 2 points for each item in our 11-item questionnaire from the EORTC QLQ-C30., Conclusion: The data indicate that the PG-SGA is more useful and suitable for evaluating nutritional status than the NRS-2002. Additionally, early nutrition monitoring can prevent malnutrition and improve the quality of life of cancer patients., (Copyright © 2018 The Editorial Board of Biomedical and Environmental Sciences. Published by China CDC. All rights reserved.)