Search

Background: The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is a patient-reported instrument for assessment of nutrition status in patients with cancer. Despite thorough validation of PG-SGA, little has been reported about the way patients perceive, interpret, and respond to PG-SGA. The aim of this study was to investigate how patients interpret the patient-generated part of the PG-SGA, called PG-SGA Short Form. Methods: Purposive sampling was used to identify participants that had experienced weight loss and/or reduced dietary intake and/or had a low body mass index. Data were collected from 23 patients by combining observations of patients filling in the PG-SGA Short Form, think-aloud technique and structured interviews, and analyzed qualitatively using systematic text condensation. Results: Most of the participants managed to complete the PG-SGA Short Form without problems. However, participant-related and questionnaire-related sources of misinterpretation were identified, possibly causing misinterpretations or wrong/missing answers. Participants either read too fast and skipped words, or they struggled to find response options that were suitable for covering their entire situation perfectly. The word “normal” was perceived ambiguous, and the word “only” limited the participants’ possibility to accurately describe their food intake. Long recall periods in the questions and two-pieced response options made it difficult for patients to select only one option. Conclusion: The results of this study provide a unique patient perspective of using the PG-SGA Short Form and valuable input for future use and revisions of the form. The identified sources of misunderstanding could be used to develop a standardized instruction manual for patients and health care personnel using the PG-SGA Short Form. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome characterized by an on-going loss of skeletal muscle mass that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support alone. Cachexia has a high prevalence in cancer and a major impact on patient physical function, morbidity and mortality. Despite the consequences of cachexia, there is no licensed treatment for cachexia and no accepted standard of care. It has been argued that the multifactorial genesis of cachexia lends itself to therapeutic targeting through a multimodal treatment. Following a successful phase II trial, a phase III randomized controlled trial of a multimodal cachexia intervention is underway. Termed the MENAC trial (Multimodal – Exercise, Nutrition and Anti-inflammatory medication for Cachexia), this intervention is based on evidence to date and consists of Non-steroidal Anti inflammatory Drugs (NSAID) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) to reduce inflammation, a physical exercise programme using resistance and aerobic training to increase anabolism, as well as dietary counselling and oral nutritional supplements to promote energy and protein balance. Herein we describe the development of this trial - NCT02330926.

Purpose of review The lack of agreement and knowledge of optimal endpoints in cachexia trials have impeded progress in finding interventions counteracting the devastating effects cancer cachexia has on morbidity and mortality. An endpoint should both be sensitive enough to detect change and specific enough not to be influenced by other conditions or treatments. Recent findings There is a wealth of potential and applied endpoints in trials investigating cachexia. As of today, there is no generally acknowledged consensus, but assessments of key factors such as body composition should continue to be applied. However, the impact and effect size necessary to achieve clinical benefit using these endpoints are not clear. Further, the use of other endpoints assessing physical function, symptom evaluation and quality of life remains to be elucidated. Summary It is essential that endpoints are clinically relevant and further research is therefore needed to develop endpoints that are meaningful for patients with cachexia.