The performance of three nutritional tools varied in colorectal cancer patients: a retrospective analysis

Nutritional screening tools should be sensitive, simple, and easy to use. Differing opinions among clinicians concern the simplicity of the three tools-the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). For each tool, we estimated prediction of overall survival (OS) in tumor staging, sensitivity, and specificity. The NRS-2002 is favored by clinicians because it is simple to use. We compared its sensitivity and specificity with the GLIM and PG-SGA.This is an analysis of data from 1,358 adult colorectal cancer patients recruited in a multicenter from July 2013 to July 2018.In Kaplan-Meier models, each tool was found to be significantly predictive of OS: NRS-2002 (1.28), GLIM (1.49), and PG-SGA (1.42). Use of any tool improved prediction of survival at tumor staging. NRS-2002 has superior specificity (0.90) to diagnose patients without nutritional deficits (GLIM = 0.62 and PG-SGA = 0.82).This study provides evidence for the superiority of NRS-2002 to accurately identify colorectal cancer patients without nutritional limitations. Compared with the complexity of the other tools, NRS-2002 is the simplest tool to use in routine nutritional screening in busy clinical practice.