Accuracy and Performances of the SPENT Nutrition Screening Tool Compared to the Nutrition Triage in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To assess the accuracy and performance of the SPENT nutrition screening tool (SPENT) compared to the Nutrition Triage (NT2013) in assessing the nutritional status of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: A diagnostic test study cross-sectionally collected the data at Maharaj Nakorn Chiangmai Hospital from October 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024. A sample of 164 patients were screened and evaluated for nutritional status using both the SPENT tool (4 items) and the NT2013 tools (8 items), which serves as the reference standard, within 48 hours of hospitalization. The study calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, positive likelihood ratio (LHR+), negative likelihood ratio (LHR-), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: The prevalence of malnutrition was 55.5%. The SPENT screening tool compared to NT2013 showed a sensitivity of 71.4%, specificity of 75.3%, PPV of 78.3%, NPV of 67.9%, accuracy of 73.2%, LHR+ of 2.90, LHR- of 0.38, and an area under the ROC curve of 73.4%. The comparison of assessment from the SPENT with adjustment of the criteria for low body mass index (BMI) with the NT2013 assessment based on the nutritional therapy criteria showed the sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 64.3%, PPV of 29.2%, NPV of 100%, accuracy of 68.9%, LHR+ of 2.80, LHR- of 0.00, and the area under the ROC curve of 82.2%. Conclusion: The SPENT nutrition screening tool demonstrates moderate accuracy and performance compared to the NT2013 assessment tool, with increased sensitivity when adjusting the BMI criteria in the SPENT tool and using the NT2013 based on nutritional therapy criteria. Therefore, it is recommended that medical personnel apply the SPENT for malnutrition screening to plan nutritional therapy for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy due to its ease of use.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ผลการวิจัยและความคิดเห็นที่ปรากฏในบทความถือเป็นความคิดเห็นและอยู่ในความรับผิดชอบของผู้นิพนธ์ มิใช่ความเห็นหรือความรับผิดชอบของกองบรรณาธิการ หรือคณะเภสัชศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยสงขลานครินทร์ ทั้งนี้ไม่รวมความผิดพลาดอันเกิดจากการพิมพ์ บทความที่ได้รับการเผยแพร่โดยวารสารเภสัชกรรมไทยถือเป็นสิทธิ์ของวารสารฯ
References
Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Piñeros M, et al. Global cancer observatory: Cancer today [online]. 2020 [cited Feb 2, 2021]. Available from: gco.iarc.fr/today.
Attasara P, Sriplung H. Cancer incidence in Thailand. In: Khuhaprema T, Attasara P, Sriplung H, Wiangnon S, Sangrajrang S, editors. Cancer in Thailand, Vol VII, 2007-2009. Bangkok: National Cancer Institute; 2013. p. 4-11.
Rosenberg SA. Principles of surgical oncology. In: DeVita VT Jr, Lawrence, TS, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer: Principles & practice of oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. P.284-306.
Fu ZZ, Li K, Peng Y, Zheng Y, Cao LY, Zhang YJ, Sun YM. Efficacy and toxicity of different concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced cervical cancer: A network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96: e5853.
Saunders J, Smith T. Malnutrition: causes and consequences. Clin Med (Lond). 2010 ;10: 624-7.
Cederholm T, Barazzoni R, Austin P, et al. ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition. Clin Nutr 2017; 36: 49-64.
Soonthongsiri P. Nutrition status of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, Udonthani Regional Cancer Center. Khon Kaen: Khon Kaen University; 2010.
Alvarez-Hernandez J, Planas Vila M, Leon-Sanz M, Garcia de Lorenzo A, Celaya-Perez S, Garcia-Lorda P, et al. Prevalence and costs of malnutrition in hospitalized patients; the PREDyCES Study. Nutr Hosp. 2012; 27: 1049-59.
Arends J, Bodoky G, Bozzetti F, Fearon K, Muscaritoli M, Selga G, et al., DGEM (German Society for Nutritional Medicine), ESPEN (European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition). ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: non-surgical oncology. Clin Nutr 2009; 28: 445e54.
Van Cutsem E, Arends J. The causes and consequences of cancer-associated malnutrition. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2005; 9: S51-63.
Muscaritoli M, Arends J, Bachmann P, et al. ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical Nutrition in cancer. Clin Nutr. 2021; 40: 2898-913.
Kondrup J, Allison SP, Elia M, Vellas B, Plauth M. ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening 2002. Clin Nutr 2003 ;22: 415-21.
Mueller C, Compher C, Ellen DM. American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Board of Directors. ASPEN clinical guidelines: Nutrition screening, assessment, and intervention in adults. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011; 35: 16-24.
Detsky AS, et al. What is subjective global assessment of nutrition status? J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1987; 11: 8-14.
White JV, Guenter P, Jensen G, Malone A, Schofield M; Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Malnutrition Work Group; A.S.P.E.N. Malnutrition Task Force; A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors. Consensus statement of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition: characteristics recommended for the identification and documentation of adult malnutrition (undernutrition). J Acad Nutr Diet 2012; 112: 730-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.03.012. Erratum in: J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012; 112:1899. Erratum in: J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017; 117: 480.
Pibul K, Techapongsatorn S, Thiengthiantham R, Manomaipiboon A, Trakulhoon V. Nutritional assessment for surgical patients by Bhumibol Nutrition Triage (BNT) and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Thai Journal of Surgery 2011; 32: 45-8.
Warodomwichit D, Yamwong P, Hongsprabhas P, Chittawattanarat, K, Angkatavanich J, Pisprasert V, et al. Clinical practice recommendation for parenteral nutrition management in adult hospitalized patients in 2019. Thai Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 2019; 29: 1–70.
Akoglu H. User's guide to sample size estimation in diagnostic accuracy studies. Turk J Emerg Med 2022; 22: 177-85. doi: 10.4103/2452-2473.357348.
National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 [online]. 2017 [cited Oct 1, 2023]. Available from: ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5x11.pdf
Shaw C, Fleuret C, Pickard JM, Mohammed K, Black G, Wedlake L. Comparison of a novel, simple nutrition screening tool for adult oncology inpatients and the malnutrition screening tool (MST) against the patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA). Support Care Cancer 2015; 23:47-54. doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2319-8.
Amaral TF, Antunes A, Cabral S, Alves P, Kent-Smith L. An evaluation of three nutritional screening tools in a Portuguese oncology centre. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2008; 21: 575-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 277X.2008.00917
Nitichai N, Angkatavanich J, Somlaw N, Voravud N, Lertbutsayanukul C. Validation of the scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) in Thai setting and association with nutritional parameters in cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2019; 20: 45-50.
Arends J. Malnutrition in cancer patients: Causes, consequences and treatment options. Eur J Surg Oncol 2024; 50: 107074.
Reber E, Schönenberger KA, Vasiloglou MF, Stanga Z. Nutritional risk screening in cancer patients: The first step toward better clinical outcome. Front Nutr 2021; 8: 603936. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.603936.
Bauer J, Capra S, Ferguson M. Use of the scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) as a nutrition assessment tool in patients with cancer. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002; 56: 779-85.
Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M, Streamer DL. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 96-106. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002.
