• Journal of Korean Traditional Oncology
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2019

Objectives : We investigated whether a single center nutrition screening tool (Kyunghee Neo Nutrition Risk Screening, KNNRS) can predict survival in patients with metastatic cancer. Methods : We retrospectively reviewed data of inpatients with metastatic cancer from April 2016 to August 2019. Data on demographic and clinical parameters were collected from electronic medical records, and overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Stepwise Cox regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with survival. Patients with a KNNRS score of 0 to 3 were classified as "no-risk", 4 to 10 as "low-risk", and 11 to 20 as "high-risk". Results : Total 105 patients were included in the study. According to nutritional screening at baseline, 25 patients (23.8%, median age 57.0) were classified as ""no risk"" group; 80 patients (76.2%, median age 68.5) as "low risk" group; No patients as "high risk" group. Predictors of survival were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status score of 3 or 4 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21-3.10), hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL (HR = 1.97; 95% CI = 1.25-3.10) and C-reactive protein more than 1.0 mg/dL (HR = 1.95; 95% CI = 1.21-3.13). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed significant differences in the survival between KNNRS groups: ""no risk"" group: 6.1 ± 1.4 months (95% CI = 3.37-8.83); ""low risk"" group: 3.4 ± 0.9 months (95% CI = 1.5-5.37). Conclusions : Nutritional status according to KNNRS wasn't significant predictor of survival for patients with metastatic cancer. Improvement of KNNRS score thresholds is needed.

• Journal of Nutrition and Health
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.189-196
• /
• 2010

Malnutrition has been associated with higher hospital costs, mortality, rates of complications and longer length of hospital stay. Several nutritional screening tools have been developed to identify patients with malnutrition risk. However, many of those require much time and labor to administer and may not be applicable to a Korean population. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop nutritional screening tool for Korean inpatients. Then we compare nutritional screening tools that developed and previously described. Seven hundred sixty-four patients at hospital admission were screened nutritional status and classified as well nourished, malnutrition stage 1 or stage 2 by the KNNRS (Kyunghee Neo Nutrition Risk Screening), PG-SGA (Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment) and NRS-2002 (Nutritional Risk Screening-2002). The KNNRS, PG-SGA and NRS-2002 respectively classified 28.7%, 51.3%, 48.5% of patients as malnourished status. Compared to the PG-SGA, the KNNRS had sensitivity 60.7% (95% CI 54.2-67.0) and specificity 81.2% (95% CI 75.3-85.2). Agreement was fair between KNNRS and PG-SGA (k = 0.34). Compared to the NRS-2002, the KNNRS had sensitivity 57.8% (95% CI 53.4-60.9) and specificity 64.4% (95% CI 60.2-69.8). Agreement was poor between KNNRS and NRS-2002 (k = 0.18). These result should include that the KNNRS and PGSGA have clinical relevance and fair concordance. However the rate of malnourished patients by KNNRS were less than by PG-SGA. For more effectivity of nutritional screening and management, the criteria of KNNRS would be better revised.