Abstract
Background: Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are correlated with patient outcomes in cancer. This study aimed to determine associations between the CRP level and the dietary intake, symptoms, and eating-related distress (ERD). Methods: We conducted a multicenter survey among advanced cancer patients. Information on patient characteristics was retrieved from the electronic medical records. Data on patient outcomes were obtained through the questionnaire. Patients were categorized into the low CRP group (<5 mg/dL) and the high CRP group (≥5 mg/dL). Comparisons were calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test or chi-squared test. To assess associations between CRP levels and ERD, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: A total of 191 patients were enrolled and divided into the low CRP group (n = 117) and the high CRP group (n = 74). The high CRP group had a more reduced dietary intake (p = 0.002) and more severe appetite loss (p = 0.008). The total scores of the ERD questionnaire (both the long and short versions) were significantly higher in the high CRP group (p = 0.040 and 0.029). The high CRP group also had significantly higher risks for ERD, as assessed using the long and short versions of the questionnaire (odds ratio [OR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–4.11; OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.05–4.05). Conclusions: High CRP levels were significantly associated with reduced dietary intake, appetite loss, and ERD. A serum CRP value of 5 mg/dL may be a useful indicator for initiating cancer cachexia care.
Keywords: cancer, cachexia, systemic inflammation, C-reactive protein, symptom, distress, quality of life
1. Introduction
Previous research suggests that tumor-immune system crosstalk generates pro-inflammatory cytokines, leading to systemic inflammation, and systemic inflammation is associated with the mechanisms responsible for cachexia in various advanced cancers [1,2,3,4,5,6]. A recent review also reported that inflammatory, metabolic, and neuro-modulatory drivers may initiate processes that ultimately converge on advanced cachexia [7]. Thus, multiple events in cancer cachexia and a variety of symptoms in advanced cancer appear to be caused by alterations in the central nervous system (CNS), induced by pro-inflammatory cytokines and systemic inflammation [8,9,10].
Recently published evidence-based clinical guidelines insist on the importance of multimodal care for people affected by cancer cachexia [11,12,13,14]. However, no standard care has been established to manage cancer cachexia or address problems caused by cancer cachexia, despite its high prevalence and negative impacts on the quality of life (QOL) in this population [11,12,13,14]. Therefore, we performed a literature review and identified nine components of multimodal care for cachectic patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers: physical symptom management, psychological symptom management, providing evidence-based nutritional care and exercise, improving adherence to multimodal treatments, assisting patients and family caregivers with psychological adjustment, helping patients and family caregivers cope, providing evidence-based information about cancer cachexia to patients and family caregivers, educating patients and family caregivers about cancer cachexia, and initiating end-of-life discussions with patients and family caregivers [9,15]. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on the appropriate timing of multimodal care initiation for patients and family caregivers [9,15]. Hence, we should know the best timing perceived by patients to initiate multimodal interventions provided by a multidisciplinary team for patients with cancer cachexia.
Notably, the serum level of C-reactive protein (CRP) has served as an indicator of systemic inflammation, which has been correlated with physical and psychological symptoms, physical function, and survival in patients with advanced cancer [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. These findings imply that CRP levels are useful in identifying patients who need multimodal care for cancer cachexia. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the relationships between serum CRP levels, dietary intake, nutrition impact symptoms (NISs), and eating-related distress (ERD), which are commonly regarded as cachexia-related issues, among patients with advanced cancer, in order to explore CRP levels as a guide to starting multimodal care among cachectic patients with advanced cancer.
2. Participants and Methods
2.1. Sites and Participants
In this study, a multicenter survey was implemented using a self-reported questionnaire to determine when it was appropriate to initiate multimodal interventions provided by a multidisciplinary team for patients with advanced cancer. The survey was conducted in hospital palliative care teams and palliative care units at six designated cancer hospitals in Japan between November 2023 and June 2024.
All patients meeting the eligibility criteria were enrolled. The following inclusion criteria were established: (1) patients who were newly referred to palliative care, (2) patients who were aged ≥ 18 years, (3) patients who were diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic cancer and hematologic neoplasms, (4) patients who were aware of the diagnosis of cancer, and (5) patients who could complete a self-administered questionnaire. Patients who were prohibited by their attending physicians from eating by mouth for medical reasons and patients who were found to be in serious psychological distress during an interview with a palliative care physician were excluded. Patients who refused to participate in the study were also excluded.
2.2. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
This study was performed following the ethical standards outlined in the Helsinki Declaration and the ethical guidelines for medical and health research involving human subjects presented by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare in Japan [26]. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Osaka University Hospital for all participating institutes (approval number 23226). Individual informed consent from participants is not required by Japanese law in a non-invasive observational trial, and thus the requirement for written or oral informed consent was waived based on national ethical guidelines. Once participants completed and returned the questionnaire, they were considered to have consented to participate in this study. Patients who disliked participating in this study were requested to return the questionnaire with ‘no participation’ indicated.
2.3. Measurements
2.3.1. Patient Characteristics and Anthropometric Measurements
Data on patient characteristics, including Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status [27], fluid retention status that can affect body weight (i.e., edema, pleural effusion, and ascites), and cancer treatment status (i.e., pre-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, and never treated/previous treatment), were collected. Patients who did not undergo cancer treatments owing to their poor condition and patients who ceased anticancer treatment were categorized as never treated/previous treatment. The most recent blood test results within one week prior to enrollment were used.
Patient anthropometric measurements (i.e., height [m], current body weight [kg], and previous body weight [kg]) were recorded. The body mass index (BMI) was calculated by dividing the body weight by the height squared. The weight loss rate (WLR) over 6 months was calculated as follows: (previous body weight − current body weight)/previous body weight × 100. Patients with a 6-month WLR > 5% or BMI < 20 kg/m2 + 6-month WLR > 2% were diagnosed with cachexia, according to the international diagnostic criteria on cancer cachexia [2].
2.3.2. Dietary Intake
We evaluated the association of CRP levels with patients’ dietary intake using the Ingesta-Verbal/Visual Analog Scale (IVVAS), a 10-point scale for assessing dietary intake in patients with cancer. The participants estimated how they were eating on a scale from 0 to 10 (0 means “nothing at all” and 10 means “as usual”, with higher scores indicating better dietary intake). In medical oncology, a dietary intake score of 7 or less suggests that patients have a nutritional risk of weight loss [28,29].
2.3.3. Nutrition Impact Symptoms
We proposed the following new definition: an NIS is a symptom that decreases a patient’s desire and ability to eat, interferes with necessary nutritional intake, and increases the risk of malnutrition, lean body mass loss, and decreased quality of life [30]. We evaluated the associations of CRP levels with 19 NISs, assessed using a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10 (0: none, 1 to 3: mild, 4 to 6: moderate, 7 to 9: severe, 10: very severe), as one of the patient-centered outcomes recommended by a systematic review and clinical recommendations edited by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition [31]. We also examined the relationships between CRP levels and the symptom scales included in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) [32].
2.3.4. Eating-Related Distress
We determined the association of CRP levels with ERD, measured using the questionnaire for eating-related distress among patients with advanced cancer (QERD-P). The QERD-P long version contains 3 entries in each of the 7 domains, for a total of 21 entries, and each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale. High scores indicate worse distress. The QERD-P short version consists of 7 entries, each of which contains a representative entry selected from each of the 7 domains [33].
2.3.5. Quality of Life
Patients’ QOL was evaluated using the global health status of the EORTC QLQ-C30 [32].
2.4. Statistical Analysis
2.4.1. Relationships Between Serum C-Reactive Protein Levels, Dietary Intake, Nutrition Impact Symptoms, Eating-Related Distress, and Quality of Life
Patients were categorized into 2 groups using a cutoff value for the CRP levels (low CRP group [<5 mg/dL] and high CRP group [≥5 mg/dL]), following the practical guidance for the assessment of inflammation, which suggests that CRP levels greater than 5 mg/dL indicate severe inflammation [34]. Patient characteristics and anthropometric measurement data were presented as proportions (%) for categorical variables or medians (interquartile range [IQR]) for continuous variables, as appropriate. Comparisons between groups were calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test or chi-squared test, as appropriate.
2.4.2. Association of Serum C-Reactive Protein Levels with Eating-Related Distress
To assess the association between CRP levels and the ERD experienced by patients, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. As a dependent variable, the ERD scores were divided into two categories based on the median. A multivariate model was adjusted for the CRP levels (<5 and ≥5 mg/dL), age in years, sex (female and male), primary site of cancer (upper and lower gastrointestinal tracts + liver, biliary system, and pancreas [gastrointestinal], lung, and others), treatment status (pre-chemotherapy + never treated/previous treatment [non-chemotherapy] and chemotherapy), and ECOG performance status (PS) (0–1, 2, and 3–4).
The results were considered significant with a p-value < 0.05. All analyses were performed using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
3. Results
A total of 201 patients were eligible for inclusion in this study. Among them, 9 declined consent, and 1 was excluded due to a missing value regarding the serum CRP level. Thus, a total of 191 patients were enrolled in this study (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Flow diagram of patient participation in the study.
Patient characteristics according to serum CRP levels are summarized in Table 1. Among all patients, the median age was 67.0 years old. There were slightly more females (52.1%) than males (47.9%). The top three primary cancer sites were the lung (20.8%), liver, biliary system, and pancreas (17.2%); and upper and lower gastrointestinal tracts (12.5%). Moreover, 70.8% of the patients received anticancer treatment. The proportions of ECOG performance status 0–1, 2, 3, and 4 were 20.3%, 34.9%, 39.1%, and 5.7%, respectively. Furthermore, 64.1% of the patients had cancer cachexia or refractory cachexia.
Table 1.
Patient characteristics according to serum CRP levels.
| CRP < 5 | CRP ≥ 5 | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 117) | (n = 75) | ||
| Age in years | 68.0 (56.0, 76.0) | 66.0 (51.0, 74.0) | 0.102 |
| Sex | 0.365 | ||
| Female | 64 (54.7%) | 36 (48.0%) | |
| Male | 53 (45.3%) | 39 (52.0%) | |
| Primary cancer site, n (%) | 0.117 | ||
| Upper and lower gastrointestinal tracts | 12 (10.3%) | 12 (16.0%) | |
| Liver, biliary system, and pancreas | 20 (17.1%) | 13 (17.3%) | |
| Lung | 27 (23.1%) | 13 (17.3%) | |
| Breast | 9 (7.7%) | 3 (4.0%) | |
| Gynecological | 8 (6.8%) | 15 (20.0%) | |
| Urological | 9 (7.7%) | 5 (6.7%) | |
| Head and neck | 6 (5.1%) | 4 (5.3%) | |
| Hematologic malignancy | 11 (9.4%) | 2 (2.7%) | |
| Others | 15 (12.8%) | 8 (10.7%) | |
| Treatment status | 0.072 | ||
| Pre-chemotherapy | 17 (14.5%) | 7 (9.3%) | |
| Chemotherapy | 86 (73.5%) | 50 (66.7%) | |
| Never treated/previous treatment | 14 (12.0%) | 18 (24.0%) | |
| ECOG PS, n (%) | 0.045 | ||
| 0 | 2 (1.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 1 | 28 (23.9%) | 9 (12.0%) | |
| 2 | 44 (37.6%) | 23 (30.7%) | |
| 3 | 37 (31.6%) | 38 (50.7%) | |
| 4 | 6 (5.1%) | 5 (6.7%) | |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 21.3 (18.9, 24.2) | 20.2 (18.7, 23.4) | 0.464 |
| Weight loss rate over 6 months (%) | 5.8 (0.3, 9.9) | 7.2 (3.1, 13.8) | 0.043 |
| Cachexia/refractory cachexia, yes | 71 (60.7%) | 52 (69.3%) | 0.237 |
| Pleural effusion, ascites, or edema affecting weight, yes | 17 (14.5%) | 25 (33.3%) | 0.003 |
| Albumin (g/dL) | 3.5 (3.1, 3.8) | 2.8 (2.4, 3.2) | <0.001 |
| CRP (mg/dL) | 0.7 (0.2, 2.1) | 9.2 (7.0, 12.7) | <0.001 |
Values represent n (%) or median (interquartile range). CRP, C-reactive protein; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.
All patients were divided into the low CRP (n = 117) and high CRP (n = 74) groups. Significant differences were observed in ECOG PS (p = 0.045), weight loss rates (p = 0.043), fluid retention (p = 0.003), and serum albumin and CRP levels (both p < 0.001) between the two groups. Patients with high CRP levels had significantly more impaired performance status, higher weight loss rates, more severe fluid retention, and lower albumin levels than those with low CRP levels (Table 1).
Relationships between the serum CRP levels and the dietary intake and NISs are shown in Table 2. The median dietary intake score of all patients assessed using the IVVAS was 5.0, and the median scores of the low CRP and high CRP groups were 5.0 and 4.0, respectively. The dietary intake of patients with high CRP levels was significantly lower than that of patients with low CRP levels (p = 0.002). Proportions of patients with a dietary intake score of 7 or less were 79.5% and 93.3% in the low CRP and high CRP groups, respectively. A significant difference was observed between the groups (p = 0.009). The high CRP group exhibited similar or stronger symptoms than the low CRP group, except for pain other than oral pain and shortness of breath. Significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of vomiting and drowsiness (p = 0.012 and 0.041, respectively). Furthermore, the high CRP group had a significantly higher score of appetite loss, as included in the symptom scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30, than the low CRP group (the medians [IQR], 66.7 [33.3–100.0] and 66.7 [33.3–100.0]; p = 0.008) (Table 3). The breakdowns of score of appetite loss (0, 33.3, 66.7, 100) were 16 (15.5%), 28 (27.2%), 31 (30.1%), 28 (27.2%) in the low CRP group and 4 (5.6%), 19 (26.8%), 13 (18.3%), 35 (49.3%) in the high CRP group, respectively.
Table 2.
Relationships between serum CRP levels, dietary intake, and nutrition impact symptoms.
| CRP < 5 | CRP ≥ 5 | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dietary intake | |||
| Dietary intake score | 5.0 (3.0, 7.0) | 4.0 (2.0, 5.0) | 0.002 |
| Number of patients with a dietary intake score of 7 or less | 93 (79.5%) | 70 (93.3%) | 0.009 |
| Symptoms that interfere with patients’ ability to ingest or digest nutrients | |||
| Oral pain | 0.0 (0.0, 1.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 1.0) | 0.751 |
| Appetite loss | 5.0 (1.0, 7.0) | 5.0 (3.0, 7.0) | 0.304 |
| Early satiety | 5.0 (2.0, 7.5) | 5.0 (2.0, 8.0) | 0.956 |
| Nausea | 1.0 (0.0, 3.0) | 1.0 (0.0, 3.0) | 0.661 |
| Vomiting | 0.0 (0.0, 1.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 2.0) | 0.012 |
| Constipation | 3.0 (0.0, 6.0) | 5.0 (0.0, 7.0) | 0.458 |
| Diarrhea | 0.0 (0.0, 3.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 5.0) | 0.363 |
| Abnormal taste | 0.0 (0.0, 3.0) | 1.0 (0.0, 7.0) | 0.219 |
| Abnormal smell | 0.0 (0.0, 2.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 1.0) | 0.534 |
| Dry mouth | 2.0 (0.0, 4.0) | 2.0 (0.0, 6.0) | 0.108 |
| Dental problems | 0.0 (0.0, 2.5) | 0.0 (0.0, 2.0) | 0.489 |
| Difficulty swallowing | 0.0 (0.0, 2.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 2.0) | 0.625 |
| Food bolus obstruction | 0.0 (0.0, 3.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 3.0) | 0.533 |
| Symptoms that compromise patients’ desire to eat and take nutrients | |||
| Fatigue | 3.0 (2.0, 6.0) | 4.0 (2.0, 5.0) | 0.709 |
| Drowsiness | 3.0 (1.0, 6.0) | 5.0 (2.0, 6.0) | 0.041 |
| Anxiety | 2.5 (1.0, 5.0) | 3.0 (0.0, 5.0) | 0.823 |
| Feeling sad | 3.0 (1.0, 5.0) | 3.0 (1.0, 5.0) | 0.982 |
| Symptoms that indirectly compromise patients’ food and nutrient intake | |||
| Pain other than oral pain | 3.5 (0.0, 7.0) | 3.0 (0.0, 7.0) | 0.738 |
| Shortness of breath | 2.0 (0.0, 5.0) | 1.0 (0.0, 3.0) | 0.494 |
| Number of nutrition impact symptoms with a score of 4 or more | 6.0 (2.0, 8.0) | 6.0 (4.0, 9.0) | 0.212 |
Values represent n (%) or median (interquartile range). Serum CRP levels were measured in mg/dL. Dietary intake was assessed using the IVVAS (10-point scale). High scores indicate better dietary intake. Symptoms were rated between 0 and 10. High scores indicate worse symptoms. CRP, C-reactive protein; IVVAS, Ingesta-Verbal/Visual Analog Scale.
Table 3.
Relationships between serum CRP levels and QOL assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30.
| CRP < 5 | CRP ≥ 5 | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functional scales | |||
| Physical functioning | 53.3 (33.3, 73.3) | 46.7 (26.7, 73.3) | 0.122 |
| Role functioning | 33.3 (0.0, 66.7) | 33.3 (0.0, 66.7) | 0.604 |
| Emotional functioning | 66.7 (50.0, 83.3) | 66.7 (50.0, 83.3) | 0.221 |
| Cognitive functioning | 66.7 (33.3, 83.3) | 66.7 (50.0, 66.7) | 0.957 |
| Social functioning | 50.0 (33.3, 83.3) | 50.0 (33.3, 83.3) | 0.728 |
| Symptom scales | |||
| Fatigue | 66.7 (44.4, 88.9) | 77.8 (55.6, 88.9) | 0.067 |
| Nausea and vomiting | 16.7 (0.0, 33.3) | 16.7 (0.0, 50.0) | 0.419 |
| Pain | 66.7 (33.3, 100.0) | 83.3 (50.0, 100.0) | 0.222 |
| Dyspnea | 33.3 (33.3, 66.7) | 33.3 (0.0, 100.0) | 0.869 |
| Sleep disturbance | 66.7 (33.3, 100.0) | 66.7 (33.3, 100.0) | 0.612 |
| Appetite loss | 66.7 (33.3, 100.0) | 66.7 (33.3, 100.0) | 0.008 |
| Constipation | 33.3 (0.0, 66.7) | 33.3 (33.3, 66.7) | 0.158 |
| Diarrhea | 0.0 (0.0, 33.3) | 33.3 (0.0, 66.7) | 0.181 |
| Global health status | 33.3 (16.7, 50.0) | 16.7 (16.7, 41.7) | 0.096 |
| Financial difficulties | 33.3 (0.0, 66.7) | 33.3 (0.0, 66.7) | 0.560 |
Values represent median (interquartile range). Serum CRP levels were measured in mg/dL. QOL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30. High scores indicate higher QOL in functional scales and global health status or worse symptoms and difficulties in symptom scales and financial difficulties. CRP, C-reactive protein; EORTC QLQ-C30, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire; QOL, quality of life.
Relationships between the serum CRP levels and ERD are summarized in Table 4. The high CRP group had similar or higher ERD than the low CRP group in all entries. In particular, for “it is distressing that I cannot enjoy eating”, “I am concerned that I will become weaker if I cannot eat”, “I have arguments with my family about food”, and “I am troubled that my family seems to try to force me to eat”, the scores for the high CRP group were significantly higher than those for the low CRP group (p = 0.048, 0.022, 0.014, and 0.017, respectively). Both total scores of the QERD-P long version and short version were significantly higher in the high CRP group than in the low CRP group (p = 0.040 and 0.029, respectively). The high CRP group had significantly higher ERD than the low CRP group.
Table 4.
Relationships between serum CRP levels and eating-related distress.
| CRP < 5 | CRP ≥ 5 | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1: Reduced dietary intake | |||
| It is distressing that I cannot eat even though I want to eat more. | 5.0 (3.0, 6.0) | 5.0 (3.0, 6.0) | 0.308 |
| It is distressing that I cannot enjoy eating. | 5.0 (3.0, 6.0) | 6.0 (4.0, 7.0) | 0.048 |
| It is distressing that I get full quickly and cannot eat enough. | 4.0 (3.0, 6.0) | 5.0 (3.0, 6.0) | 0.245 |
| Factor 2: Reasons why I cannot eat | |||
| I do not understand the reason why I cannot eat. | 3.0 (1.0, 5.0) | 3.0 (2.0, 5.0) | 0.126 |
| I do not understand the reason why I do not have an appetite. | 3.0 (1.0, 4.0) | 3.0 (2.0, 5.0) | 0.100 |
| I do not understand the reason why I cannot eat enough. | 3.0 (1.0, 5.0) | 3.0 (2.0, 5.0) | 0.121 |
| Factor 3: Becoming weaker | |||
| I am concerned that I will become weaker if I cannot eat. | 5.0 (3.0, 6.0) | 6.0 (5.0, 7.0) | 0.022 |
| I am concerned that I will lose muscle strength if I cannot eat. | 5.0 (4.0, 6.0) | 6.0 (5.0, 7.0) | 0.090 |
| I am concerned that I will lose weight if I cannot eat. | 5.0 (3.0, 6.0) | 5.5 (4.0, 6.5) | 0.117 |
| Factor 4: Insufficient information | |||
| I have insufficient information about which nutrients I should prioritized. | 4.0 (3.0, 6.0) | 5.0 (3.0, 5.5) | 0.321 |
| I have insufficient information about which nutrients I should avoid. | 4.0 (3.0, 5.0) | 5.0 (3.0, 5.0) | 0.731 |
| I have insufficient information about which nutritional supplements I should take. | 4.0 (3.0, 5.0) | 5.0 (3.0, 5.0) | 0.460 |
| Factor 5: Arguments with my family | |||
| I have arguments with my family about food. | 2.0 (1.0, 3.0) | 2.0 (1.0, 4.5) | 0.014 |
| I am troubled that my family seems to try to force me to eat. | 1.0 (1.0, 3.0) | 2.0 (1.0, 4.0) | 0.017 |
| I get frustrated with my family over food. | 1.0 (1.0, 3.0) | 1.5 (1.0, 4.0) | 0.274 |
| Factor 6: Change in appearance | |||
| It’s hard for me that my appearance had changed a lot from before as I became thin. | 3.0 (1.0, 5.0) | 4.0 (2.0, 5.0) | 0.157 |
| It’s hard for me to be seen by others as so skinny. | 3.0 (1.0, 5.0) | 3.0 (2.0, 5.0) | 0.635 |
| It’s hard to see myself as so skinny. | 3.0 (1.0, 5.0) | 4.0 (2.0, 5.0) | 0.149 |
| Factor 7: Time with my family | |||
| I spend less time talking with my family because I do not eat with them. | 3.0 (2.0, 5.0) | 4.0 (1.0, 5.0) | 0.557 |
| I spend less time enjoying with my family during meals. | 4.0 (2.0, 5.0) | 4.5 (1.0, 6.0) | 0.372 |
| I spend less time in daily life with my family because I cannot eat. | 3.0 (1.0, 4.0) | 4.0 (1.0, 5.0) | 0.281 |
| Total score of the long version | 76.0 (58.0, 92.0) | 83.0 (66.0, 99.0) | 0.040 |
| Total score of the short version | 25.0 (20.0, 31.0) | 28.0 (23.0, 33.0) | 0.029 |
Values represent median (interquartile range). Serum CRP levels were measured in mg/dL. Eating-related distress was assessed using the Questionnaire for Eating-Related Distress among Patients with advanced cancer (7-point scale). Boldfaced items indicate those belonging to the short version. High scores indicate worse distress. CRP, C-reactive protein.
Relationships between the serum CRP levels and QOL measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30 are shown in Table 3. Except for appetite loss in the symptom scales, there were no significant differences between the groups for all items.
Results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis that was performed to examine the associations between the serum CRP levels and the ERD assessed using the QERD-P long and short versions are shown in Table 5. The ERD scores were divided into two categories using the medians (80 for the QERD-P long version and 26 for the QERD-P short version). The high CRP group had significantly higher risks for ERD than the low CRP group (odds ratio [OR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–4.11, p-value 0.024; OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.05–4.05, p-value 0.035, respectively).
Table 5.
Association between serum CRP levels and eating-related distress assessed using the QERD-P (n =181).
| The QERD-P Long Version | The QERD-P Short Version | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio (95% CI) | p-Value | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | p-Value | |
| CRP levels | ||||
| <5 mg/dL | Reference | Reference | ||
| ≥5 mg/dL | 2.13 (1.10, 4.11) | 0.024 | 2.06 (1.05, 4.05) | 0.035 |
| Age in years | 0.99 (0.97, 1.02) | 0.640 | 0.99 (0.97, 1.02) | 0.490 |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | Reference | Reference | ||
| Male | 1.49 (0.78, 2.84) | 0.230 | 1.72 (0.89, 3.33) | 0.105 |
| Primary cancer site | ||||
| Lung | Reference | Reference | ||
| Gastrointestinal | 1.56 (0.63, 3.85) | 0.334 | 1.77 (0.70, 4.47) | 0.225 |
| Others | 0.77 (0.33, 1.83) | 0.559 | 0.94 (0.39, 2.23) | 0.883 |
| Treatment status | ||||
| Non-chemotherapy | Reference | Reference | ||
| Chemotherapy | 1.01 (0.50, 2.03) | 0.974 | 1.17 (0.58, 2.37) | 0.667 |
| ECOG PS | ||||
| 0, 1 | Reference | Reference | ||
| 2 | 0.62 (0.25, 1.51) | 0.294 | 0.84 (0.34, 2.07) | 0.706 |
| 3, 4 | 0.73 (0.30, 1.76) | 0.484 | 1.20 (0.49, 2.95) | 0.683 |
Serum CRP levels, age, sex, primary cancer site, treatment status, and ECOG PS were included in the multivariate analysis. CI, confidence interval; CRP, C-reactive protein; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; QERD-P, Questionnaire for Eating-Related Distress among Patients with advanced cancer.
4. Discussion
We conducted a survey to investigate when it was appropriate to initiate multimodal interventions provided by a multidisciplinary team. Specifically, a self-reported questionnaire was distributed among patients with advanced cancer referred to palliative care. As a result, there were significant associations between serum CRP levels and dietary intake, as well as associations with some NISs and ERD. A serum CRP value of 5 mg/dL was considered instrumental for identifying patients who should be provided multimodal care for cancer cachexia.
The prompt provision of multimodal interventions, or situation-specific supportive and palliative care, by a multidisciplinary team from early onset to late cachexia is essential in ideal patient- and family-centered care. However, no standard care has been established to manage patients’ symptoms and the distress experienced by both patients and family caregivers, resulting from cancer cachexia [11,12]. Furthermore, there has been no consensus on when multimodal care for cancer cachexia should start, even though beneficial effects are expected by applying early combined intervention comprising nutritional therapy, exercise, and pharmacotherapy [11,12,13,14,15]. The present study revealed that patients with a serum CRP level of 5 mg/dL or more already had reduced dietary intake, some NISs (e.g., appetite loss and drowsiness), and high ERD. Therefore, this CRP value may be a clinically critical point for the initiation of multimodal care for patients and family caregivers affected by cancer cachexia in supportive and palliative care.
Studies have suggested that systemic inflammation is implicated in the responsible mechanisms of cancer cachexia [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Pro-inflammatory cytokines stimulate the CNS, particularly the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis, that dominates the sympathetic nervous system. Activation of the HPA axis induces the secretion of cortisol and the generation of glucocorticoids in the adrenal gland, resulting in muscle atrophy [8]. Thus, systemic inflammation induces energy imbalances and abnormal protein and lipid metabolism (i.e., hyper-catabolism in proteolytic and lipolytic pathways) and catabolism in muscle and adipose tissue [9]. Moreover, systemic inflammation is correlated with physical and psychological symptoms (e.g., fever, appetite loss, fatigue, drowsiness, anxiety, and cognitive alterations), which may be directly affected by the alterations in the CNS and HPA axis [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. In turn, these symptoms generate emotional distress, which can promote systemic inflammation and alter the CNS and HPA axis. Physical and psychological symptoms and emotional distress generally co-exist and amplify one another [9]. Moreover, these problems can disrupt cachectic patients’ circadian rhythms and their lives (e.g., eating and sleeping habits) [9]. However, there is insufficient evidence suggesting that systemic inflammation acts through alterations in the CNS and HPA axis in the genesis of physical and psychological symptoms and emotional distress in patients with advanced cancer [8,9,10]. Ultimately, controlling systemic inflammation (i.e., lowering CRP levels) may reduce its impacts on the CNS and HPA axis, alleviate symptoms, and solve the cachexia-related complications. The clinical implication of serum CRP levels in people affected by cancer cachexia needs to be further investigated, considering the impacts of systemic inflammation on the CNS and HPA axis, to improve their disrupted lives.
This study has several strengths and limitations. Approximately 70% of the patients analyzed in this study were undergoing anticancer treatment in multiple designated cancer hospitals, which means that the results may reflect the actual situation during cancer treatment. However, there are limitations to the generalization of the results obtained from Japanese inpatients. Moreover, serum CRP levels are not a marker specific to cancer cachexia, and they can also be elevated by infection and cancer treatment, including cytotoxic anticancer agents and radiotherapy. Furthermore, only data obtained at the time of the survey were used in this study, although CRP values fluctuate during the clinical course [35]. However, a CRP level of 5 mg/dL in patients with advanced cancer was considered to be effective in the screening of patients and their family caregivers at risk for negative impacts of cancer cachexia.
We previously reported that the number of NISs was significantly associated with ERD as well as reduced dietary intake in the similar population [36]. However, we have to consider the differences in ERD between sexes and various cancers and the impacts of co-existing autoimmune or inflammatory diseases on the systemic inflammation. Further research is needed to verify the present findings and clarify their relevance in clinical practice.
5. Conclusions
Higher CRP levels were significantly associated with reduced dietary intake, more severe appetite loss, vomiting, and drowsiness, and higher ERD among patients with advanced cancer receiving supportive and palliative care. A serum CRP value of 5 mg/dL may be one indicator used to initiate multimodal care for cancer cachexia. Cachexia-related research needs to refocus on systemic inflammation of what we already know as well as deeper understanding of the mechanisms of cancer cachexia.
Author Contributions
Study concept and design: K.A.; collection and assembly of data: K.A., S.K., T.S., S.A., Y.M., A.T., T.T., E.S., T.W., M.W. and N.M.; statistical analysis: K.A., S.K. and S.O.; data analysis and interpretation: K.A., S.K. and S.O.; original draft preparation: K.A.; review and editing: S.K., S.O., T.S., S.A., Y.M. and T.W.; and supervision: A.T., T.T., E.S., M.W., T.Y. and N.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Osaka University Hospital for all participating institutes (approval number 23226, approval date 29 September 2023).
Informed Consent Statement
This study was performed following the ethical standards outlined in the Helsinki Declaration and the ethical guidelines for medical and health research involving human subjects presented by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare in Japan [26]. Individual informed consent from participants is not required by Japanese law in a non-invasive observational trial, and thus the requirement for written or oral informed consent was waived based on national ethical guidelines. Completing and returning the questionnaire was regarded as participants’ agreement to take part in this study. Patients who disliked participating in this study were requested to return the questionnaire with ‘no participation’ indicated.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
The present study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 22K11839 (N.M.), JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 23K10970 (S.K.), and Project Mirai Cancer Research Grants (K.A.).
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
- 1.Mantovani A., Allavena P., Sica A., Balkwill F. Cancer-related inflammation. Nature. 2008;454:436–444. doi: 10.1038/nature07205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fearon K., Strasser F., Anker S.D., Bosaeus I., Bruera E., Fainsinger R.L., Jatoi A., Loprinzi C., MacDonald N., Mantovani G., et al. Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: An international consensus. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:489–495. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70218-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lippitz B.E. Cytokine patterns in patients with cancer: A systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:218–228. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70582-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Candido J., Hagemann T. Cancer-related inflammation. J. Clin. Immunol. 2013;33:79–84. doi: 10.1007/s10875-012-9847-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Diakos C.I., Charles K.A., McMillan D.C., Clarke S.J. Cancer-related inflammation and treatment effectiveness. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:493–503. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70263-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Baracos V.E., Martin L., Korc M., Guttridge D.C., Fearon K.C. Cancer-associated cachexia. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers. 2018;4:17105. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ferrer M., Anthony T.G., Ayres J.S., Biffi G., Brown J.C., Caan B.J., Feliciano E.M.C., Coll A.P., Dunne R.F., Goncalves M.D., et al. Cachexia: A systemic consequence of progressive, unresolved disease. Cell. 2023;186:1824–1845. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2023.03.028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Olson B., Diba P., Korzun T., Marks D.L. Neural Mechanisms of Cancer Cachexia. Cancers. 2021;13:3990. doi: 10.3390/cancers13163990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Amano K., Hopkinson J., Baracos V. Psychological symptoms of illness and emotional distress in advanced cancer cachexia. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care. 2022;25:167–172. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yule M.S., Brown L.R., Skipworth R.J.E., Laird B.J.A. Central neural mechanisms of cancer cachexia. Curr. Opin. Support. Palliat. Care. 2024;18:138–144. doi: 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Roeland E.J., Bohlke K., Baracos V.E., Bruera E., Del Fabbro E., Dixon S., Fallon M., Herrstedt J., Lau H., Platek M., et al. Management of Cancer Cachexia: ASCO Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020;38:2438–2453. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Arends J., Strasser F., Gonella S., Solheim T.S., Madeddu C., Ravasco P., Buonaccorso L., De Van Der Schueren M.A.E., Baldwin C., Chasen M., et al. Cancer cachexia in adult patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. ESMO Guidelines Committee. ESMO Open. 2021;6:100092. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Muscaritoli M., Arends J., Bachmann P., Baracos V., Barthelemy N., Bertz H., Bozzetti F., Hütterer E., Isenring E., Kaasa S., et al. ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical Nutrition in cancer. Clin. Nutr. 2021;40:2898–2913. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.02.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Crawford G.B., Dzierżanowski T., Hauser K., Larkin P., Luque-Blanco A.I., Murphy I., Puchalski C.M., Ripamonti C.I., ESMO Guidelines Committee Care of the adult cancer patient at the end of life: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. ESMO Open. 2021;6:100225. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Amano K., Hopkinson J., Baracos V., Mori N. Holistic multimodal care for patients with cancer cachexia and their family caregivers. Asia Pac. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2023;10:100290. doi: 10.1016/j.apjon.2023.100290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Laird B.J.A., Scott A.C., Colvin L.A., McKeon A.L., Murray G.D., Fearon K.C.H., Fallon M.T. Cancer pain and its relationship to systemic inflammation: An exploratory study. Pain. 2011;152:460–463. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.10.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Laird B.J., McMillan D.C., Fayers P., Fearon K., Kaasa S., Fallon M.T., Klepstad P. The systemic inflammatory response and its relationship to pain and other symptoms in advanced cancer. Oncologist. 2013;18:1050–1055. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Amano K., Maeda I., Morita T., Miura T., Inoue S., Ikenaga M., Matsumoto Y., Baba M., Sekine R., Yamaguchi T., et al. Clinical implications of C-reactive protein as a prognostic marker in advanced cancer patients in palliative care settings. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2016;51:860–867. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.11.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Amano K., Maeda I., Morita T., Baba M., Miura T., Hama T., Mori I., Nakajima N., Nishi T., Sakurai H., et al. C-reactive protein, symptoms and activity of daily living in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2017;8:457–465. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Paulsen Ø., Laird B., Aass N., Lea T., Fayers P., Kaasa S., Klepstad P. The relationship between proinflammatory cytokines and pain, appetite and fatigue in patients with advanced cancer. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0177620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kwekkeboom K.L., Tostrud L., Costanzo E., Coe C.L., Serlin R.C., Ward S.E., Zhang Y. The role of inflammation in the pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance symptom cluster in advanced cancer. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2018;55:1286–1295. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.01.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Miranda D.O., Anatriello E., Azevedo L.R., Cordeiro J.F.C., Peria F.M., Flória-Santos M., Pereira-da-Silva G. Elevated serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines potentially correlate with depression and anxiety in colorectal cancer patients in different stages of the antitumor therapy. Cytokine. 2018;104:72–77. doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2017.09.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Amano K., Hatano Y., Matsuda Y., Maeda I., Ishiki H., Miura T., Imai K., Hori T., Matsuda Y., Funaki H., et al. C-reactive protein, delirium, and other psychological symptoms among patients with advanced cancer. JCSM Clin. Rep. 2020;5:42–51. doi: 10.1002/crt2.12. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Amano K., Ishiki H., Miura T., Maeda I., Hatano Y., Oyamada S., Yokomichi N., Tagami K., Odagiri T., Ito T., et al. C-reactive protein and its relationship with pain and other symptoms in patients with advanced cancer cachexia: Analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study. Palliat. Med. Rep. 2021;2:122–131. doi: 10.1089/pmr.2021.0004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Fortes G.N., Fortes M.F., Fortes M.N., Gomes F.C., Seelaendar M.C.L., de Pinho A.M.S., de Jesus J.D.C.R., Otoch J.P. Mood, Anxiety, and Cognitive Alterations in Cancer Patients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2024;130:965–973. doi: 10.1002/jso.27912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Eba J., Nakamura K. Overview of the ethical guidelines for medical and biological research involving human subjects in Japan. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022;52:539–544. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyac034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Oken M.M., Creech R.H., Tormey D.C., Horton J., Davis T.E., McFadden E.T., Carbone P.P. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 1982;5:649–655. doi: 10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Guerdoux-Ninot E., Flori N., Janiszewski C., Vaillé A., de Forges H., Raynard B., Baracos V.E., Thezenas S., Senesse P. Assessing dietary intake in accordance with guidelines: Useful correlations with an ingesta-Verbal/Visual Analogue Scale in medical oncology patients. Clin. Nutr. 2019;38:1927–1935. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.06.974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wijnhoven H.A., van der Velden L., Broek C., Broekhuizen M., Bruynzeel P., van Breen A., van Oostendorp N., de Heer K. Validation of the Visual/Verbal Analogue Scale of Food Ingesta (Ingesta-VVAS) in Oncology Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy. Nutrients. 2022;14:3515. doi: 10.3390/nu14173515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Amano K., Dev R., Naito T., Del Fabbro E. International survey on consensus definition on nutrition impact symptoms in patients with cancer. Nutr. Cancer. 2024:1–11. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2024.2411763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Trujillo E.B., Kadakia K.C., Thomson C., Zhang F.F., Livinski A., Pollard K., Mattox T., Tucker A., Williams V., Walsh D., et al. Malnutrition risk screening in adult oncology outpatients: An ASPEN systematic review and clinical recommendations. JPEN J. Parenter. Enteral Nutr. 2024;48:874–894. doi: 10.1002/jpen.2688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Aaronson N.K., Ahmedzai S., Bergman B., Bullinger M., Cull A., Duez N.J., Filiberti A., Flechtner H., Fleishman S.B., Haes J.C.D., et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–376. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Amano K., Morita T., Miura T., Mori N., Tatara R., Kessoku T., Matsuda Y., Tagami K., Otani H., Mori M., et al. Development and validation of questionnaires for eating-related distress among advanced cancer patients and families. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2023;14:310–325. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.13133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Cederholm T., Jensen G.L., Ballesteros-Pomar M.D., Blaauw R., Correia M.I.T., Cuerda C., Evans D.C., Fukushima R., Gautier J.B.O., Gonzalez M.C., et al. Guidance for assessment of the inflammation etiologic criterion for the GLIM diagnosis of malnutrition: A modified Delphi approach. Clin. Nutr. 2024;43:1025–1032. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2023.11.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lasheen W., Walsh D. C-Reactive Protein in Solid Tumors: Clinically Meaningful Change. Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 2024;56:47898–47903. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.e15036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Amano K., Baracos V.E., Mori N., Okamura S., Yamada T., Miura T., Tatara R., Kessoku T., Matsuda Y., Tagami K., et al. Associations of nutrition impact symptoms with dietary intake and eating-related distress in patients with advanced cancer. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN. 2024;60:313–319. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.02.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.