Table 1.
First Author, Year, Study Place | Data Collection Period | Study Design | Sample Size | Nutritional Assessment | Quality of Life Assessment | Groups being compared | Key results | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jager-Wittenaar H, 2011, The Netherlands [16] |
October 2004 and February 2006 |
Convenience sample, cross-sectional study |
115 oral or oropharyngeal cancer |
Percentage weight loss was calculated as: [(normal body weight - actual body weight)/normal body weight] *100 |
EORTC QLQ C-30 |
Weight loss > =10% in 6 months or > =5% in 1 month |
Median scores of malnourished patients on physical functioning (p = .007) and fatigue (p = .034) were significantly lower than those of well-nourished patients. |
Malnourished patients treated for oral/oropharyngeal cancer score lower on quality of life scales related to physical fitness. |
Capuano G, 2010, Italy [8] |
NA |
Prospective, consecutive case series |
61 Head & Neck Cancer Oropharynx: n = 21; Oral cavity: n = 19 Nasopharynx: n = 13; Larynx: n = 5; Maxillary sinus: n = 2 Submandibular gland: n = 1 |
1. Unintended weight loss (UWL) 2. PG-SGA score |
EORTC QLQ C-30 |
Unintended weight loss – Non-malnourished: involuntary loss of < 5% of body weight in the last 3 months (n = 36) &Malnourished: ≥ 5% loss of body weight in the last 3 months (n = 25) |
1. Unintended weight loss – Multivariate: Malnutrition (UWL) and Hb level independently influenced physical (p = 0.002; p = 0.005), role (p = 0.004; p = 0.001), and social functions (p = 0.024; p = 0.009). 2. PG-SGA score – Mean ± SD = 3 ± 2 & 9 ± 5 respectively for non-malnourished & malnourished patients, p < 0.001. |
An early and intensive nutritional support might reduce weight loss before, during, and after treatment completion, improving outcome, QoL, and PS. |
Morton RP, 2009, New Zealand [17] |
Over a 24-month period, ending in 2005 |
Retrospectiveconsecutive case series |
36 head and neck cancer |
BMI drop over 12 months |
UW-QOL |
BMI change was taken as a continuous variable |
The 12-month BMI drop was inversely correlated with current HRQOL, signifying that weight loss correlated with a poorer subsequent HRQOL score (r = −0.47, P = 0.026). It was significantly related to lower speech and swallowing function scores. |
The observed relationship between a drop in BMI and the current HR-QOL may be a function of greater general impact of treatment. |
van den Berg MGA, 2007, the Netherlands [18] |
May 2002 to May 2004 |
Observationalprospective non-randomized, longitudinal study |
47 Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx. Oral cavity: n = 23; Oropharynx: n = 18; Hypopharynx: n = 5 |
Unintended weight loss Malnutrition was defined as unintended weight loss of 10% or more within the previous 6 months before baseline |
EORTC QLQ C-30and EORTC QLQ – H&N35 |
≥ 10% & < 10% weight loss at baseline |
1. At baseline: Patients ≥10% weight loss in 6 months before baseline had lower scores for global, physical, role, and emotional functioning. Fatigue, pain, insomnia, appetite loss, swallowing, decreased sexuality, sticky saliva and coughing were worse in the ≥ 10% weight loss group. 2. At the end of treatment: Patients who had lost ≥ 10% weight had lower role and social functioning. Scores significantly differed for global (p = 0.01), fatigue (p = 0.03), pain (p = 0.04), senses problems (0.05), sticky saliva (p = 0.01), coughing (p = 0.02) and feeling ill (p = 0.01) during treatment. 3. Six months after treatment: Patients ≥ 10% weight loss lower on physical, role, emotional and cognitive functioning. |
Patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy are specifically susceptible to malnutrition during treatment with no improvement in body weight or QoL. |
Petruson KM, 2005, Sweden [19] |
February 1996 to May 1997 |
Prospective, longitudinal study |
49 primary untreated head and neck cancer Pharyngeal: n = 15; Laryngeal: n = 12; Oral: n = 12; Other: n = 10 |
Weight loss* * Severe weight loss (malnutrition) defined as loss of more than 10% weight during 6 months |
1. EORTC QLQ-C30 2. EORTC QLQ-H&N35 3. HADS |
≥ 10% weight loss (n = 20) & < 10% weight loss (n = 29) |
(A) At different time-points: Patients who lost ≥ 10% in weight during 6 months had worse HRQL at diagnosis than did patients who lost less at all time-points. (B) HADS: At diagnosis, 37% of the ≥ 10% weight loss group had Possible/probable depression versus 17% of the <10% weight-loss group. This tendency remained after 3 months (38% vs 20%), at 1-year follow-up (44% vs 5%), and after 3 years (27% vs 15%). |
Patients with head and neck cancer who are at risk of severe weight loss developing during treatment may be detected with the aid of HRQL questionnaires at diagnosis. |
Hammerlid E, 1998, Norway, Sweden [12] | NA | Prospective, consecutive case series | 48 head and neck cancer Oral cavity: n = 16 Larynx: n = 11 Sinus: n = 10 Skin: n = 4 Esophagus/ Hypopharynx: n = 4 Other: n = 3 |
1. Weight loss 2. Anthropo-metry: (a) AMC and (b) TSF 3. WI 4. BMI 5. S-alb |
EORTC QLQ-C30 supplemented by a provisional H&N cancer module constructed in Norway |
1. Weight loss: > 5% & ≤ 5% of the body weight 2. Anthropometry: Based on Swedish reference values 3. WI: < 0.80 & ≥ 0.80 4. BMI: ≥ 20 & < 20 5. S-alb: < 33 g/L & ≥ 33 g/L Groups for analysis (1) malnutrition (n =25) versus normal (n = 22), (2) weight loss (n = 20) versus no weight loss (n = 24), (3) negative energy balance (n = 18) versus positive energy balance (n = 15) |
1. Malnutrition versus normal nutritional status: Malnourished patients scored worse for 12 of the 16 functions/symptoms. The greatest differences between the two groups were found for Physical Function, global QoL, and Role Function, NS. 2. Weight loss versus no weight loss: Patients with weight loss scored worse for 11 of 16 functions. (a) Swallowing difficulties Mean score = 52 & 18 for those with weight loss and no weight loss respectively, p < 0.01. (b) Problems swallowing food Mean score = 62 & 29 for those with weight loss and no weight loss respectively, p < 0.01. 3. Negative and positive energy balance: The groups of patients with negative energy balance scored better than the group of patients with positive energy balance for 11 of the 16 function/symptoms, NS. |
This study demonstrated few significant differences, depending on nutritional status, in some of the QL scales or item scores. |