Table 2.
Sensitivity and specificity of the GLIM and PG-SGA for detecting cancer cachexia
| Cachexia | No Cachexia | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 1441) | (n = 7037) | (%) | (%) | (%) | AUC | |
| GLIM-step1 | 100 | 60.7 | 67.4 | 0.835 | ||
| Well nourished | 0 | 4271 | - | - | - | |
| Malnutrition | 1441 | 2766 | - | - | - | |
| GLIM-step2 | 88.8 | 91.8 | 91.3 | 0.910 | ||
| Well nourished | 162 | 6462 | - | - | - | |
| Malnutrition | 1279 | 575 | - | - | - | |
| PG-SGA | 86.2 | 58.3 | 63.1 | 0.778 | ||
| Well nourished | 199 | 4105 | - | - | - | |
| Malnutrition | 1242 | 2932 | - | - | - |
AUC Area Under the ROC Curve, GLIM the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition, GLIM-step1 One-step GLIM criteria, GLIM-step2 Two-step GLIM criteria. One-step GLIM criteria and two-step GLIM criteria represented different GLIM criteria with or without nutrition risk screening by NRS-2002, respectively; PG-SGA Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment, PG-SGA Well nourished (Score < 4), Malnutrition (Score ≥ 4)