ArticleCancers2025
A Comparison of Established Diagnostic Criteria for Cachexia and Their Impacts on Prognostication in Patients with Oesophagogastric Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Timeliness of postoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring for predicting recurrence after gastric cancer surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCachexia is common in patients with oesophagogastric cancer. The syndrome is characterised by tissue wasting (muscle and fat), anorexia, and reduced physical function, which result from complex interactions between the tumour and its host. Heterogeneity in the diagnostic criteria used for cachexia has hindered their clinical utilisation. This study aimed to compare the two established cachexia definitions (Fearon's consensus definition and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition [GLIM] criteria) and their relationships with survival in patients with oesophagogastric cancer.
methodsConsecutive patients newly diagnosed with oesophagogastric cancer (January 2019 to December 2020) were identified from a prospective regional database. Involuntary weight loss, BMI, CT body composition analyses, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios were recorded at clinical staging. These data were used to assess patients for cachexia according to Fearon and GLIM diagnostic criteria. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival.
resultsOverall, 465 patients (66.9% male, median 71 years) were diagnosed with oesophagogastric cancer during the 2-year study period. Cachectic proportions differed between definitions (Fearon: 59.1% vs. GLIM: 44.1%), and only 49.1% of the 322 patients who met one set of diagnostic criteria were cachectic according to both. Patients who met the GLIM criteria were significantly more comorbid and had a poorer performance status; however, no such difference was evident when using the Fearon definition. Those patients who met either set of diagnostic criteria had shorter survival than those who met neither (
conclusionsCancer cachexia is strongly associated with shortened survival in patients with oesophagogastric cancer. Classification using the GLIM criteria provides more effective prognostication and this definition should be utilised in multidisciplinary patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.