ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2025
A Novel Definition and Grading Diagnostic Criteria for Tumour-Type-Specific Comprehensive Cachexia Risk.
Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe existing diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia do not meet clinical needs. We aimed to establish novel comprehensive evaluation scales for cachexia specific to patients with solid tumours.
methodsThis study included 12 651 patients (males: 6793 [53.7%]; females: 5858 [46.3%]; medium age: 58 [interquartile range:50/66] years; medium follow-up duration: 24.16 [13.32/44.84] months; 4271 [33.8%] patients died; mean survival: 55.53 [95% confidence interval, 54.87/56.10] months; 3344 [26.4%], 4184 [33.1%] and 5123 [40.5%] patients with Stage I-II, III and IV tumour, respectively; derivation set: 10022, validation set: 2629 patients) with 14 types of solid tumours, including lung, gastric, liver, breast, oesophageal, cervical, bladder, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, colorectal cancer, nasopharyngeal and endometrial carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma, from an open and ongoing multicentre cohort study in China. Risk factors for cachexia, including tumour characteristics and nutritional parameters, were examined to develop diagnostic scales using Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier analysis.
resultsTen nutrition items (body mass index, weight loss, intake reduction, physical activity function, fatigue, handgrip strength, anorexia, albumin level, albumin/globulin ratio and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio) with different weighted scores were identified to construct a nutrition-weighted scoring scale (NWSS) for nutrition risk. Tumour type and tumour burden status (tumour-node-metastasis stage and radical or non-radical tumour) were determined to construct a disease-weighted scoring scale (DWSS) for disease risk. A lumped scale (5 × 5 matrix) established using a five-grade classification of nutrition and disease risk was used to determine a five-grade classification of comprehensive cachexia risk: A, no cachexia risk (reference; lowest disease and nutrition risks); B, cachexia risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.517 [4.033/5.058]); C, pre-cachexia (HR = 9.755 [8.73/10.901], medium survival = 21.21 months); D, cachexia (HR = 16.901 [14.995/19.049], medium survival = 11.61 months); and E, refractory cachexia (HR = 31.879 [28.244/35.981], medium survival = 4.83 months, highest disease and nutrition risks) (p < 0.001). Patients in Categories A-D benefited from nutrition therapy and anti-tumour treatments to varying degrees. Patients in Category E were clinically refractory to nutrition therapy without prolonged survival compared with patients without nutrition therapy (medium survival, pre-hospitalization nutrition therapy vs. hospitalization nutrition therapy vs. without nutrition therapy, 2.89 [1.91/3.88] vs. 4.04 [3.21/4.88] vs. 5.89 [4.73/7.04] months, p = 0.015) and anti-tumour treatments without prolonged survival compared with patients receiving palliative care (medium survival, radical anti-tumour treatments vs. adjuvant anti-tumour treatments vs. palliative anti-tumour treatments vs. and palliative care, 6.48 [4.42/8.53] vs. 6.48 [3.23/9.73] vs. 4.83 [4.22/5.44] vs. 2.70 [1.09/4.30] months, p = 0.263).
conclusionWe systematically developed a novel definition and grading diagnostic criteria for tumour-type-specific comprehensive cancer cachexia risk.
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.