ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
Cancer cachexia onset and survival outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer: Comparative assessment of the asian working group for cachexia and the European palliative care research collaborative criteria, and utility of modified glasgow prognostic score.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Cachexia-Related Status With Treatment Outcomes in Advanced Gastric Cancer Receiving First-Line Therapy With or Without Nivolumab.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Article
- C26 and CT26 colorectal cancer models exhibit divergent cachexia phenotypes, intramuscular inflammation, and protein turnover signaling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Effects of Dietary Interventions on Nutritional Status in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Pre-radiotherapy cachexia is associated with treatment discontinuation in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma receiving definitive radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCachexia substantially affects the prognosis of patients with advanced cancer. While both the Asian Working Group for Cachexia (AWGC) and European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC) criteria are widely used for diagnosis, their comparative effectiveness in diagnostic timing and prognostic value remain understudied.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received first-line chemotherapy between 2013 and 2023. Cachexia was assessed using three distinct criteria: AWGC criteria, defined as either weight loss > 2%, or body mass index (BMI) < 21 kg/m
resultsWe enrolled 313 patients with metastatic CRC. The 1-year cumulative incidence of cachexia showed marked variation across the different diagnostic criteria. Using the AWGC criteria, the incidence rate was 69%, whereas the EPCRC criteria identified 44% of the cases. The mGPS evaluation revealed incidence rates of 73% and 39% for scores of 1 and 2, respectively. Both AWGC- and EPCRC-defined cachexia correlated with significantly shorter overall survival (AWGC: hazard ratio (HR) = 2.41, P < 0.001; EPCRC: HR = 2.02, P < 0.001). Similarly, the mGPS scores indicated a poor prognosis.
conclusionThe AWGC criteria identified a higher incidence of cachexia earlier in the disease course compared to the EPCRC criteria and showed a stronger association with overall survival. The mGPS shows promise as an alternative diagnostic tool to traditional weight-based assessments. These findings suggest new opportunities for early diagnosis of cachexia and intervention strategies in patients with mCRC.
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.