Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Marije Slingerland x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Willemieke P.M. Dijksterhuis, Anouk E.J. Latenstein, Jessy Joy van Kleef, Rob H.A. Verhoeven, Jeanne H.M. de Vries, Marije Slingerland, Elles Steenhagen, Joos Heisterkamp, Liesbeth M. Timmermans, Marian A.E. de van der Schueren, Martijn G.H. van Oijen, Sandra Beijer and Hanneke W.M. van Laarhoven

Background: Cachexia is common in patients with esophagogastric cancer and is associated with increased mortality. Nutritional screening and dietetic interventions can be helpful in preventing evolvement of cachexia. Our aim was to study the real-world prevalence and prognostic value of pretreatment cachexia on overall survival (OS) using patient-reported weight loss, and to explore dietetic interventions in esophagogastric cancer. Materials and Methods: Patients with esophagogastric cancer (2015–2018), regardless of disease stage, who participated in the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP) and completed patient-reported outcome measures were included. Data on weight loss and dietetic interventions were retrieved from questionnaires before start of treatment (baseline) and 3 months thereafter. Additional patient data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cachexia was defined as self-reported >5% half-year body weight loss at baseline or >2% in patients with a body mass index (BMI) <20 kg/m2 according to the Fearon criteria. The association between cachexia and OS was analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses adjusted for sex, age, performance status, comorbidities, primary tumor location, disease stage, histology, and treatment strategy. Results: Of 406 included patients, 48% had pretreatment cachexia, of whom 65% were referred for dietetic consultation at baseline. The proportion of patients with cachexia was the highest among those who received palliative chemotherapy (59%) or best supportive care (67%). Cachexia was associated with decreased OS (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11–2.09). Median weight loss after 3-month follow-up was lower in patients with cachexia who were referred to a dietician at baseline compared with those who were not (0% vs 2%; P=.047). Conclusions: Nearly half of patients with esophagogastric cancer have pretreatment cachexia. Dietetic consultation at baseline was not reported in more than one-third of the patients with cachexia. Because cachexia was independently associated with decreased survival, improving nutritional screening and referral for dietetic consultation are warranted to prevent further deterioration of malnutrition and mortality.

Full access

Héctor G. van den Boorn, Ameen Abu-Hanna, Nadia Haj Mohammad, Maarten C.C.M. Hulshof, Suzanne S. Gisbertz, Bastiaan R. Klarenbeek, Marije Slingerland, Laurens V. Beerepoot, Tom Rozema, Mirjam A.G. Sprangers, Rob H.A. Verhoeven, Martijn G.H. van Oijen, Koos H. Zwinderman and Hanneke W.M. van Laarhoven

Background: Personalized prediction of treatment outcomes can aid patients with cancer when deciding on treatment options. Existing prediction models for esophageal and gastric cancer, however, have mostly been developed for survival prediction after surgery (ie, when treatment has already been completed). Furthermore, prediction models for patients with metastatic cancer are scarce. The aim of this study was to develop prediction models of overall survival at diagnosis for patients with potentially curable and metastatic esophageal and gastric cancer (the SOURCE study). Methods: Data from 13,080 patients with esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed in 2015 through 2018 were retrieved from the prospective Netherlands Cancer Registry. Four Cox proportional hazards regression models were created for patients with potentially curable and metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. Predictors, including treatment type, were selected using the Akaike information criterion. The models were validated with temporal cross-validation on their C-index and calibration. Results: The validated model’s C-index was 0.78 for potentially curable gastric cancer and 0.80 for potentially curable esophageal cancer. For the metastatic models, the c-indices were 0.72 and 0.73 for esophageal and gastric cancer, respectively. The 95% confidence interval of the calibration intercepts and slopes contain the values 0 and 1, respectively. Conclusions: The SOURCE prediction models show fair to good c-indices and an overall good calibration. The models are the first in esophageal and gastric cancer to predict survival at diagnosis for a variety of treatments. Future research is needed to demonstrate their value for shared decision-making in clinical practice.