Comparison between AWGC-cachexia and GLIM-malnutrition in patients with gastric cancer

BackgroundThe newly released Asian Working Group for Cachexia (AWGC) criteria share similar diagnostic items with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria. This study aims to compare the AWGC cachexia and GLIM malnutrition in patients with gastric cancer and investigate whether one diagnosis continues to be a prognostic factor in individuals diagnosed with the other condition.MethodsData of patients who underwent radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma were prospectively collected from 2013 to 2019. The AWGC and GLIM criteria were applied to diagnosis cachexia and malnutrition, respectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic and Cox regression were used to verify the effect of relevant factors on postoperative complications and overall survival.ResultsA total of 1420 patients were included, among whom 174 (12.3 %) were diagnosed with AWGC-cachexia alone, 85 (6.0 %) were diagnosed with GLIM-malnutrition alone, and 324 (22.8 %) had both AWGC-cachexia and GLIM-malnutrition. Both AWGC-cachexia and GLIM-malnutrition were independent risk factors for complications and overall survival. When they coexisted, the odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) tended to be higher. In the AWGC-cachexia subset, GLIM-malnutrition remained an independent risk factor (HR = 1.544, 95 % CI = 1.098–2.171, P = 0.012) for overall survival after the adjustment of confounding factors. Similarly, in the GLIM-malnutrition subset, AWGC-cachexia remained an independent risk factor for overall survival (HR = 1.697, 95 % CI = 1.087–2.650, P = 0.020). Patients with both cachexia and malnutrition had the worst overall survival.ConclusionAWGC-cachexia and GLIM-malnutrition criteria were two non-redundancy tools in reflecting mortality risk in preoperative nutritional assessment.