Archives

  • 2022-05
  • 2022-04
  • 2021-03
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-03
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-07
  • br The biggest limitation of this study was the

    2022-04-29


    The biggest limitation of this study was the evaluation of patients in a cross-sectional manner. Despite the fact that CRP was used as the most relevant biomarker for cachexia inflam-mation it ABT-888 ABT-888 is not specific for cancer, cachexia or for tumor ac-tivity, since it can be influenced by other factors such as infections. Moreover, although the mGPS framework clearly distinguishes NCa and RCa stages for all domains analyzed, it was unable to capture all stages of cachexia. Due to the lack of statistical discrimination between the PCa stage and almost all the outcomes examined, there is a need for further exploration, aiming a validation of this method with other clinical charac-teristics focusing on the benefits for cachectic advanced cancer patients.
    5. Conclusion
    Cachexia stages evaluated by mGPS were associated with poor clinical features and can predict OS. This classification system based on simple and objective criteria available in routine clinical practice can be used to identify and characterize the presence and severity of cachexia in advanced cancer patients.  97
    Please cite this article as: Alves da Silva G et al., Clinical utility of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score to classify cachexia in patients with advanced cancer in palliative care, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2019.07.002
    6 G. Alves da Silva et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx
    1 Conflict of interest
    3 None declared.
    5 CRediT authorship contribution statement
    7 Geisiane Alves da Silva: Conceptualization, Methodology,
    Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Visualization. Emanuelly
    Varea Maria Wiegert: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
    analysis, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Larissa Calixto
    Lima: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing -
    review & editing, Visualization. Livia Costa Oliveira: Conceptuali-
    zation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft,
    Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project
    administration.
    18 Acknowledgements
    19 20 Q4This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
    21 agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
    25 [1] Mattox TW. Cancer cachexia: cause, diagnosis, and treatment. Nutr Clin Pract
    [2] Wallengren O, Lundholm K, Bosaeus I. Diagnostic criteria of cancer cachexia: 27 relation to quality of life, exercise capacity and survival in unselected pallia-
    34 [5] Fearon KC, Voss AC, Hustead DS. Definition of cancer cachexia: effect of weight
    35 loss, reduced food intake, and systemic inflammation on functional status and
    [7] Lindenmann J, Fink-Neuboeck N, Koesslbacher M, et al. The influence of 40 elevated levels of C-reactive protein and hypoalbuminemia on survival in
    41 patients with advanced inoperable esophageal cancer undergoing palliative
    46 [9] McMillan DC. An inflammation-based prognostic score and its role in the nutrition-based management of patients with cancer: nutrition Society and
    49 [10] Douglas E, McMillan DC. Towards a simple objective framework for the investigation and treatment of cancer cachexia: the Glasgow Prognostic 50
    [13] Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus
    [27] Blum D, Stene GB, Solheim TS, et al. Validation of the consensus-definition for cancer cachexia and evaluation of a classification model–a study based on data from an international multicentre project (EPCRC-CSA). Ann Oncol 2014;25:1635e42. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu086.
    Please cite this article as: Alves da Silva G et al., Clinical utility of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score to classify cachexia in patients with advanced cancer in palliative care, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2019.07.002 Human Pathology (2019) 86, 12–20
    www.elsevier.com/locate/humpath
    Original contribution
    Clinical validation of coexisting driver mutations in colorectal cancers☆,☆☆
    Gang Zheng MD, PhD a, , Li-Hui Tseng MD, PhD a,b, Lisa Haley MS a, Junaid Ibrahim MD a, Jennifer Bynum MD a, Rena Xian MD a,c, Christopher D. Gocke MD a,c, James R. Eshleman MD, PhD a,c, Ming-Tseh Lin MD, PhD a
    aDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA bDepartment of Medical Genetics, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100,Taiwan cDepartment of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
    Keywords:
    Coexisting mutation;
    BRAF;
    KRAS;
    NRAS;
    PIK3CA;
    Colorectal cancer