4.3 Article

Predictors of Pancreatic Cancer-Associated Weight Loss and Nutritional Interventions

Journal

PANCREAS
Volume 46, Issue 9, Pages 1152-1157

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000898

Keywords

pancreatic cancer; weight loss; cachexia; pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [U01DK108327]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is often accompanied by weight loss. We sought to characterize factors associated with weight loss and observed nutritional interventions, as well as define the effect of weight loss on survival. Methods: Consecutive subjects diagnosed with PDAC (N = 123) were retrospectively evaluated. Univariate analysis was used to compare subjects with and without substantial (> 5%) weight loss. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with weight loss, and survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox survival models. Results: Substantial weight loss at diagnosis was present in 71.5% of subjects and was independently associated with higher baseline body mass index, longer symptom duration, and increased tumor size. Recommendations for nutrition consultation and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy occurred in 27.6% and 36.9% of subjects, respectively. Weight loss (> 5%) was not associated with worse survival on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-2.30), unless a higher threshold (> 10%) was used (hazard ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.87). Conclusions: Despite the high prevalence of weight loss at PDAC diagnosis, there are low observed rates of nutritional interventions. Weight loss based on current criteria for cancer cachexia is not associated with poor survival in PDAC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available