GLIM vs ESPEN criteria for the diagnosis of early malnutrition in oncological outpatients.

Background & Aims: Malnutrition is one of the most prevalent problems among oncological patients. It reduces the response to treatments and negatively impacts survival. In 2019, a consensus criteria for diagnosing malnutrition (GLIM criteria) were proposed by most scientific nutrition societies. The objective of our work is 1) to assess the diagnostic capacity of the GLIM criteria in ambulatory patients with cancer and 2) to compare the GLIM with the ESPEN criteria to evaluate the contributions of these new criteria with respect to the existing ones.

Methods: Observational, cross-sectional, and single-center study carried out at the Medical Oncology Department in the Lozano Blesa Clinical Hospital in Zaragoza (Spain). One hundred and sixty-five outpatients with tumors in the upper gastrointestinal tract, head and neck, and colorectal locations were recruited. All of them received the MST, MUST, and Nutriscore screening tools along with the ESPEN and GLIM diagnostic criteria.

Results: The prevalence of malnutrition was 46.7% according to the GLIM criteria and 21.2% using the ESPEN tool. Patients diagnosed by GLIM had a higher body mass index (BMI, 24.3 kg/m) and muscle mass (MM, 16.1 kg/m) than those diagnosed by ESPEN (21.2 kg/m and 14.3 kg/m respectively, both p = 0.001). The MST, MUST, and Nutriscore tools had a higher degree of concordance with GLIM compared to ESPEN (MST 0.53 vs 0.26; MUST 0.36 vs 0.66; Nutriscore 0.28 vs 0.54).

Conclusions: The found prevalence of malnutrition in cancer patients is higher using the GLIM instead of ESPEN criteria. This disparity can be explained at least in part by the difficulty of the ESPEN criteria for malnutrition to diagnose patients with high baseline BMI or MM. The use of criteria with greater sensitivity, such as the new GLIM criteria, could help early diagnosis and thus early intervention in cancer patients.